I have been critical of Obamacare and I just want to apologize and say

[Autumn]

Thank you President Obama and I will try to never to criticize it again. Anything that pisses off Bachman that much has got to be good. Listening to her made me realize that the repeal of Obamacare is her only reason for living.

[DefenseLawyer]

1. Calling it "Obamacare" is a lot like saying "the Democrat Party" to me.

But maybe that's just me.

[Ian David]

2. President Obama himself said he doesn't mind calling it Obamacare.

President Obama: Call It Obamacare
President shrugs off GOP calling health care act Obamacare, saying "I do care."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/president-obama-call-obamacare-14309723

[DefenseLawyer]

6. That's fine, but the people that coined the term and the people that generally use the term

did so to disparage it. I would hope that the President wouldn't be so petty as to get into a tussle over the term, but the fact is it was coined to be derisive, in the same way Democrat Party was. And look, I hate the whole thing. I think it's an insurance company's wet dream, but I don't hate it for the same reason as the people who call it "obamacare".

[Autumn]

7. Yes it is an insurance company's wet dream, but there

are a few good things in it. And it's more than what was there before.

[DefenseLawyer]

9. I'll agree with that. But the trade off to get a few good things

in exchange for bolstering and entrenching the failed private insurance system for another 20 years wasn't one I would have made.

[zipplewrath]

13. Exactly

For all the fuss and bother to get this thing passed, we increased the insured by about 7%, many of whom are the young who will not use it. Many of the "good" things in here could have been had quite easily. Rahm actually wanted to go after them one by one instead of the "fell swoop" method we ended up spending 9 months or more to get passed. Extending to 26 year olds was one of the easiest. Pre-existing could have been had through many methods, that didn't require mandates. And the donut hole could have been closed quite easily as well. The singular accomplishment of HCR which may have only been possible through comprehensive reform is the exchanges, and we'll see how those pan out.

[Ian David]

8. ObamaCare’s Hidden Trigger Paves The Way For Single Payer

ObamaCare’s Hidden Trigger Paves The Way For Single Payer

When ObamaCare was passed conservatives slammed it as a government takeover of the health insurance industry and progressives complained the law didn’t offer at the least a public option, but it seems as though that the law had a hidden trigger that may very well pave the road to single payer health insurance system or Medicare for all.

That trigger is the medical loss ratio. This is the part of the law that makes the health insurance industry use at least 85% of your premiums to cover medical expenses.

This is something the for profit health insurance industry detests, because it limits the amount of dollars you pay into the system to go toward CEO pay, bonuses, lobbying and advertisements.

Listen here to my interview with Rick Unger,

More:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/obamacare-single-payer

[zipplewrath]

11. This is a real stretch

Several folks have tried to claim that the HCR act is somehow going to force in single payer. About the only way that happens is when health CARE gets too expensive for even the insured, which is probably about 15 years off.

The 85% restriction merely means that the insurance companies now have a DISincentive to keep health CARE costs down, because the more they spend on health care, the more money they can make in profit too. The percentage may stay the same, but the gross profits go up.

[Ian David]

12. Ooh. That's a scary thought.

So, if the CEO wants to make the same amount of money that he does now, he'll have to convince the hospitals to all charge 85% more money on every procedure?

[zipplewrath]

14. Just charge more

Every extra dollar they spend on health care is an extra dollar in profit they can make. Mind you they don't have to provide more health care, just get charged more for it.

[Ian David]

15. But to do that, they have to get the doctors and hospitals to charge them more.

And that would be illegal price-fixing.

[TheKentuckian]

17. No convincing is required, all they have to do is increase the allowable charges on their end.

There is quite a bit of slack built in from what is billed and the allowable.

Also, remember that we failed to eliminate the anti-trust exemption.

[Ian David]

18. We'll have to draft new rules to prevent that. n/t

[bvar22]

19. Oh Yes.

"They" are going to "Fix it Later."
Trust them!
They'll get right on it.
.
.
.
.
Any day now,
right after the "fix" the Patriot Act like they promised.





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises to "fix it later".
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Autumn]

10. To my way of thinking, he is the only one who has spent

political capitol to touch it so as far as I am concerned it belongs to him. He's right, he did care to do it, it's his. I liked your interview and I like the amount they have to spend on health care.

[Autumn]

3. I like the term. Obama is the only President who

has been able to touch any type of healthcare reform.

[Ian David]

4. And as John Fugelsang says, we should call welfare for billionaires BushCare. n/t

[a kennedy]

16. That should be a rallying cry....

BushCare..... I like it.

[barbtries]

5. i've gotten to where it depends on who's saying it

my libertarian co-worker definitely uses it in a derogatory manner. but i'm glad we have it.