Obamacare pain level increases

Remember the days when there wasn’t health insurance?
Aug 8, 2013

It really wasn’t so long ago. Many would simply go to the family doctor and pay a standard office visit fee. And if you went to the hospital, you’d have to work out a payment arrangement for their services.

But then insurance became the thing to have in the 1950s and ’60s. Employers jumped into bed with HMOs in subsequent decades and were able to offer great wellness benefits to entice employees. Employees got used to the coverage, giving rise to insurance billing coding specialists — and, later, much higher health care fees for everyone.

It has become all so complicated.

Enter into the mix a new federal health care reform law set to phase in over the next few years.

The effects of the health care reform, known commonly as Obamacare, have been unexpected this year.

Wary of increasing costs of insuring employees, and of potential penalties for not doing so, businesses across the country have cut down the hours for many employees to below 30 per week. Thus arose a way to avoid having to offer employees health insurance benefits (and pay the expensive premiums), while also avoiding the penalty for doing so.

It is an unfortunate side effect of what was heralded as a solution to America’s health care crisis.

Now, people — many of whom are working to cobble together a living on near-minimum wage pay checks — have to take multiple part-time jobs at different companies. And they still don’t have the hope of company-sponsored health insurance.

This law, sadly, has even affected student workers at colleges. They have had their work-study hours cut back so they’re earning less money on campus to pay their way through school.

These side effects are just the start of what might be a long and painful journey for the American people.

Soon, individuals who aren’t covered by work-sponsored health insurance will be required to purchase insurance, or face penalties for not doing so. Yet, the databases of available insurances aren’t even available in most states, leaving people wondering how much they might have to pay, when they’ll be able to sign up and whether it’s even worth it.

President Obama’s administration and Congress are debating the pros and cons of pushing back deadlines for many of Obamacare’s coverage requirements, and should do so for individuals — not just big business — until such a time as these bitter pills become a little easier to swallow.

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner calls the health care law “a train wreck” that will only get worse. Seeing what’s happening now makes it hard to disagree with him.

It sure does seem that this train is on the wrong track, and likely has been for years.

Our Views reflects the majority opinion of the members of the Grand Haven Tribune editorial board: Kevin Hook, Cheryl Welch, Matt DeYoung, Alex Doty and Fred VandenBrand. What do you think? E-mail us a letter to the editor to news@grandhaventribune.com or log-in to our website and leave a comment below.



I'm not sure what The Republican Speaker of the House said, but one of Obamacare's AUTHORS said it IS a Train Wreck!

Oh, there is very little coverage and very little outrage that within the past week, our President intervened, ensuring that Congress & their employees/aides are exempt.


Check your facts LuditeHunter. Congress and their employees/aids are NOT exempt from the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare).


It's a bit more convoluted, and disgusting, than presented.

"To adapt H.L. Mencken, nobody ever went broke underestimating the cynicism and self-dealing of the American political class. Witness their ad-libbed decision, at the 11th hour and on the basis of no legal authority, to create a special exemption for themselves from the ObamaCare health coverage that everybody else is mandated to buy.

The Affordable Care Act requires Members of Congress and their staffs to participate in its insurance exchanges, in order to gain first-hand experience with what they’re about to impose on their constituents. Harry Truman enrolled as the first Medicare beneficiary in 1965, and why shouldn’t the Members live under the same laws they pass for the rest of the country?

That was the idea when Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley proposed the original good-enough-for-thee, good-enough-for-me amendment in 2009, and the Finance Committee unanimously adopted his rule. Declared Chairman Max Baucus, "I’m very gratified that you have so much confidence in our program that you’re going to be able to purchase the new program yourself and I’m confident too that the system will work very well." …

But the statute means that about 11,000 Members and Congressional staff will lose the generous coverage they now have as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Instead they will get the lower-quality, low-choice "Medicaid Plus" of the exchanges. The Members—annual salary: $174,000—and their better paid aides also wouldn’t qualify for ObamaCare subsidies. That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket insurance costs.

Democrats… begged the White House for help… President Obama told Democrats in a closed-door meeting last week that he would personally moonlight as HR manager and resolve the issue."

So yes, they are not exempt from Obamacare, Obama himself has unilaterally and unconstitutionally changed the law so that unlike every other living soul in the country (except those thousands of companies and unions granted a waiver), an agency of the government not funded by Obamacare will pay 75% of the average cost of their insurance for them - nice work if you can get it! Benefits for me but not for thee.

The full story the above quote was taken from is in the Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB...


I am pleasantly surprised this article has appeared here in the Tribune. Wow!


I just got up from falling off my chair; wonder if there was a gun involved when this was written. Very nice to see but please give advance warning in the future when you switch sides, the emergency rooms might not be able to handle the onslaught.

Vast Right Wing...

Finally, only several years after it was passed, has the media decided to read the bill (you remember the bill that Her Highness, Pelosi the First told us we had to pass it to read it). Now almost everyone is starting to agree with Conservatives have been saying, this will NOT work.


Congratulations to the Tribune and its Editorial Board for taking the time to understand the issues and to truthfully point out some of the ramifications of Obamacare - something the mainstream media and the AP have studiously avoided.


More Obama Pain (for his political opponents) Unreal. Obama IRS Agents Continue to Target Conservatives in ‘Phony’ Scandal http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/...

Say no to new taxes

While the rest of the industrialized world has gone to a single payer system, the U.S. clings to a unsustainable insurance system that features high costs and inferior results.


We all know how trendy it is these days to bash Obamacare, but this Our View column is an aberration of urban myths and misinformation. It's one thing to oppose the ACA on principle, and quite another to advance an argument based on half-baked disinformation. Some easily-obtained information:

* 210,000 US businesses have more than 50 employees. Of those, 94% of all companies with 50-199 employees, and 98% of all companies with 200+ employees already offer health insurance coverage.

* Roughly 10,000 out of 5.7 million businesses - less than 1% of all businesses - would be subject to the no-coverage penalty.

* Roughly 50% of all Americans already have job-related health insurance.

* 70% of benefit professionals said their companies will definitely keep offering coverage to full-time workers in 2014 - up from 46% in 2012.

* 90% of employers do not plan to shift full-time workers to part-time workers.

It appears that the companies publicly announcing a shift to more part-time workers due to the ACA are in the minority, and the ACA might be a convenient excuse for what amounts to a continuing trend in the US that has been in effect for many years, especially aggravated by the Great Recession, of offering less hours and benefits to employees.

Meanwhile, health care costs are the largest piece of the federal budget pie, weighing in at 24%, and 11,000 baby boomers are signing up for Medicare A DAY. Instead of bellyaching about how we wish it were the 1950's, or picking apart the ACA like jackals, maybe our energies would be more effectively directed in educating readers to it's benefits, and how it directly meets the challenges of US health care.


Oh my, are you concerned that if you cited the Huffington Post as your source for these factoids it might call them into question? Let's take a closer look at a few:

* 70% of benefit professionals said their companies will definitely keep offering coverage to full-time workers in 2014 - up from 46% in 2012. [This is meaningless because the issue is not how many will keep offering to FULL-TIME workers, it is how many will convert full-time to PART-TIME]

* 90% of employers do not plan to shift full-time workers to part-time workers. [ This is simply misleading - (1) it is from a Minneapolis FED study that only covers Minnesota, Montana, North and South Dakota, 26 counties in northwestern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and more important (2) the study itself stated the 90% figure might be wrong because "many responding organizations employ fewer than 50 people and are exempt" and "some commented that it is too early to know the effects of the law’s detailed regulations."

* 70% of benefit professionals said their companies will definitely keep offering coverage to full-time workers in 2014 - up from 46% in 2012. [The survey doesn't differentiate between non-exempt and exempt companies, and is based on a paltry 950 companies that responded out of 5.7 million.]

Good try Lanny, and good luck convincing anyone but socialists and Obamaphiles that Obamacare is good for them - the Tribune editorial staff hit the nail on the head without resorting to phony statistics.


VTI - Thank you for so thoroughly making my point about the jackals being more interested in tearing apart than recognizing the urgent need for health insurance reform. My facts were gleaned from a variety of reputable and unbiased sources; any poll and fact can be deliberately misconstrued or made convoluted, as you point out. I note you didn't address the 11,000 baby boomers applying for Medicare/ per day. Or the exploding costs of health care, or that Social Security and Medicare are two holy grails for American citizens. Or that the Republicans have no ideas other than to dismantle Social Security and turn Medicare into a voucher system - good luck with that. Have you ever had to help an elderly parent, with bad hearing/eyesight, in pain and/or some level of dementia, deal with insurance companies and/or medical billing offices, while even perhaps dying? I have, and I guarantee you a voucher system as a Medicare replacement is a nightmare scenario of the highest order.

Much of my information comes from the Kaiser Family Foundation. I encourage readers to click on the link below, scroll down, and take the ACA quiz. It's very informational - share your score (I got 100% right!).

We can sit in the comfort of our homes and bellyache about Obama, Obamacare, blah de-blah de-blah, but meanwhile, the immense problem of overwhelming health care costs will NOT go away just because we wish it so.



Someone writes a comment throwing out some meaningless and some misleading statistics. Another person points out how such comments are meaningless or misleading. First person considers second person a jackal. Amazing how the liberal mind operates.

In addition to the other meaningless or misleading statistics, no matter where you got them, that 11,000 people are applying for Medicare per day is also meaningless. Now they will be getting subsidized Obamacare without having to prove they are eligible for tax payer subsidies instead of Medicare (and Obama already took $716 Billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare). An unbiased explanation is found here http://www.thedailybeast.com/art...

You fail to address the exploding costs of Obamacare, the exploding costs of insurance due to Obamacare requirements; the Holy Grails for liberals are free Medicaid for all in addition to subsidized abortions - both included in Obamacare. You rail against a voucher system, which is essentially what federal government employees have, but never say why it is not more beneficial than the bureaucracy of Obamacare and more efficient. Have you ever tried to figure out a Medicare statement, or tried to get assistance from a government bureaucrat figuring it out?

The meaningless and misleading statistics I noted came directly from Huffington Post - I merely googled your exact language and out came the Huffington Post articles.

Jackal-like, I also note your link from the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation, which echoes Obama and the liberals that there are 48 million Americans uninsured, is misleading. Let's see what the U.S. Census Bureau has to say:

Data from the Census Bureau debunks the lie continually promoted by the mainstream media of the legendary 47 million uninsured Americans:

• 9.5 million people are illegal aliens
• 8.3 million uninsured people are those who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and choose not to purchase insurance
• 8.7 million uninsured people are those who make over $75,000 a year and choose not to purchase insurance

This leaves approximately 20 million uninsured; less than 7% of the population. Why do some people choose not to purchase insurance? 60 percent reported being in "excellent health or very good health" and purposefully decided not to buy insurance.

And why do I say Kaiser is liberal (other than its clearly biased surveys and reports)?

Below is a list of the amounts of campaign contributions by employees of some of the top U.S. think tanks, broken down by giving to Republican or conservative candidates and organizations versus those that are Democratic or liberal. (U.S. News and World Report)

Kaiser Family Foundation

49,500 total donations
To Republicans
To Democrats

If Obama spent as much time governing as you do providing questionable statistics to sugar-coat all of his mis-steps the country would be in a better place, the economy would be the focus of his attention instead of Trayvon Martin, Sandra Fluke, green energy scams, and failed socialistic programs, and just maybe the heroes of Benghazi might be with us today. Signed, The Jackal.


Although not initially aiming the term 'jackal' at you specifically, but rather the whole lot of youse, I see that your enthusiastic embrace indicates a recognition of its certain "The Day of the Jackal" cachet that rather suits you.....you're most welcome!

Although most of your comment falls under the heading of..."what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought". (a quote from your link - thanks!), and with great trepidation that you will have yet another conniption fit and label me a dogging liberal (we assume by this thread you have no problem with dogging conservatives), I will say a few things about a few of your points:

* Your info on the Kaiser Family Foundation is - SURPRISE - taken out of context. It is labeled a centrist think tank, and like most of the centrist think tank these days, it focused the bulk of its donations to Democrats. As a non-profit, non-partisan, privately operated foundation that specializes in and devotes all research to major US and global health care issues, it'd be a bit odd that they didn't focus on the ACA, educating the public, and highlighting the many advantages the ACA offers.

* Are you telling me there are 17 million people in this country that have incomes of $50,000+ who choose of their own accord not to have health insurance? Frankly, that is insane, and, imo, a penalty of a measly $675 or whatever it is based on their income level, is not sufficient to match this level of irresponsibility. Either that or they have pre-existing conditions and are refused coverage, which, of course, changes with Obamacare.

* I have had lots of experience with Medicare, tediously reconciling Medicare benefit statements with all sorts of medical bills (not for me), and was honestly amazed at the total dearth of problems, and the very concise, easy to understand, and accurate statements/payments on the part of Medicare. All discrepancies that arose had to do with supplemental insurance and the medical billing offices, which were almost always out of town/state, and were difficult to work with. Medicare worked like clock-work.

The thought of elderly people having to deal with the tangle of instructions, technological requirements, battles and overwhelming complexities of the modern health care system, on their own, armed with a voucher, is a nightmare, and to suggest otherwise shows an appalling lack of understanding of geriatric challenges in the current corporate America.

To add to my comment, I refer you to this: http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/...


Since you're so concerned about elderly relatives, chew on this and digest it - our future and the future of grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, and the elderly in general. http://www.nationalreview.com/hu...

Welcome to Obamacare!


Well, at least those who live in Oregon, are on Medicaid, and are in the end stages of terminal cancer.

Are you with it or against it? There are very few things in life as horrific as this type of situation. What would you recommend?


Flabbergasted here! Do you even think about the atrocities you are supporting before writing, Pavolov-like, in defense of everything liberal, everything Obama?

I can only imagine if one of the big bad insurance companies had said "To protect our shareholders we are announcing a new policy: we will refuse to pay for any “treatment with intent to prolong survival” for cancer patients who likely have fewer than two years left to live."

The air would turn blue with the cursing and gnashing of liberal teeth. Lanivan would denounce the capitalists/republicans who would dare to even propose such a heartless plan, citing statistics that would show the poor would be impacted most, especially women and children. She would plaintively inquire - "Have you ever dealt with a parent or child that has cancer? I have."Breast cancer? = War on Women! Congressional Democrats would immediately commence hearings, and legislation would be drafted to punish insurers. Pre-existing condition? Unfair, Un-American, etc. ad nauseum.

The hue and cry would be even greater if the proposal came from Paul Ryan. But since it's a plan put forward by a liberal state government, and in line with the Death Panels in Obamacare - crickets, or worse, defense of the proposal - "Well, at least those who live in Oregon, are on Medicaid, and are in the end stages of terminal cancer."

I'm against it - I would suggest cutting off all boondoggle funding for programs in response to non-existent global warming; cut food stamps and welfare to the bone and have people eligible for a year or do some productive public works for their stipends, like working on the infrastructure, recycling garbage, cleaning the streets; throw out all illegal aliens; defund any non-essential government job and government program; cut the benefits of public sector employee unions except for first responders; execute murderers, and put the savings into health care for the poor. At least that's a start.

Good grief Lanny, are you so far gone that you can't see the slippery slope Death Panels represent?


The "big bad insurance companies" already refuse treatment on a regular basis, drop those patients for whom treatment options are too expensive, and/or drop or refuse insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. This is nothing new, has been protocol for years, and which will change with the ACA.

As for so-called death panels, frankly, just how long do we continue to subsidize expensive treatments to the elderly or poor when they are in the end stages of terminal cancer? When do we shift to palliative care from aggressive chemo? At what point do we say no to doctors suggesting invasive, sometimes painful but always uncomfortable treatments, procedures, scans, injections, IV's, to sustain the unsustainable, to hold off the inevitable?

Your mockery of my, or others, positions is again a simplistic approach to a very difficult and sensitive moral and ethical dilemma in this era of science that can prolong life well past 100 years of age; where medical gains allow the elderly to be propped up indefinitely; where people are living longer but have less retirement savings that allows them to live independently or at least with less degree of poverty.

I plaintively refer again to my personal experience: All necessary legal powers were discussed and activated prior to end of life to ensure that health decisions be made in advance, and according to wishes of the person affected. I was fortunate in that I was given my 'death panel' instructions from the person dying.

The Ryan Plan - Vouchercare - is based on social engineering and the transferring of funds, and does nothing to address the spiraling of health care costs. It will not ensure the feasibility of extended senior independent living, nor the ability of seniors to navigate medical/insurance bureaucracy.

Your suggestions are logical to a point, but then one wonders: What constitutes "programs in response to non-existent global warming" when 98% of climate scientists agree on global warming, and does this apply to long-subsidized fossil fuels, or renewables? What exactly constitutes a 'non-essential' government job/program? Who defines "murderers"? Does this encompass women who have abortions, and, if so, what if a wife, sister, niece, cousin, or friend confides they have had an abortion, does one turn them in to be executed?

I know you will reply in constitutional terms, but would that be good enough for society? Would they require the Ten Commandments be entered into the equation? And so on. I fear the Nanny State is here forever, VTI....but I'm not so far gone to see the value in your vision, however doomed it may be.


I get it! Death panels determining who will live and die due to withheld medical care, based on criteria no one has voted on, is O.K. with you. NSA spying on our telephone calls and emails is A-OK because it's done under lord Obama. Drones killing people without any due process is just fine as long as it's Obama's program. The possibility that drones can be used to kill Americans in the United States is dandy. Supplying weapons to Mexican drug lords is a great Obama idea, as is targeting taxpayers for unequal treatment based on their politics. As long as the President is Barack, he can choose what laws to enforce, and change laws, at his whim without having to have the laws amended legislatively.

Apparently you believe that all future President's will be statists and socialists to your liking, because ceding this power to the Executive is dangerous. My prediction is that when this house of cards starts to fall apart and a conservative President is elected, you better hope that such executive is more faithful to the Constitution than the current one.

Another Lannyism "98% of climate scientists agree on global warming." It might interest people to see where this particular statistic originated http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/...

Interesting view - that the Constitution is not good enough for society. . . .


The problem with your argument against the Oregon commission recommending guidelines as to when to switch from a treatment plan to palliative care for Medicaid end-term cancer patients is that these people are already dying. The Oregon commission is basing the requirement on the medically established criteria that the patient has a prognosis by the medical staff as being terminally ill. The commission is not determining who will live or die - that's already been determined (by doctors or God).

Please don't pull out your "Lanny goes off the deep end" crib sheet when twisting my comments to suit your conniption fits. But having said that, there is a kernel of truth in your idea that I do place a great deal of trust in President Obama. And apparently so did the majority who voted him into office twice, in two solid majority, democratic elections (no Supreme Court, ie, constitutional, manipulations). And I do have concern about the election of a conservative president, for many reasons too numerous to get into now, but all of them having to do with the danger quotient. A 'conservative president' in present day terms is a diminished chord indeed.

I am aware of your Obama/gutting the Constitution lists, but do you have historical comparisons of executive power structures, when did it develop, by which presidents, and why? Just a thought knowing you possibly might already have this info in your possession.

Although I admit I am culpable of an occasional Lannyism, the 98% thing is not among them. Sorry - your link is outdated, outmoded, and out-hoodwinked (j/k on that - got carried away). For starters:



I knew you'd pick up on the constitutional thing - isn't this notion the very essence and basis for your argument against current politics/society? Isn't this a reason why your vision has not been embraced (or has been suppressed)?


1. In your analysis, I guess you could say that babies with Down's Syndrome, and a whole bunch of other often fatal diseases, are "already dying." I'm disappointed in your cavalier attitude toward Death Panels in general, and the apparent lack of hope and faith in medical advances in the interim.

2. I didn't say "Lanny goes off the deep end" I merely listed the Obama programs that you apparently have no problem with.

3. My Obama ignoring the Constitution lists are simply my own compilation (I did a lot of analysis on the various authorities of the Executive vs. Legislative Branches in my prior life).

4. Your quoted Global Warming stats analyzed (they don't hold up):


Cook et al. (2013) stated that abstracts of nearly all papers expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed consensus, which, however, traditionally has no scientific role; used three imprecise definitions of consensus interchangeably; analyzed abstracts only; excluded 67% expressing no opinion; omitted key results; and thus concluded that 97.1% endorsed the hypothesis as defined in their introduction, namely the “scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW)”. The authors’ own data file showed that they had themselves categorized 64 abstracts, or only 0.5% of the sample, as endorsing the consensus hypothesis as defined in their introduction. Inspection shows only 41 of the 64 papers, or 0.3% of the sample, actually endorsed their hypothesis. Criteria for peer review of papers quantifying scientific consensus are discussed. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/...

Maybe many of us can agree on this: http://legalinsurrection.com/201... or maybe not if the guy is not a "true" progressive.


Re: Man-made Global Warming. Why do I bother? You are the embodiment of cemented conservative thought, and would never dream of stepping outside the rigid confines of the box that embowels you. Carry on, O Great One In Name Only.

Your highly descriptive list of the Obama programs that I "apparently have no problem with" is so inaccurate, so misstated, that I can just imagine the fun you were having at my expense when writing it. But, really, who cares?

Now we get to the "death panels". When we are discussing Oregon Medicaid end-stage terminal cancer victims, who are most likely senior citizens who have depleted their life savings after a lifetime of work, have been forced by the ravages of old age to give up their homes and independent living for a nursing home that costs $6,000/month, and who now find themselves in the end stages of a horrible disease, in pain with no quality of life whatsoever, and more than likely praying for peace, and the decision by the Oregon commission, along with the medical community, to assess this situation and have the bravery and good common sense to say stop the treatments that will not reverse the prognosis, and switch to palliative care, and you turn this discussion into something quite sick indeed with the introduction of down syndrome babies, which is entirely inappropriate, unnecessary, and otiose, and then declare me as being "cavalier", is disappointing, disgusting, and we are so done with this topic. You went too far with this one, Vlad, just to impose your will.


Good - call me names, call my observations inappropriate, unnecessary and otiose, say we are so done with this topic, and leave. Bye Bye. Let me educate anyone interested and still reading this old post: The Death Panels in Merry Old England, which has the liberals' Holy Grail of government run single payer health care, did exactly what you suffer high indignation about in my comment "the LCP has been used in some well-publicised cases where the patients – including babies – are not dying. I read a chilling report last week by an anonymous doctor which described the case of a baby born with multiple congenital problems but who was not about to die. The decision had to be made about whether to treat the infant and help him to live, with all the difficulties involved, or whether to let him die by neglect ie by withdrawing food and liquids." - http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/... See also http://www.newsmax.com/PrintTemp...

Remember the little girl who couldn't get a lung transplant because of bureaucratic rules that had to be overturned by a judge? Remember what Kathleen Sebelius, the arrogant and haughty head of HHS told the Congress in testimony about her waiver of the rules? "“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,”

So take your manufactured outrage and peddle it to someone who might care - I don't - this is what you and your buddies are foisting on American taxpayers and you don't get to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and say Nah, Nah, Nah. And since you are "so done with this topic" (and I don't blame you) I will enjoy your silence all the more.

On AGW - science is on the side of those who have demonstrated with real science that global warming as promoted is a sham - a scheme for control by government and liberal elites - there has been none for over 16 years, which is why you and your ilk now call it "climate change." Peddle that to your low information fellow travelers.


And..."The parents, after consultation, decided they could not cope with a handicapped child so it was agreed the baby should be left to die". So it was the parent's decision, not the single payer health care system, that made this decision. They were not required nor mandated to make this decision by any government entity. The decision was made between their doctor and themselves. Am I correct on this?

So, to be clear, you and your band of conservatives: 1.) Want government to defund Planned Parenthood that offers health and reproductive, family planning, and health care screenings, referrals, treatments, including new baby care (including special needs babies) to women and men living at poverty levels; 2.) Want government to defund and repeal the Affordable Care Act that will expand Medicaid health care and insurance to millions of primarily working poor and their children (including special needs children), and will provide affordable health care insurance options to millions of uninsured and underinsured, including children (and special needs children), that will mean wellness visits and annual physicals for children; 3.) Reduce, restrict, and rescind abortion, birth control, and reproductive health options for all women, but especially poor women, so that they no longer have control over their reproductive and family planning decisions; 4.) Entirely defund the entire SNAP program which affects currently 16 MILLION children under the age of 18 (including special needs children), not to mention seniors or disabled citizens, which make up the bulk of households on food stamps.

5.) Are appalled that an Oregon commission, in conjunction with the medical community, has made end of life provisions for Medicaid patients with end stage cancer, and expect us to buy into the fear that the government next will adjudicate over all life and death decisions of the entire populous. Mind you, Oregon Medicaid is not saying they will withhold all medical care, nor are they dumping the patient entirely. Which is what private insurers can and do on a regular basis, even when premiums are paid faithfully. Attending physicians must work closely with private insurers, determining what, when and how treatments and procedures must be executed, and many times the private insurer supersedes medical opinion.

Looks to me like I'm hardly the bad one here, foisting evil on the taxpayers. You have your opinions, and I have mine. But one final word - you may, and do, confer all sorts of titles on me in a malevolent state of mind, but you are grievously incorrect to label my outrage as manufactured. It's as real as yours.


So looking forward to the blessed silence promised, but:

1. Yes, of course your quote is correct - you took it from the link I provided. So although many of the folks doomed to an earlier death by the bureaucrats had no say in being starved and denied liquids, this baby benefited by having a doctor and its parents agree to murder it under the British Death Panel system - I'm sure it appreciated the collaboration. And now you are supporting murder of an infant as long as the bureaucrats, parents, and doctors agree - how very progressive of you.

2. Yes, I want to force Planned Parenthood to be financially supported by people who use it and want it. Yes, I want to defund Obamacare and replace it with a rational system. Yes, I want women (and their partners in the endeavor) to act responsibly and pay for their own irresponsibility. If liberals believe in their program, they should support Planned Parenthood and any other organization to pay for abortions and birth control instead of forcing everyone to pay for the programs only they want. As you well know, no one is talking about totally defunding food stamps - just separating it from the agriculture appropriation and letting people see what they are really paying for food stamps and welfare.

3. Private insurers do not have death panels and would never have the cojones to suggest they will withhold life extending care to cancer stricken people who have less than 2 years to live - only government bureaucrats can do that knowing they are immune from media scrutiny. And as you are also aware, along the lines of Obama's demagoguery you are intentionally conflating insurance and medical care. Hospitals have to provide medical care to those who need it. Insurance is a private contract between private individuals and corporations apportioning risk, not socialized mandates to ignore risk but call it insurance.

4. If many of your outrages are not manufactured they are certainly selectively crafted.


I can not let a few of your statements go without being challenged. 1.) So you are agreeing with me that the decision to allow their baby to die was made by the actual parents of the baby, not by government or some outside entity. They were not forced, denied options or coerced to make one decision over another. And that, although it might not be a decision we like or would make for ourselves, it was the parent's decision to make.

3. Private insurers most certainly do withhold payment for treatment, drop customer/patients that become too expensive, and cancel or deny treatment based on insurance protocols. It's called recission, it happens all the time, and you are intentionally providing misinformation by saying they do not. Private insurers are in the business to make profits, you know.


It's so tiresome debating with someone who is extremely intelligent but feigns ignorance, it may be wasting too much of my time.

1. If your neighbors have a baby with congenital difficulties that makes their lives difficult, can they kill him or her? Not yet in America. But under socialized medicine they can, if doctors and bureaucrats agree. So no, I don't agree - there was a collaboration to murder among the parents, the doctors, and the government under a system that is one step from Obamacare, with both having Death Panels.

3. Once again children, insurance is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country and involves a legal contract between an insured and an insurer, in which the insurer agrees to pay money if a certain risk occurs. Recission is not peculiar to insurance contracts - it is a matter of contract law, where one party can get out of a contract if the other party misrepresented the facts that induced the formation of the contract. In health insurance, that generally involves misrepresenting facts like pre-existing conditions, or risk factors like, have you ever been a smoker? A drinker? Been hospitalized? Family conditions like history of cancer, heart disease, etc. These facts are vital to determine risk by professional underwriters. If the insured misrepresented these facts, the insurer can rescind. If the insurer (and many surely do) take advantage of obvious unintentional mistakes, or try to otherwise take advantage of the insured, the remedy for the insured is insurance commissions in every state or a lawsuit in which the insurer will pay dearly. That is the law of contracts.

As per his usual M.O., Obama sheds his law education and shape shifts into the Community Organizer, where he ignores a century of law, be it Constitutional or insurance law, and forces insurers to accept people with pre-existing conditions, uses Community Standards, stands insurance principles and law on its head, and thereby re-distributes wealth.

Doesn't it ever bother you, at the core level, that you are ignoring your obvious intelligence in servitude to an emperor with no clothes?


I have never been in servitude to anyone. I have defended Obama only to the extent that he represents many of my values, and reflects many principles I think are what make this country great. My studies reveal a different story than yours, and attempting to reconcile that disparity is a major reason why I chip away. It does take a toll, however. Just so you know....thank you.

Tri-cities realist

So apparently we can't trust the data coming from the census bureau, at least you are coming around in that respect Lanny. Or do you only trust govt when it coincides with your line of thinking?

As for Vlad's response being rambling and incoherent, I found it to be logical, backed up by sourced data. Is that the new definition of rambling or incoherent? Just when I think we are making progress in having a rational debate, you throw out these statements. You are better than that. Refute the data if you can, but save the name calling.


Balderdash and Horsefeathers! Didn't you know? Some of the workers for the census bureau were Dems, so we can't trust the Census Bureau. The Kaiser Foundation donated to the Dems, so we can't trust this highly-lauded and respected foundation. And, apparently, any facts I produce are only as factual as VTI says they are, and all those others are ignored.

VTI deserves whatever I give him in the way of perceived name-calling or anything else. I am confident in the 'fact' that he's one tough guy, and can take a little teasing now and again. He's taken me for quite a ride, and if it's good enough for him, I guess I'm no better than that. In addition, VTI is more than perfectly capable of dealing with me without your intrusion.

Now - about that rational debate and back-up data.....what do you have to offer on the subject?


Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.