From rubicons post: ..."We need to keep the present system and modify it to be more workable."

During the Obama care ram it through and we will read it later days....this was suggested several times without ever being addressed. Now why would that be?

The system, with it's flaws has been doing the job long before the Clintons. Remember it was Hillary's top priority. Anybody remember why it never flew?

The much more practical approach to fixing the broken parts of an already working system that everybody was familiar with would at least leave us all with what we know. The Obama care, git er done bill is still being defined. The costs are still unknown, but even Obama's budget gang used to say it would cost way more than projected. Funny how that cry from within has mysteriously gone silent.

The old adage of the devil you know is much better than the one you don't. And for all those who continue to rail about how much better off we are already....why? Because some kids can stay on the policy? Because pre existing conditions are not a problem? Because they filled in a little piece of the donut hole?

These can all be estimated as to their cost. The cost of these pied piper bread crumbs will be lost in the rounding of the costs of the pieces of the bill (of goods sold!) that go into effect in 2014.

Just another political charade that the majority by the way were against.....and most recent polls still show a majority against.
Never mind that noise...it is just we the people expressing what we did not want......and see what impact that had on Obama's crowning achievement!

btk

Comparisons
 

Compared to what? Compared to virtually every other developed country in the world. There are numerous studies done each year by international, non-partisan, unimpeachable sources.

Inefficient? Now understand that I'm talking about our entire healthcare system, not just Medicare/Medicaid. U.S. healthcare cost are now about 17% of GDP and growing both consistently and dramatically. Some estimate that our healthcare costs will consume 25% of GDP by 2050. Healthcare costs are rising far faster than the incomes of U.S. citizens. That's the very definition of inefficiency.

Ineffective? There are certain things that U.S. healthcare does very well. We are at the cutting edge of cancer treatment and certain specialized surgeries. But the overall health of Americans lags that of many developed countries. We are more obese. Our life expectancy is among the worst of the developed countries. U.S. infant mortality rates are also in the lower third of developed countries. Much of those results may be due to the fact that around 30% of our population has no healthcare insurance. We are the only developed country that does not have healthcare insurance programs covering all of their citizens. ObamaCare did mandate coverage for the vast majority of Americans, but as you know that may be reversed as the result of either legal decision or political action.

Unaffordable? We spend more than double on healthcare than the next most expensive developed country, almost $7,600 per year for every single American. And I noted above, we don 't get results that are as good. Healthcare costs have been rising at about 10% a year in recent years, while personal incomes have been flat to down. Again, if that continues, it's the definition of unaffordable.

As further background, I'd recommend reading the following paper authored by two very knowledgeable and non-partisan researchers under the sponsorship of The Urban Institute.

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411...re_quality.pdf

The researchers referenced in the above post in connection with a study they did, indeed are writing for The Urban Institute.

I see no reference to either one of them claiming to be nonpartisan politically (I'm assuming that's your "nonpartisan" reference).

I'm just wondering how you came to the conclusion they they were.

Not a big bone of contention, but just curiosity.

You can go off on a righteous fit if you want, but this is an honest question.

Two Reasons
 

A combination of two things. From its beginnings about fifty years ago, the Urban Institute has prided itself on being non-partisan. I'm not aware that the quality of their research has ever been criticized for serving one position, ideology or another.

In the mid-1960s, President Johnson saw the need for independent nonpartisan analysis of the problems facing America's cities and their residents. The President created a blue-ribbon commission of civic leaders who recommended chartering a center to do that work. In 1968, the Urban Institute became that center. Since then, their research subjects have broadened considerably, taking on a far broader and more international flavor.

When I was working, I actually had the opportunity to participate on a nationwide study of urban renewal. The participants reflected a broad group of elected officials, public officials as well as architects, developers, investors and bankers serving the real estate industry. (I was invited to participate as a banker.) So I know first hand of both the quality and independence of their research.

The other reason for my conclusion regarding their independence was simply reading the article. There is no suggestion of a partisan position in either the author's choice of research sources or the conclusions they reached.

And he didn't even need the SEALS. What a man!

It's my opinion that no one keeps their personal beliefs from influencing what they write, or more importantly, what they write about or what evidence they choose to submit or not submit in an essay.

I didn't see any obvious bias, but I was just curious about your blanket statement about their partisanship.

His most crowning achievement.....saying "Yes, OK, go for it" (paraphrasing)

If that's the crowning achievement for these past 4 years.......whew

The point lads is a POTUS has no crown, no anointment or divine right of kings. Therefore NO crowning achievements. That is only in the eyes and minds of the worshipers.

Indeed.

barf Junior Bush:jester: had the same opportunity to use the Navy Seals but just never had the "intelligence" to find bin Laden.

Oh, please enlighten us on the steps Obama took to improve the military intelligence complex in the aftermath of the Bush Presidency.

Oh, please enlighten us on the steps Obama took to improve the military intelligence complex in the aftermath of the Bush Presidency.

Oh wait a minute, your comment was just a cheap joke. I thought you posted serious for a second there.

my mistake.

It's a military secret, RichieLion. :1rotfl::1rotfl: But obiously, even for you, it worked!

Thought it was a Pakistani MD who helped get Osama Bin Laden through tracking DNA patterns.
Pakistan Rejects US Criticism of Jailed Doctor Who Assisted in Bin Laden Hunt

when reading thread I keep reading 30 to 40 million without ins.That is false 12 million of those are illegal and another 8 to 12 million have plans where they work but elect not to purchase.This was brought up when obama first was elected.But when a lie is repeated over and over it begins to be accepted as the truth.

OBL kill would have eventually happened regardless who was in the WH and that it was a priority to do so.

Those magic words we all hate....it happened on his watch....

yes he gets the credit....NO it was not because of his initiative, only following through because it had vote gaining/regaining/maintaining potential......just another all about me agenda item.

btk

What does any of this have to do with the Supreme Court decision today or The Affordable Care Act? Perhaps you should change the title of the thread to 'Why we hate President Obama'.

yup I guess we strayed off topic....but in good political conscience it is related.

And oh by the way just because we do not worship or support Obama it does not mean one hates Obama. It must be this phraseology makes some of you fell good....why else the flawed notion?

btk

Yes.....we shall see.....oh, i guess we did see. :MOJE_whot:

You would have lost......

Very interesting decision though. It sounds like Chief Justice Roberts put a context in it-- by allowing the law through the Tax Power rather than the Commerce Clause-- which fits in well with the Republican election campaign strategy.

I do applaud Chief Justice Roberts for showing some Judicial Restraint though on not siding with those Justices who would have struck down the law.