Obama's ratings have been bumped up nicely. Now, one would think that if the President of the United States was looked upon more favorably that would be a good thing for all. All I can say is stand back.

Wrong premise......it was clearly aimed at expanding healthcare insurance to more people, with little mention or goals for reducing costs. If the Repubs had actually tried to contribute positively to the project maybe it could have gotten some focus on costs.

Oh, and where are their plans? They talked about repeal and replace but never had a replacement. SCOTUS did them a favor by not forcing them to present their non-existent plan.

ACA = Obama scam!
Costs will continue to rise. Health care quality will continue to be diluted.
End result? Paying more for less.
Just wait until more of the law takes effect in 2016.
Where is the $500,000,000 reduction in Medicare expenses that Obama said would offset paying for insuring the so called uninsured and uninsurable?

Ok....first of all, if you recall our President said two things about this plan. First, it would be so public that he would insure discussions would be on CSPAN, and secondly that he would involve both parties. He did neither.

The meetings were private and behind closed doors, and after some media complained, he had that famous dog and pony show when he invited the Republicans and then publicly mocked them. I have always felt his public mocking was a major issue in creating or widening the divide we have today.
The only people who attended meetings were lobbyists from the healthcare industry. Actually, if you recall, even most of the dem lawmakers did not know anything until the day they were told to vote.

These are facts...if you need historical links, will be glad to post them.

On the other issue, you are partly right. Game plan was both coverage and health costs. It had its birth in 1993 when both parties were trying to do what ACA does. Some minor differences, but it never got to the floor, but the President was very very clear about his goals in reducing healthcare costs.

But we all know that as long as Obama TALKS about a subject he feels he has addressed the issue.....for that audience or issue.
He cinsistently does NOTHING to fulfill any promises made.........unless they benefit his re-election (which is over thank GOD)......or benefits him or his kind of BSer!

I'm not sure but I thought the first A in ACA stood for affordable. I also remember something about my premiums dropping by $2500. but they went up $6000. instead and still climbing. Like everything else in politics one's opinion depends if one a payer or a payee. Just my opinion of course.

You left out the part in this frequently used rant of yours about old white men but I recognized you anyway.

Nope, it wasn't mine - although I agree with the quote completely. There are more liberals around than you than you think in The Villages. Golf time now!

Actually, there are probably less liberals in The Villages than I think. The few liberals that are here are just more vocal than most conservatives. I have yet to meet a liberal that didn't enjoy shouting down an opposing point of view.

Right we have two supreme court justices, Roberts and Kennedy, deciding every controversial case. You have to give it to "W", he put the right man in charge of the Supreme court. Since there isn't one moderate (whatever that is now) person running for president, nothing is going to change. They will appoint someone with their political views. This is a road to nowhere.

If costs continue to grow under ACA, but not as much as they would have done without it, does that make the ACA a failure? If you repeal it, and not replace it, what do you think health care insurers are going to do, when they lose 6-9 million customers?

The answer is single payer. If you think that insurance carriers process claims more cheaply, then farm that out to them. However, you set the price that they will be receiving. In the late nineties, it was reported that it cost the government 4 cents to process a claim, and insurance carriers 24 cents. That gap has to be a lot closer due to the number of seniors now versus then in Medicare.

Socialism! Who cares what you call it? If it cheaper, and works, what is the problem?
You think rates will change if insurance carriers can cross state lines, thereby creating competition, you are dreaming.