Problem Solved! A Quick and Easy Fix for ObamaCare!

It will be interesting to see how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a misnomer if there ever was one) will be regarded in a few years, and whether it will still be popularly referred to as "Obamacare" a decade from now.

With his approval rating where it is now, anything associated with Obama's name obviously has a stigma attached to it -- but it will be very difficult, of course, to just scrap it and start over again (although that's what should be done). It will also be interesting to see how the political process wrestles with questions regarding how to eliminate, or at least reduce, the harmful effects of the most damaging perverse incentives and economy-impeding aspects of the plan.

In this piece, the author sets forth a few principles that would at least comprise a good start:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...with-obamacare

Zero. You got a job, slob?

Pig pig pig

Fat fat fat

LazY lazy lazy

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Actually, I don't have a "job", I run my own business. Do pigs qualify for the ACA?

Good article, OP. The Republicans won't do it, but it is a good idea.

I think it will rank below the Volstead Act (Prohibition) in popularity for all the damage it will cause before it dies.

I think it will rank below the Volstead Act (Prohibition) in popularity for all the damage it will cause before it dies. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Jeez! That unpopular? But likely you could be right, at least if Democrats try to erect a firewall against efforts to change anything at all.

I was astonished by Chuck Schumer's recent comments, and bet there were some frowning faces in the White House that day. After all, he was one of the ones promoting this lemon with great zeal prior to its passage. Funny what the desire for political preservation and viability will do once it finally dawns on clueless partisan hacks that they've thrown a boomerang that's coming back to pop them in the face.

Now I wouldn't be surprised if some of the smarter Democrats are trying to figure out a way to engineer a plan to, step-by-step, morph this clusterfuck into something acceptable to larger swaths of voters. In that event, their desire would be to save face by avoiding outright repeal so that they can maintain the claim that "Obamacare" isn't so bad, after all. Pulling this off would obviously be a very delicate dance, but it sure would be what I'd be looking at doing if I were a Democratic member of the House or Senate.

Good article, OP. The Republicans won't do it, but it is a good idea. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Likely you are right as well. These clowns have a stupendous level of propensity to shoot themselves in the foot. Although quite fond of saying, "hell no" (often with good reason), they aren't too hot at articulating what they'd like to say "yes" to.

I'm not too fond of watching videos, but think the following short (6-minute) presentation offers a pretty good summary demolition of the viabilty of the present system that's so characterized by anti-market dynamics and non-transparency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uPdkhMVdMQ

Rapidly increasing health care costs (whether paid by the government, individuals, or employers) act like a tax on consumers as well as businesses. (And at the end of the day, the burden always falls on households.) It's a very regressive "tax," too.

Obviously, there are plenty of reasons why the economy isn't as healthy as it should be. But fixing what's wrong with health care finance is inarguably one the most compelling public policy challenges today.

So it's not his mess unless HE puts his name on it?

Did he take credit for killing OBL? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Do you understand what branding is, LLIdiot?

More to the point, have you read this thread?

Do you understand what branding is, LLIdiot? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yes. I learned how when I was a kid. And we "cut" them at the same time*.

That was after I learned that Nau's Drug wasn't (and isn't) in Clarksville.

*Not at the exact same time, but while we had them "secured"! (Just to clarify.)

So, I look forward to the next couple of years, during the "cutting" part....

... figuratively speaking of course. Michelle's already taken the real ones.

I was astonished by Chuck Schumer's recent comments, and bet there were some frowning faces in the White House that day. After all, he was one of the ones promoting this lemon with great zeal prior to its passage. Funny what the desire for political preservation and viability will do once it finally dawns on clueless partisan hacks that they've thrown a boomerang that's coming back to pop them in the face.

Now I wouldn't be surprised if some of the smarter Democrats are trying to figure out a way to engineer a plan to, step-by-step, morph this clusterfuck into something acceptable to larger swaths of voters. In that event, their desire would be to save face by avoiding outright repeal so that they can maintain the claim that "Obamacare" isn't so bad, after all. Pulling this off would obviously be a very delicate dance, but it sure would be what I'd be looking at doing if I were a Democratic member of the House or Senate. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

This^^^^

When you've lost Chuck Schumer, you've lost the Democratic Party. I'm not in any of the Vagasil filled back rooms but its pretty evident smarter Dims know Barack will be radioactive by 2016. Sure they'll bring him out for a gang buster speech at the 2016 DNC and it'll be the same speech he gave in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 but they'll applaud wildly until they remember he accomplished little of what he set out to do. Then he becomes Obushma. He and Pelosi turned the House red. He and Reid turned the Senate red. The 2016 Dim Presidential candidate won't want Obama to campaign for her/him.

Obamacare will even be more of a disaster. Remember the closer to 2016, the closer the "payment for the goodies" kicks in. Heck, Obama may not be able to delay the business mandate another year. The tax for not having health insurance will be close to a $1000 instead of $90. This is going to be good. Thanks Gruber!

When you've lost Chuck Schumer, you've lost

Thanks Gruber! Originally Posted by gnadfly

Schumer is laying the ground work for Hillary. His (and her) problem is when she signed on to be the SOS she became a part of the Team Disaster.

She may be able to get the "lumps" off in the next year or so, but ....

... the stench will remain forever. Her lack-luster SOS job was a dead end.

The 3 a.m. phone will be an instant replay followed by ...



"Honorable"?????

Relevance?

In 1993 she was the "health care" know-it-all who failed.

Schumer is laying the ground work for Hillary. His (and her) problem is when she signed on to be the SOS she became a part of the Team Disaster. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm curious as to why Hillary even accepted the appointment to become Secretary of State. Did she fear that she would have been considered not to be a party "team player" if she had declined? And could she perhaps have thought that perception might be damaging enough to outweigh the risks inherent in her new position? Or maybe she just thought the "broadened set of accomplishments" would make her even more appealing as a future presidential candidate?

Seems to me that staying in the Senate would have been far and away the safer course if she wanted to maintain maximum viability as a presidential candidate. As a senator, at least she might have a chance to be partially absolved of blame if she voted for something that turned out badly (such as an ill-considered military undertaking), as long as a lot of other party notables did the same. Then, for what it's worth, she'd likely have a fair shot at not having anything go embarrassingly and spectacularly awry.

But as SOS, she owns the whole foreign policy ball game. If something gets fucked up, she's hanging out there almost all alone. Of course, she could always try to blame the prez. But then there's this inconvenient and obvious little question: "Madame Secretary, just exactly whom did the president rely on for his foreign policy advice?"

It's difficult enough for a highly competent person not to fuck anything up while serving as Secretary of State. But for someone who's gaffe-prone and mistake-prone, well ...

I'm curious as to why Hillary even accepted the appointment to become Secretary of State... Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

After her "brain problem" if we ever had a chance to know, it was lost, I'm sure, just like the shoe boxes full of cancelled checks she couldn't find in her closet at the White House that were subpoenaed in the Arkansas financial scandal she dodged.

If I had to guess ... ego ...spelled ... EGO ...But from her lame-ass perspective: (1) Staying "relevant" (2) Staying in the "lime light" (3) Building her resume.

I suspect Bill encouraged it to keep her busy and out of town. I also suspect she failed to read any history to determine whether or not the SOS was a "stepping stone" to the Ovary Office. Bill's coattails are only so long.

Her Senate credentials are not good, and I don't think they would have improved. She would have had to vote WITH the Democrats or risk them abandoning her in 2016. She may have also underestimated the depth of her boss's obliviousness to reality, except to follow the principle of "keeping his enemies close."

She didn't get elected to the Senate for being brilliant, nor appointed to the SOS.

She just Bill's wife. Laura Bush or even Michelle Obama have a better chance IMO.

Her experience: Military: Dodging sniper fire on the tarmac. Security: Loosing cancelled checks in shoe boxes in her closet. Domestic/Healthcare: Failed effort to get health care passed in the early 90's. ForeignPolicy: "What difference does it make?" BudgetBalancing: I'm broke. Rallying the Democratic Party to Victory: 2014.

In late summer of 2009, during the period wherein health care reform was being sold to the public, Obama gave a prime-time speech to try to get the ball rolling.

As I sat down to watch, I hoped that he would set forth some sort of plan that would at least deal appropriately with the predations of those parties responding to all the perverse incentives that have long existed. Simply allowing the continuation of the status quo ante was clearly unacceptable. But given the fact that just six months earlier, he had enabled congress to cram through -- on a party-line vote -- an $850 billion, ill-considered mishmash of a "stimulus package," I didn't feel that I should have had high hopes.

And that feeling was clearly warranted. At the end of the speech, I asked myself, "What the fuck did he really just say? And what does he really intend to do, other than punt the ball to congress and hope for the best?"

Unless you count simplistic platitudes, patently false claims, and contradictory statements, he really didn't say very much.

From that point forward, I had an abiding feeling that this effort wasn't likely to go very well.