The lack of respect for our President
I'm aware that this is an election year. I know that everyone is entitled to their opinions. But over the last year and a half, I've noticed some blatant forms of disrespect being directed at President Obama. Why? Is it because he is black? From highway billboards to other political figures pointing their fingers in his face. Is it too much for a person of color to have this much power. What is the GOP afraid of? What is the goal of The so called Tea Party? Every idea that the President has come up with, the Republicans strike it down. Let a Republican political figure come up with the same idea and everyone is all over it. What are your thoughts?More selective outrage. One is offensive but the other was no big deal. it simply depends on who is delivering the message.
- SassySue1963posted 12 years ago
0 Howdy Sue. How do you do? Mind if I jump in?
As of August 28th, only six Republican controlled states (Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Wisconsin, South Carolina and Louisiana) have opted out. These states now have the largest number of uninsured Americans. A full 25-percent of the 15.8 million citizens that can be helped by Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act resides in these states. Another five GOP governors are tilting in the same direction. An equal number of Democratic states have or are expected to opt in while 25 are still sitting on the fence. {1} Saying “if it happens” seems to be both premature and wishful thinking. But to answer your question, Sue, the expansion of Medicaid would provide healthcare coverage through insurance exchanges to all individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line. {2}
Did you know, Sue, Republicans were the first to proposed a mandate? Gov. Romney’s Massachusetts version of the Affordable Care Act is so similar to President Obama’s PPACA he is reluctant to even talk about it. One of his campaign officials caught a firestorm of criticism from the GOP for just mentioning it in an interview. Both versions recognize the need for the individual mandate, a measure first published in "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans" in 1989 by conservative Stuart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation. The proposal contained a provision to “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.” {4} The language was revised and later included in two congressional bills introduced by Republicans in 1993 and the concept became the cornerstone of Gov. Romney’s 2006 CommonwealthCare Act in Massachusetts.
The PPACA provides for access to need-based, affordable policies. Each American’s medical risk is shared among a pool of all insured Americans and that is what insurance is intended to do. The penalty provision of the mandate is designed for the greedy, self-serving individuals who can afford the premiums but refuse to join all the other insured Americans to spread all the risks over a larger pool. In fact, the so-called penalty turns out to be the largest insurance bargain ever conceived. Those refusing to insure themselves will love it!
The $695 a year penalty, or the 2.5 percent of your annual family income, is actually ahellava lot less than the cost of a typical, respectable insurance policy. {4} For those who do not need much health care, it is the cheapest insurance policy ever invented. When they ultimately become ill and have a pre-existing condition, they can buy an insurance policy at a bargain basement price that was not even available to them before the mandate. {5}
Finally, data gather in Massachusetts indicates that the average citizen there wants to do the right thing and the number of insured citizens rose by more than 7% under that state’s individual mandate. Polls reveal an overwhelming majority of residents have voiced support for the law since it was enacted. Both Gov. Romney and Gov. Deval Patrick, the Democrat who succeeded him, praised the success of Mr. Romney’s version of Obamacare. {6}
Opps. Sorry, Sue, my reply cup runneth over again. I hope you do not mind my injecting a few observations into the discussion.
{1} http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/ … -expansion
{2} http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/07 … ?mobile=nc
{3} http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 … ered-past/
{4} https://www.aetna.com/health-reform-con … ndate.html
{5} http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … l-mandate/
{6} http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 … sachusettsHi Quill,
Actually, that is incorrect. Mitt Romney, Governor of Mass at the time, wanted a tax break for those who purchased insurance, not a mandate tax for those who did not, or a penalty whichever way you'd like to phrase it. However, he was overruled by a Democratic majority State Legislature. So, no, the Republicans were NOT the first ones, nor any ones for that matter, to propose a mandate.
Do you know Quill that 133% of the poverty line is only equal to $15,000 for a single person and $30,000 for a family of four? Yeah, not that much when you consider the cost of insurance is it?
You do realize the difference between anything at all implemented at a State level and a Federal level yes? That the state has control over such things as their own exchange etc etc etc. Their own VATs which helped to fund the Mass law? Are you proposing national VATs on everyone Quill? You do realize that Massachusetts as a state does not have to deal with Medicare? That even Medicaid is a much smaller part of the state variable because it is partially funded through the Federal government? Do you realize there is no Independent Counsel in the Mass. Law? It is much easier to implement anything on a small scale, control wise and cost wise and have it be successful. A successful state program does not make a successful Federal one. Do you know the start-up costs of that health care plan were off set because there was already a fund to cover the health care costs of the uninsured? Do we have such a thing at the Federal level? hmmm...nope.Good Evening, Ms. Sue. It is nice to read your comments.
You truly have me at a disadvantage, Sue, because I try so hard to confine my remarks to verifiable facts and to provide links to reliable sources. I informed you about the author at the Heritage Foundation who first proposed the mandate idea in 1989. He was a respected Conservative Republican in his day. I also informed you Republican legislators introduced two bills in Congress in 1993 containing features drawn from the 1989 mandate proposal. {1} Further, the same mandate mechanism was included in the 2006 RomneyCare Bill in Massachusetts. These are irrefutable facts available to any inquisitive mind. You could have verified them for yourself just by following the links in my endnotes. Instead you replied: “No, the Republicans were NOT the first ones, nor any ones for that matter, to propose a mandate.” The “NOT” in uppercase is how you wrote it. If you need to call me a liar, at least supply one link to a reliable source since your personal opinion on this point has no value.
Unknown to you, Sue, Gov. Romney has always been in favor of a mandate because it is a necessary financial mechanism for driving healthcare reform. When he signed the bill, he vetoed several other provisions but left the mandate feature stand. In a speech at the US Chamber of Commerce, Gov. Romney defended the mandate provisions this way: "The key factor that some of my libertarian friends forget is that today, everybody who doesn't have insurance is getting free coverage from government. And the question is, do we want people to pay what they can afford, or do we want people to be able to ride free on everybody else. And when that's recognized as the choice, most conservatives come my way." {2} Please note, Sue, the governor said “my” way.
I will not ask you for a reliable source for your claim the Democratic majority in the State Legislature and not Gov. Romney is responsible for the MA mandate. After reading the governor’s public statements, I do not really believe such a reliable source exists but feel free to provide one if you have it.
Personally, I respect your opposition to President Obama’s PPACA but I resist irrational, illogical, unsupported, bombastic rhetoric declaring it is 100% bad for this country. Providing adequate healthcare to the needy and spreading the cost evenly over an insurance pool of all Americans seems to me to be a step in the right direction.
Be well, Ms. Sue, and have a good evening.
{1} http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 … ered-past/
{2} http://www.allhealth.org/briefingmateri … ey-241.doc
Thank you, Ralph.
The opponents here seem to focus exclusively on the individual side of Obamacare. And seem fixated on the "tax" (which as we know only applies if you don't choose to buy coverage or qualify for Medicaid).
Totally missing the bigger picture.
By design, I suspect.
Meanwhile, there are a few of us (Quillographer, you, me, probably others I can't remember at this moment) presenting the substantial benefits ACA provides to the care delivery side of the equation. Things that will improve efficiency and thus reduce costs, despite providing care to millions more Americans who will be insured under ACA.
Once again, let me state for the record:
The ACA provides funding to improve health care quality, access, care coordination (including information sharing through IT) and capacity building -- including funding for staff development. It provides funding for wellness programs to make citizens healthier, which of course will also reduce the need for more expensive health care (hospitals, ERs).
The actual implemention plans to take advantage of ACA funding are not dictated at the federal level. They are created locally. There are already successful pilot projects out there.
The Medicaid funding flows through the state's low-income health insurance plan (Medi-Cal where I live). The insurance exhanges are state-run, not federal.
My region (4-counties surrounding Sacramento) will be publishing its market analysis and strategic plan at the end of this month. I have been privileged to be part of this project.
Once it is public, I will be happy to provide links.
MM
Nice to chat with you, Phion. Thank you for your comments.
You make your opinions very clear. However, these are your conclusions and you are welcome to them even though they have no basis in fact. Based upon your research, exactly how many Americans have you determined make up “the gross amount of people” and the “vast number” you alluded to in your opening sentence?
I guess you have never lost a job in your lifetime and had to rely on an unemployment check to feed your family and to pay your bills. Perhaps you have never know any elderly folks who are managing to get by on a meager fixed income but can use a helping hand paying the heating bill in the throes of winter. Or, perhaps, you just do not have any empathy.
Your claim about the individual mandate is false. The mandate evolved out of the Conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as best financial mechanism available to drive healthcare reform using a non-government, free enterprise insurance model. {1} If you choose to use it as an excuse to bash social programs that help the needy, go right ahead but your statement still misrepresents the purpose and the function of the individual mandate. I recommend you do some more research.
Furthermore, everyone knows that the “War on Poverty” will never end. More importantly, however, every society is judged on how well it treats the least fortunate.
It is nice to have heard from you, Phion. I hope we get to share again soon.
{1} http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 … ered-past/
- JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago0
Hi AV. How are things in your neck of the woods? Mostly rain all this past week up here in the Northeast thanks to Isaac.
I hope you don’t mind my saying there is a lot of wobble in the spin you put in your reply to Ms. Bakula. Tsk! Tsk! I certainly hope you are not trying to place this shoe incident at the feet of the evil left because it was not a “left” shoe.
The shoes thrown, a left and a right, belonged to Muntadhar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi broadcast journalist. He flung them at President Bush during a press conference in Baghdad while shouting "This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people, you dog." Do you have any ideas, AV, as to why an Iraqi might feel such contempt for our benevolent President? {1}
On the other hand, in Sept. 2009, South Carolina’s Rep. Addison Graves (Joe) Wilson interrupted a speech by President Obama to a joint session of the Congress (not a State of the Union Address) by shouting, “You lie.” The incident resulted in a formal rebuke by the House of Representatives. Wilson’s breach of decorum occurred while the President was explaining his proposal for healthcare reforms, "There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." It has since been determined that President Obama’s statement was indeed true. Rep. Wilson has a long history of “foot-in-mouth” disease. {2}
Have a great weekend, AV.
{1} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntadhar_al-Zaidi
{2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)Hello AV,
Honest, I wasn't offended by your comment. I re-read what I wrote, and maybe my response wasn't well worded, so I'm sorry for that. I really did not think you were being mean spirited, the shoe incident was pretty long ago, and I often can't remember what I did yesterday! I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, that was not my intent at all. Some people do respond to posts on these political forums ready to fight, and with ten sources for their remarks. I thought forums are just about different people's opinions, a place to discuss. I don't know why we all get so touchy, Peace? And I really appreciate your defense, thanks for telling me that. The whole matter of being banned really upset me, nothing like that ever happened to me before. I think I better just write and stay off the forums.
I totally agree, Jean.
From Obama's official Facebook page:
This exists on both sides. One of the beautiful things about this country is you are allowed to openly voice your opinion (think about Putin and sending Pussy Riot to jail in Russia).
Politics makes me ill. The millions of dollars raised to campaign and broadcast smear campaigns are not my idea of providing for the greater good of the public. One day, I'd like to see a presidential candidate that joined the race simply through word of mouth, social networking and grassroots campaigns. I would like this candidate to show those corrupt politicians that it doesn't take millions of dollars to convince U.S. citizens to vote for them. Citizens will vote because this candidate isn't being swayed with money from any contributor, they are simply doing what they believe will be best for their country. I hope for a candidate that is middle of the road and is able to listen to the left and the right with an open mind and heart. Too many times, people make the wrong assumptions when they hear the word Republican or Democrat and then bars are raised, ears are closed, and the entire U.S. population suffers. As for the President; it takes more than one person to run a country and educated citizens to vote for what they believe will be best for our future. And that's all I'll say about that.- SassySue1963posted 12 years ago0
I am sorry, Sue, but a quote with no source makes checking for accuracy a tad difficult.
Oh yes. Thank you for mentioning Conservatives changing their minds about the individual mandate "over the last twenty years," also without a source. Let us not forget that Conservative banner bearer, Mitt Romney, signed RomneyCare, which includes an individual mandate, into MA law six years ago and before President Obama was elected. Today, the former governor is unwilling to discuss that his version and Obamacare are so similar!
Have a great night, Sue.
- SassySue1963posted 12 years ago0
- SassySue1963posted 12 years ago0
Hi Sue. One more quick statement before I sleep.
Your statement above highlights one of the sterling benefits of Obamacare using the insurance model: sharing the risks among all Americans in the insurance pool. In addition, it further proves a need to have a firm grasp on the dynamics of the bill.
Before Obamacare, we were all, collectively, going to pay for this uninsured person’s treatment any way. However, now his new affordable insurance premiums plus the huge amount of premiums being paid by those previously uninsured, will, in effect, REDUCE the long term cost for his pre-existing condition that would have fallen on both you and me. Voila! A win – win situation.
Peace, Sue, and good night.
Good evening again, Sue. I hope you are feeling well today.
I must tell you that I regard your opinions about the benefits contained in Obamacare as highly as I regard my own. Each of us has reached our own individual conclusions based upon our own particular analytical prowess. Therefore, I do not challenge your opinions, only the facts that you use to support them. For that reason alone, I would like to address the first sentence from your post to MM.
“Medicare's own team has already said that Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close.”
This statement begs several questions. What team? Who said? Why should we believe this is true without seeing the source? Did you personally check to see if this true?
Here is exactly what one of Medicare’s “own team” said over two years ago. “In the Office of the Actuary’s April 22, 2010 memorandum on the estimated financial effects of the Affordable Care Act, we noted that by 2019 the update reductions would result in negative total facility margins for about 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies.” {1} Negative total facility margins means “being unprofitable”, “loosing money”, and operating “in the red” but not “forced to close.”
Now we are getting closer to the cost savings aspects of Obamacare. The features that so many opponents like to ignore. If you look at why only 15% will be loosing money, and not 100%, you will find that the larger 85% have higher revenue to cost ratios. In other words they are more productive. Case in point, look at a more recent assessment of nursing home facilities: “According to a March 2012 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report, ‘In prior years, the (nursing home) industry as a whole has been adept at modifying their practices to mitigate the impact of policy change.’ Mitigating strategies include lowering administrative and supply expenses, examining the terms of contracts with therapy providers and compensation packages, reducing the use of overtime and contract labor, and expanding the company’s mix of private pay patients.” {2} In short, they become more efficient!
If this 15% projection proves to be close to reality then those facilities would, most likely, merge with more productive provider groups or cut costs. In either case, these resources will continue to serve the growing healthcare market. Some may even go out of business, as they should.
CNN summed up the value added benefits of Obamacare in this way: “The value-based purchasing program, for example, will change the way Medicare pays hospitals for inpatient care. Instead of paying hospitals for the amount of care they provide, Medicare payments will now also depend on the quality of care provided. The idea is that by following best practices, hospitals will forgo unnecessary care, help patients recover faster and spend less.” {3}
Now, none of this is intended to change your opinion about Obamacare or its benefits. It only points out that your statement is not accurate. I would welcome the opportunity to review your source that says, “Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close.”
{1} http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics- … enario.pdf
{2} http://medicarenewsgroup.com/context/be … obamacare'
{3} http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/opinion/h … index.htmlBack att cha, Sue. Many thanks for your rapid reply.
I accept your admission that your statement, “Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close,” was in fact false but certainly not for the excuses you give.
Typing to fast? Funny, I do not see one typing error, only misleading and outright erroneous statements.
I also accept your foxnews.com source in spite your rude request yesterday, “please refrain from using sources like the huffingtonpost. We both know that it is extremely left and biased.”
Your second reference links to a January 2011 blog post discussing the same 2010 report I quoted in my reply to you. It is the same report you tried to distort by saying, “It [Obamacare] will not increase the availability of care. Medicare's own team has already said that Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close.” Had you read the report first, you may not have been prone to distort its contents.
The foxnews article, btw, does not say, “Obama's Law will force 15% of hospitals to close.” So, in the final analysis, these are, apparently, your words, you own them, and they are false.
None of which reflects on your opinions about Obamacare, Sue, but it all emphasizes firm and accurate facts are more important then our shifting opinions. If we do not show a sincere respect for maintaining an open mind, exercising critical thinking, conducting careful research, or gathering accurate facts, then why would any one respect our opinions?
Thank you, Sue. Do stay well and always follow your bliss.
What part of "I have been privileged to be part of" or " I'm getting cover credit as a writer/editor" went over your head?
I'm going to go nail some jello to a tree now.
Ralph, she's all yours.- . I said something a couple of months ago about...was it ladylove? I forget now!
Lady In Red perhaps?
Sorry, Sue.
I got lost there for a minute. Seemed like you were expecting to debate the business models of various hospitals.
That's a side issue and really not germaine.
Although in point of fact, ACA does addresses funding for health care providers.
There's a classification called a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) that offers financial incentives. But that's a side issue, too. We're not talking about that right now.
Now, in answer to your question:
The newly insured are called newly insured because they currently do not have health insurance coverage and under ACA they will.
The region currenly has a little more than 1 in 4 citizens (27 percent) who do not have insurance.
That is a lot of people. Some are not using health care services, putting off needed care. Others are accessing care but overusing expensive emergency departments. The uninsured who use EDs get "free" care, but the costs have to get covered somewhere, right? We all pay for that through cost shifting.
Under ACA, an estimated 227,000 people in the region will gain health insurance.
It's almost a 50-50 split between those who will be now be eligible for Medicaid (52 percent) and those eligible to purchase insurance through the state's health benefit exchange (48 percent).
The new patients are not the result of the increased capacity of the health care system. Rather, the capacity of the region's health care system will need to increase to handle increased demand of so many newly insured people.
I'm not plugging our plan other than the fact that we have one. Your region may address things differently and probably will. Your population mix is likely different from ours. Your mix of health providers will of course not be the same as ours.
When the plan is publicly released on September 27th I will, as offered previously, be happy to provide links to the entire market study and strategic plan and/or specific components.
But as it is not yet in the public domain, I cannot.
Final comment here. The group that put this plan together is nonpartisan. Their concern is that the care system here is badly strained and inefficient and unsustainable NOW. They are concerned that too many providers are not covering their costs NOW.
These issues must be addressed regardless.
ACA is serving as a catalyst, a rallying point, to bring providers together to work on the problems together. The ACA funding that will come through is a nice bonus. Without it, they'd also have figure out how to pay for the infrastructure upgrades.
Words are futile. I'm resorting to posters.
Related Discussions
- 25
Netanyahu Says Congress Speech Is 'Not Intended to Show Any Disrespect
National JournalMarina Koren The Israeli prime minister was speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's policy conference ahead of an even more hyped speech on Tuesday, in which Netanyahu is expected to make an aggressive case against the United States' handling of nuclear...
- 346
How Can Your Kids Help President Obama?
Back in the 60's:"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." -President John F. KennedyToday:"What is the President trying to tell me?""What is the President asking me to do?""Why is it important...
- 54
Why do we disrespect our president? (whther he's republican or democra
I'm an Englishman living in the US and when I first moved to the US everyone respected the president, and while people didn't agree with the president at times, there was no witch hunt to destroy his reputation.Now, with the press and with many political groups all we do is look at the negative...
- 48
If you are against Obama is it Racially motivated
Ever since the President has stepped into office he has been wrong. Its almost as if white people forgot to vote in 2008 and President Obama stole the seat. I would like to take you on a journey over the last four years to put into perspective of how racially divided we have come in the last four...
- 169
What has Obama accomplished?
One of my biggest frustrations with the Obama administration is they are not good at promoting their achievements. Although that could be the fault of the so-called "liberal media" which is all corporate owned and anything but liberal.Anyway, I came across this article and thought I would...
- 160
What is YOUR analysis, opinion, and synopsis of President Barack Obama
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...