BUT it IS the settled law of the land, passed by a
Constitutionally-elected majority of our Legislative Branch, signed by the
Constitutionally-elected (twice) Executive branch, and upheld by the
Constitutionally-appointed Judicial Branch. So it’s all been above-board,
fair-and-square, by the rules, let’s just get on with it and find out if
it’s good or not and leave off with the kamikaze politics.
Erni, interesting rhetorical point, though wholly incorrect on the facts. Obamacare has been implemented in part since it was initially passed (on straight party lines). The exchanges that went online yesterday were in development for over two years (off to a “smooth start,” eh?). Other aspects of this “settled law” have been waved for some 2,500 various special interest groups (including congress, the WH, and related staff that don’t have to “eat their own cooking” as Softpress would say), the employee mandate has been delayed, and other changes have taken place. AMA is far from “settled law.”
Selling the American public on this policy as a major reduction in cost, no need for changes in your plans if you don’t want them, it’s not a tax (Obama is on the record saying this numerous times), and so on is far from “above-board, fair-and-square, by the rules.”
I’d also suggest that if are going to invoke the Constitution as a touchpoint for upholding an argument, that we be consistent. Where is the Constitutionally required budget from the Senate? Where is the Constitutional power that allows the administration to cherry pick which parts he choses to enforce and those he allows his supporters to skirt?
I do agree with leaving off with the kamikaze politics. It would be nice if the liberal’s acerbic name calling ceased. While I understand the Rules for Radicals tactic of demonizing one’s opponent, it does nothing to constructively move conversation forward.
Congress and their staff are NOT exempt, though they are treated a little differently. This is everywhere, you could have found it yourself.
There’s a bigger problem here. If Obama concedes, he leaves any future president with a weakened office. The last time there was a shut down, it was about the budget, period. Now it’s being used to try to force something totally unrelated. Think about the consequences of that.
BUT, we’ve really gotten off topic here (no surprise). The original post was related to something appropriate to people here, so perhaps we should steer it back to that.
In answer to the original post, I’ve been on my wife’s insurance from her job since I’ve been self-employed. In fact, she quickly realized that it was cheaper and better to be on her plan than the one from the small company I was working for before that. We should have switched me back then. Still, at some point we’ll look into what the ACA might provide me and see if it’s better than what I have now. It seems unlikely, but these things are always worth checking out.
Congress and their staff are NOT exempt, though they are treated a little differently.
While not part of the original law, congress, the WH staff, and other federal employees now get a generous subsidy to pay for Obamacare that is not enjoyed by the average joe. If you consider this “a little different,” I don’t see any argument that would convince you how inequitable this is (let alone the staggering number of waivers and special interest cull outs). The administration added this change to the “settled law” only after congressional staffers threw a hissy fit. It is an Obamacare benefit none of us outside of that very special umbrella get.
Let’s do get back to the original point of this off topic conversation. At the insured age of 59, I’m paying $263/month for health coverage. That includes a deductible that is no larger than those colleagues have found on the exchanges plus a number of benefits they haven’t found.
One underlying problem with our current health care system that gets little discussion is the notion of personal responsibility. There is no one more responsible for one’s health than the person staring back at you in the mirror. Yes, genetics plays a part. However, one’s lifestyle plays the biggest role by a factor of over 15:1 (don’t argue the point, the actuarial tables don’t have any political leaning).
Your grand parents, great-grand parents, and those before them survived long happy lives long before the AMA placed doctors on pedestals. They did it without employer paid health insurance (which, by the way was an offshoot of prohibition and the start of the personal income tax). If you grew up in a household which preached “you are what you eat,” you likely know what I’m talking about.
The best way to keep your health care costs down is to lead a reasonably healthy life and not expect others to make you better.
Do you believe that catastrophic health care coverage is adequate for young people?
As an open ended question, sure, why not? Of course, this begs the question of why should you or I be making these decisions for them. If a hypochondriac wants a “Cadillac” level policy which allows them to run in every time they have a sniffle, isn’t that their call?
The real question is why should young people (which seem to be getting older every year I live) have to pay higher premium rates to help underwrite the cost of others? For that matter, why should they be forced to buy insurance at all if they would rather not?
Who is (read governments and bureaucrats) so wise and fair minded to be able to determine what the multitudes really “need?” Why stop at X level of coverage or care? Why not insure everyone for the same “platinum plus” level?
Governments and bureaucracies do precious few things as efficiently as true open market economies. What makes anyone think that the same government that runs a failing delivery service (USPS vs. FedEx, UPS, and others), failing medical service (less we forget Medicare, Medicade, and VA hospitals), Energy Department (which has not made us energy independent despite the countless funds spent), Dept. of Education (which has not enriched the education of our youth by all international measures), need I go on?
