world

U.S. government on brink of shutdown over Obamacare

52 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

52 Comments
Login to comment

Look at that smug idiot Boehner. He's simply more interested in just saying 'no' to the Democrats than in his nation and its people.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Can't we just arrest Congress for mass theft?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Article from the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/29/house-republicans-obamacare_n_4013595.html

Mostly it's just quotes from Republicans about what they think will happen as they keep pushing more and more dead spending bills. Those quoted really do seem to believe they are on the cusp of getting concessions from Obama and Democrats to delay or defund ObamaCare as a way to avoid a government shutdown. Isn't that strange? Perhaps they really are that out of touch?

If you want to see something creepy, watch this Ted Cruz interview (starts at 3:15):

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032608/vp/53138182#53138652

"Delaying it is the essence of a compromise for those of us who want to see it repealed." heh

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yes, shut down government and stop the salaries of those republicans who vote to close shop until normal service is resumed.

“I’m a free-market guy, and I truly believe that Obamacare could be the linchpin in shifting America over into an almost irreversible socialist economy,” Congressman Trent Franks said.

Is this guy for real or simply deranged?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I have some sympathy for Boehner; he's clearly wedged between a rock and a hard place here. Either he shuts down the government, damaging his party and earning the wrath of the general public, or he cuts a deal with the Dems and makes himself vulnerable to the Tea Party hard-liners. It's lose-lose, really.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Look at that smug idiot Boehner. He's simply more interested in just saying 'no' to the Democrats than in his nation and its people.

I would say, Obama is the smug one and Reid the Jack*** that are unwilling to even reach a decent and middle compromise. BOTH SIDES NEED TO DO THIS, NOT ONLY the Republicans.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

Has Obama spoken to boehner? Would't that be a move along the way? It seems the Democrats are divisional and you can read it clearly on the posts here. Their is no benefit in dividing the nation. The USA is in need of real and effective reforms. No need to double the debt again!

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@bass4funk

Defunding the ACA isn't a "compromise." It's an absolute position. Hell, the ACA itself is already a compromise - what progressives really wanted was a single payer system. Instead they got this public/private hybrid. Tell me, what compromise do you see Republicans making in this instance?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

TriumvereSep. 30, 2013 - 08:32AM JST I have some sympathy for Boehner; he's clearly wedged between a rock and a hard place here. Either he shuts down the government, damaging his party and earning the wrath of the general public, or he cuts a deal with the Dems and makes himself vulnerable to the Tea Party hard-liners. It's lose-lose, really.

... so what you're saying is that you feel sorry for Boehner because he's a coward who is too more concerned about PROTECTING his job (avoiding tea party wrath) than DOING this job (protecting millions of Americans).

How about we make things simpler for politicians, if they do something that goes against the will of their constitutents then they get shot as traitors. Do you think that would make this sort of decision a bit easier for cowards like Boehner?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The crux of the issue isn't single payer or the immediate effects of a shut down, but more which party will benefit in the 2014 midterm elections if O-care is delayed until next October ? If the mandate and exchanges are implemented, can they ever be repealed by a conservative majority or president ? And not insignificantly, how much damage will another year of uncertainty wreck on the already fragile US economy.

So, it's tricky. Whoever pretends to have absolute understanding is blowing smoke. Honestly you can make a case either way on any of these points.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"I have some sympathy for Boehner; he's clearly wedged between a rock and a hard place here."

It's only because of him continually appeasing the Tea Party. He could get a majority coalition of centrist Republicans and 99% of Democrats to pass any legislation but won't do so for fear of losing his job. But HE is supposed to be the LEADER of his party and only looks more foolish trying to appear as if he's in control when thirty or so Republicans dictate the agenda of repealing Obamacare and trashing the economy by doing so.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Frungy,

An elected official in a representative democracy has two functions: representing his constituency, and providing leadership. The latter duty sometimes comes into conflict with the former. In additions politicians must balance what they believe to be in the best interest of their constituency with what they believe to be in the best interests of the nation.

It would be naive to believe that a functioning democracy could be achieved without some level of ugly political maneuvering. Would it be better for Boehner to take a (hypothetically) principled position that costs him his leadership position and ushers in an even more hard-line replacement, or for him to attempt to mitigate, moderate, and affect compromise where possible? This is a pure hypothetical mind you; I have no particular incite as to what Boehner's true agenda is, whether he has any principles, or to what degree he sticks to them. It just strikes me - as it has on many previous occasions - that the task that he has been given is neigh impossible, and I do not envy him for it. I often wonder if his relative inability to control his colleagues in the house is an indication of his failure, or whether the fact that things haven't totally fallen to pieces is rather a sign of success... I still don't know the answer to that one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Thug leadership at it again. Doesnt surprise me though Americans dont usually pay much attention to important issues.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Instead they got this public/private hybrid. Tell me, what compromise do you see Republicans making in this instance?

How about a compromise in which American's are allowed a choice as to whether or not they want to participate in a government sponsored entitlement program rather than using coercion to force them them to? Those that want to participate would be free to do so. America used to be a free country. Is $17 trillion in debt and the worst recovery since WWII not bad enough for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi that they need to double down on such insanity! Make ObamaCare voluntary and all of this conflict will go away overnight.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

How about a compromise in which American's are allowed a choice as to whether or not they want to participate

So, that's a nice bit of rhetoric you've got there, but it doesn't really answer my question. For one thing, you know as well as I that you can opt out, just as long as you pay the tax penalty... which you don't have to worry about if you have, say, employer provided insurance, or your income is insufficient for you to afford it. You also know that the system, which is itself designed to keep premiums down, can't work without some sort of contribution. But that's really besides the point.

What we are talking about here is the government shut down. Both parties want to avoid the shut down. The GOP, however, have decided to resort to brinkmanship in order to defund the ACA. But the ACA is already a done deal, and the GOP doesn't have the votes to repeal it. In fact, my understanding is that funding for the ACA is already in place, and doesn't rely on this congressional budget. The GOP is literally holding the Gov't operations hostage in order to attempt to get its way on a separate issue. The distinction between "defund" - the first GOP proposal - and "delay" - the second - is one of degree, rather than type. (And in any case, its clear that any delay would just be used to further the GOP's efforts to kill the ACA... the ultimate goal remains unchanged.)

Where do you see room for compromise here? Republicans are demanding that Democrats relinquish something they already have. And in return they get.... what?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

How about a compromise in which American's are allowed a choice as to whether or not they want to participate in a government sponsored entitlement program rather than using coercion to force them them to?

How about requiring that those who do not participate in health insurance are left to die on the sidewalk outside an emergency room rather than forcing those who act responsibly to pay for their healthcare in the form of increased insurance rates? Wolf, you must know that health insurance is different from, say, home insurance; I've paid both for years, and while I've used the latter frequently, I've (thanks be to Buddha) never had to use the former.

Some rural areas of the US charge optional fees (i.e., "insurance") for town fire departments to cover them. Recently, there have been cases where fire fighters respond to a fire to protect neighboring structures of those who have paid the fee but allow the structure on fire to burn to the ground. Wouldn't you say this is fair? One such example is here; you'll notice that the inflictees of the disaster said that they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again?lite

It was Reagan who instituted the policy that hospitals must cover all who show up with life-threatening illnesses regardless of ability to pay, and it is that very policy which so distorts American health care. How much does a particular procedure cost? - Well, that depends on how much of the free care the hospital chooses to factor into it (and that factoring itself costs a huge amount of money to pay the factorers.)

Some have decried the $800 billion in "savings" to Medicare as raiding; in fact, it is simply a reflection of the savings hospitals will realize when they no longer are burdened treating the uninsured. (Ironically, the GOP budget proposal includes these savings while ignoring the costs that would continue to accrue to hospitals under their healthcare "plan.")

There is little chance that your house will burn down, but there is almost a certain chance that, at some point in your life, whether you're young and unlucky or old and human, that you will be faced with hospital bills that either you cannot afford or that will strip you of virtually all of your assets. It will happen - to you, too, Wolf. Preparing for this is a responsibility, and Republicans used to be big on the whole responsibility thing. Not anymore, apparently.

So, please say it: If the GOP gets its way, those too poor to pay for their medical treatment, whether old or young, should be left on the sidewalk to die.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

A pox on both their houses.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I just reviewed the history of Stalin.

Stalin killed tens of millions of people. Can we please, please have this discussion without absurd hyperbole?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

LagunaSEP. 30, 2013 - 12:52PM JST - Your firemen story, talk about extortion. Most places have firemen fees rolled into property taxes. Major medical that a lot of people carry is quite cheap now without PPACA. It is the freedom issue and government control that the people do not want. They do not want handouts either. Let the people work and they will buy the insurance they need. The PPACA seems to be a job killer for many and may be making everyone dependent on government. Big Brother is bad enough but Beg Daddy (saw this in another comment and found it amusing and somewhat true). We all would rather work and keep government at arms length.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Your firemen story, talk about extortion. Most places have firemen fees rolled into property taxes.

Yes, but many do not. Is it fair to require firefighters to work when they are not being paid?

It is the freedom issue and government control that the people do not want.

If you have insurance now, NOTHING will change. If you do not have insurance, you will get it.

Let the people work and they will buy the insurance they need.

You don't seem to understand the ACA quite clearly at all. This is the whole idea of the scheme.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Pretty crazy stuff.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There is no real debate going on. Boehner and the republicans want Obamacare just as much as the democrats do. Obamacare greatly expands the size and cost of government, why would any politician oppose it? For the sake of principle? Boehner, Reid, and Obama all belong to the least principled group of human beings in America. All of them deserve an Oscar for the performances they put on pretending to "represent" their constituents. Lincoln was wrong, you can fool most of the people all of the time.

The reason healthcare in America and other countries became so expensive was because of government subsidies. If the government got it's hands out of healthcare, providers would have to charge what the people could afford to pay, which is significantly less than a drunk-as-a-sailor deficit-spending government can.

Keep on giving up your responsibilities to the most irresponsible entities in the world, and see what you get in return.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Both sides are too entrenched believing their own rhetoric. Equal blame on both D's and R's.

Since only the D's voted FOR Obamneycare, it should come as little or no surprise that R's would fight it every possible step.

I personally think ACA may be the last straw for the economy. First, it was loudly declared by its supporters as not being a tax. And then the scurrilous SCOTUS deemed it constitutional as a TAX.

As most should agree, the power to tax is the power to kill. I don't see this ending well either way; it's a lose-lose.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

GOP's idea of "compromise." This is what they want done to reach a deal:

As reported by the National Review, the House Appropriations Committee has drafted a bill, dated Tuesday, September 24, 2013, that would require the following things to happen as the price for extending the debt ceiling through December, 2014—

Delay Obamacare for one year The adoption of the Ryan tax reform plan Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline Additional offshore oil drilling Additional drilling on federally protected lands Revised coal regulations Suspension of the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempts to regulate carbon emissions A complete overhaul of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations More Congressional power over the consumer Financial Protection Bureau by giving Congress more power of its budget Repeal of the Social Services Block Grant program Additional means-testing for Medicare Repeal of the Public Health trust

2 ( +3 / -1 )

So many people see things o wrongly. The Republicans are not the ones who will shut down the government. The Democrats have not allowed a budget since the Bush administration. The Democrats will shut down the government by refusing to compromise and demanding that they shove the horrible train wreck of Obamacare down the throats of the American people who do not want Obamacare. There have been many spending bills sent to the Senate and the Senate refuses to even vote on them. They do not want a budget but just to increase the debt limit so they can spend more. It is Harry Reid and Barak Obama that will force a government shut down but in reality a government shutdown would be a good thing as only the non-essential portions of government will be laid off and God knows we do not need all of the non-essential spending.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Sorry Republicans, but being "really really really really against" something doesn't give you any special rights in a democracy. If you don't have the votes, you don't have the votes, and that's that. You are not special.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Indeed, Super. Bill Clinton says it best:

"This is the House Republicans and the Tea Party people saying, 'We don't want to negotiate with the Democrats. We want the dictate over the Senate, over the House Democrats, over the speaker of the House of our own party and over the president, we insist on dictating the course of the country' "

"Politics" that would make a fascist blush, economic terrorism is alive and well thanks to the Tea Party.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

How about requiring that those who do not participate in health insurance are left to die on the sidewalk outside an emergency room rather than forcing those who act responsibly to pay for their healthcare in the form of increased insurance rates?

Funny that this was once sold as a program that would lower health costs by $2,500 a year for the average family, provide coverage for tens of millions more Americans, and do all of this while reducing the federal deficit.

Instead most people with average incomes will pay more for individually purchased insurance than they did before and subsidize those who cannot or who are very unlikely to need it.. Subsidies are not free of course, they are a dead weight on the economy impeding growth and paid for through higher taxes or greater deficit spending. Lord only knows how many bureaucracies in addition to the IRS will be added into the mix between doctor and patient. How often does anything get cheaper when more middlemen are added into a transaction? Fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer hospitals, millions more patients and the potential decline in the quality of health care in America is staggering.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

" Bill Clinton says it best:"

Ha! That's actually funny! The gilded fork-tongue former philanderer in chief!

One big difference between Clinton and Obama is that under Clinton there was at least one budget. Under Obama? Not A One! Oh, but a doubling of the debt? Oh yeah, there's that.

As I've said countless times, " A pox on both their houses". Profligates rule DC.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

I'm not psychic or anything, but I predict America will go through this at least once a year until our foreign creditors begin selling T-bonds like crazy.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

JeanValJeanSEP. 30, 2013 - 07:49PM JST As I've said countless times, " A pox on both their houses". Profligates rule DC.

Honestly, who cares what you say Jean....? As a self-appointed "Anonymous" anarchist spouting at times what can only be considered a somewhat deranged sovereign citizen ideology, I'm not surprised to see you revelling in the situation of economic suicide the Tea (formerly Republican) Party has created.....

80% of Americans polled think it is plain wrong to use the debt ceiling as a political weapon. Good luck with that when you vote Republican again next fall, we both know you'll be the first screaming for the deputy were your Anonymous anarchy really to take over.......

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Democratic House candidates earned 49.15 percent of the popular vote, while Republicans earned only 48.03 percent in the last election. They control one-half of one branch of the Federal government, yet there are comments such as this:

"I just think you saw members who said, 'Look, let’s just do what we all know needs to be done and frankly what the American people want to see done. Sometimes I go back to basic civics: We're the House of Representatives. We're the body that's supposed to be closer to the people. That's why the Founders gave a chance for the people to throw us out every two years."

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)

A small faction of a minority party has hijacked America. Really, that is all you need to know.The "people" did in fact throw them out two years ago, but until the gerrymandering problem is solved, the GOP will haunt us as a zombie party. Jordan and those of his ilk clearly learned nothing from their civics classes.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Kent, the Senate created a budget. The next step is to form a committee to reconcile the House and Senate budgets. The Republicans have blocked the formation of that committee over a dozen times and that's where things stand as of now. The Democrats called the Republican bluff so now everything is at a grinding halt.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ah, madverts, must really stick in your craw what I comment, eh? Yet, it's undeniable that profligates rule DC, and the present is monstrosity of their making, which you somehow support.

The brinksmanship currently headlining equally implicates d's and r's, thus a pox on both their houses. Anarchy is what you see at a flea market, interestingly re-labelled "free-market" in Japan. It's a beautiful thing to see people freely trading, but seems to scare the pants off statists.

In the next 24hrs or so, the world will likely witness another episode of Congress' famed game of "kick the can." It's a farcical drama played out for the subservient. The last time USG shut down for a few days, the Earth didn't stop spinning nor did the sun fail to rise. If there's a pause again, little will change. Maybe a few bankers will take a loss. Let Buffet cover the gap.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

So now the "do nothing Congress" is seeking to become the Dead Beat Congress.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Everyone would agree that something must be done about health care.

It all comes down to human freedom and the humble heart. I spoke of genocides above where big government goes off the deep end to change society. We also have in history the Rwanda genocide, which occurred in the absence of government because of hate. Hyperbole, yes, but the government should always have checks. The slaughter in Rwanda ... people must not be locked into their positions/tribe. Reach out, help and listen to the grievances of your opponents. There is usually some truth in most people's concerns.

Not compromising because one knows best where the opponents are called anarchist or communists is not dialog. The goodness of the human heart with respect for the person (freedom) is key to a great society. The PPACA has force payer, which could have been just a straight tax on income, and the HHS mandate which does not allow for conscience (individual freedom again). The first will be taken to court because of contract law, for one cannot be coerced into a contract; the second is an issue of religious liberty which is in the courts right now.

No solution is perfect, but the person and especially the freedom of conscience must be respected. Where do you go if one does not like the decisions of a government run health care system? Death panels anyone as resources become scarce?

How about the the party in power using health care as a weapon (back of the line for you). Look at the IRS scandal for an example. How about being assigned a doctor no one wants? For example, we would like to check a doctor for success rates in heart surgeries before having one. Hip replacements is another...etc.

Check the waiting lists in Canada. But not for the rich and powerful. No sir.

PPACA does not seem flexible at all with mandates for everyone except those with exceptions. In fact, it seems rather draconian. This is what people fear about big government running everything. Referee fine, but leave it up to the people to run things. We need someplace to complain to, to address our grievances when they arise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

U.S. government on brink of shutdown

Peace in our time!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Shame on the Republicans who seem against any compromise on any issue. The health care law has become exactly that, law, so trying to bargain about it just isn't on. It's almost as thought the US needs some scary disease to break out so that everyone will realize having healthcare is a good thing.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I've yet to hear a single credible argument that justified subverting the democratic process. If anyone has one, please let us know.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I don't see where the democratic process has been subverted - the house has agreed to pass a bill that the senate doesn't like and vice versa. It's democratic. It's bloody stupid, but it's democratic.

What's amazing is that both sides continue to talk past each other while Obama does nothing. There's no leadership left in DC, that's for sure.

A pox on both their houses.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

How about requiring that those who do not participate in health insurance are left to die on the sidewalk outside an emergency room rather than forcing those who act responsibly to pay for their healthcare in the form of increased insurance rates?

The state where I live has a program of public health insurance that requires sliding-scale monthly contributions from enrollees of between 2% and 5% of their gross family income in addition to Medicare and specialized programs for pregnant women and children. There are also mobile clinics operating in larger cities that offer flu shots, checkups, prescription renewals, and other non-emergency care to families on limited incomes that may not have doctors, insurance, reliable transportation etc. for 200.00 or less that would cost the public system $1,000 a visit. Try scaling up some of these creative solutions that have been shown to work before ruining the entire car for a bug splat on the wind shield.

Another brilliant idea: California has re-opened some community based clinics for the mentally ill which has cut the number languishing in emergency rooms in half.

http://www.promises.com/articles/overdose/one-in-eight-emergency-room-visits-related-to-mental-illness-or-substance-abuse/

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The state where I live has a program of public health insurance that requires sliding-scale monthly contributions from enrollees of between 2% and 5% of their gross family income in addition to Medicare and specialized programs for pregnant women and children

No, you are mixing up with Medicaid to Medicare. They should be on Medicare. There are a big difference between the two.

How about requiring that those who do not participate in health insurance are left to die on the sidewalk outside an emergency room rather than forcing those who act responsibly to pay for their healthcare in the form of increased insurance rates?

With Obamacare, basically old Regan ideology will be killed, and we can say "No" to Americans with NO insurance and to all illegal aliens. They will be left on street and die. That's the bottom line.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Ah, madverts, must really stick in your craw what I comment, eh? "

Not at all, I've been clear enough as to what I think to be fair.

"Yet, it's undeniable that profligates rule DC, and the present is monstrosity of their making, which you somehow support."

The profligacy is nothing new, clearly you fail to understand this game of Russian roulette is being played in regards to debts incurred many years ago...

"The brinksmanship currently headlining equally implicates d's and r's,"

What partisan twaddle. The debt ceiling was manufactured by the Republicans in the wilderness protesting the election of a Muslim président born in Kenya. They own it.

"In the next 24hrs or so, the world will likely witness another episode of Congress' famed game of "kick the can." "

In less than 24hrs you're going to be wrong, the consequences be damned the Republican party and their Tea Party radicals will take us over the cliff for no other reason than because they simply can.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The state where I live has a program of public health insurance that requires sliding-scale monthly contributions from enrollees of between 2% and 5% of their gross family income in addition to Medicare and specialized programs for pregnant women and children

Of course we still participate in the system of Medicare taxes and enrollment. My understanding the state program for low income earners is an alternative to Medicaid.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Of course we still participate in the system of Medicare taxes and enrollment. My understanding the state program for low income earners is an alternative to Medicaid.

Most American seniors are paying a premium for plan B every month for Medicare, and some are carrying a medigap supplement coverage with extra premium. Some are carrying employers medical coverage as a retirement package.

Low income Americans are often on Medicaid getting special help from the state. For qualification, they need to meet a special financial limitation.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

globalwatcherOct. 01, 2013 - 06:37AM JST Most American seniors are paying a premium for plan B every month for Medicare,

They are not. Most people on plan B medicare is paying slightly above $100.00 per month. The real people that are paying a premium for their healthcare cost is people that are in age 50 to 65. On the average, they are paying 5 to 10 times more than above per person. If you are under 65, and buying individual care out of your pocket, it is becoming unaffordable. The health care industry penalize people between the ages of 50 to 65 (before medicare).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The problem is not Obamacare itself . The problem is healthcare socialism, something that all statists, both Republican and Democrat, ardently believe in.

But it is fun to watch it play out, if for no other reason than to see the deep anxiety the possible shutdown produces within statists. We all know how it ends though: The shutdown won’t last long and the welfare-warfare state will, unfortunately, soon be back in full force.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Laguna:

How about requiring that those who do not participate in health insurance are left to die on the sidewalk outside an emergency room rather than forcing those who act responsibly to pay for their healthcare in the form of increased insurance rates?

I think citizens shouldn't be forced into a false choice of wanting to provide emergency care to those in need or giving up their right to make their own health care decisions. America can be a compassionate country that also respects the rights of every individual to make their own choices.

Wolf, you must know that health insurance is different from, say, home insurance; I've paid both for years, and while I've used the latter frequently, I've (thanks be to Buddha) never had to use the former.

That's because you don't file an insurance claim when you need a window fixed or a new water heater. In health care, insurance costs are escalated because every visit results in an insurance claim even if you are just there to be treated for an allergy.

Some have decried the $800 billion in "savings" to Medicare as raiding; in fact, it is simply a reflection of the savings hospitals will realize when they no longer are burdened treating the uninsured.

Not true. The CBO has stated that after 10 years, ObamaCare will still leave 30 million people uninsured. So in fact, we will have the additional costs of ObamaCare and still have millions using the emergency room. By the way, having health insurance and having access to health care are two different things. Get ready for rationing and for your physician to become a member of a huge company because that is the only way to get the economies of scale necessary when the government pays Medicaid rates for care. Oh, and have you noticed how many insurance companies are not participating in the ObamaCare exchanges? So much for keeping the doctor and and the insurance that Obama promised.

at some point in your life, whether you're young and unlucky or old and human, that you will be faced with hospital bills that either you cannot afford or that will strip you of virtually all of your assets. It will happen - to you, too,

It is a tragedy when one persons medical costs exceed their ability to pay for them. It's a national disaster when the federal government isn't able to pay for the medical care that it is providing to it's citizens. The US already has a $17 trillion debt. I see no chance that there will be a balanced annual budget anytime in the near future. So when it get's to $20 trillion, then $25 trillion, then $30 trillion - will that be enough for you? ObamaCare isn't a free lunch - it's a prescription for financial ruin.

Seriously, what level of debt will prove to those supporting this hair-brained scheme that there is no free lunch in life? $30 trillion? Would you still want ObamaCare when America is $40 trillion in debt?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

They are not. Most people on plan B medicare is paying slightly above $100.00 per month.

The Medicare Advantage Plan B monthly premium is $104.70/per each individual that does not include Plan D and Medigap. Next year, it will be more.

In addition, we are paying for Vision, dental and long term care that are not covered by Medicare. So it is very expensive. Most of seniors cannot afford these extra insurance policies like we do.

The health care industry penalize people between the ages of 50 to 65 (before medicare).

That's the point why Obamacare becomes a very important issue while their health are declining. My wife and I were very lucky to avoid a $1,200/month premium because we were always covered under employer's plan. I remember I only had to pay a $260/month and my company paid the rest before retirement. A 2/3 of American senior citizens age 65 and older is in poverty because of high cost of medical and long term care expenses. An average long term care cost at least $3,600/minimum per person. Nursing home care cost even more.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

We all would rather work and keep government at arms length.

At least give us a choice to keep the government out of our business. ObamaCare computerizes our health records and makes them available to multiple government agencies. Even the IRS will have access to American's medical records. They can't even keep personal financial information from becoming public. Romney's taxes were accessed by Democrat operatives during the campaign last year and we all know about what happened to conservative groups. Do we really need big brother involved in our personal health matters? Heck no!

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

sfjp330Oct. 01, 2013 - 07:31AM JST

globalwatcherOct. 01, 2013 - 06:37AM JST Most American seniors are paying a premium for plan B every month for Medicare,

They are not. Most people on plan B medicare is paying slightly above $100.00 per month. The real people that are paying a premium for their healthcare cost is people that are in age 50 to 65.

My light bulb has just turned on to comprehend what you are saying here. You are incorrectly informed. American senior citizens over 65 on Medicare are paying a monthly premium that is automatically deducted from SSI. We are all paying for that, not free.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@Superlib,

Shouldnt be about the party affiliation. Should be about the issue. The voting process is democratic but outcomes certainly arent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites