Remember how when Conservative President George W. Bush and Congress passed the UNFUNDED Medicare Part D legislation and how the roll-out went all FUBAR and how the conservative blogs and media screamed bloody hell about the Bush administration's incompetence?
No. Neither do I.
But that's because today we live in hyper-partisan political age, and because the hyenas at FAUX NOOZ and other conservative media outlets play up anything that can get their easily manipulated followers a reason to throw tantrums AND forget about what their own politicians and president did in the very, very recent past. But the fact is that the unfunded Medicare Part D, which contributed to a $15.5 trillion deficit, was passed by a conservative president and congress, and no one witnessed people dressed in 18th century costumes with tea bags dangling from their hats and carrying yellow flags marching in the streets and bellowing on the teevee because their FREEDOMS WERE BEING TAKEN AWAY!
I wonder where those same people who meekly accepted all of the above were when all of that happened? But see, it's "soshallism" only when a liberal passes legislation; when a conservative president passes legislation that increases the deficit, that's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
29 comments:
No, it's socialism (oops, forgot to spell it southern redneck) anytime such government mandated laws are passed and forced on the population.
Politics, and I suppose you could say a bit of willful blindness, is responsible for the difference between then and now.
It's becoming tiring. Really.
But it will continue, unabated.
Yawn...
Welcome to the Conservative Tea Party movement. There's no need for me to explain any further .
Just read and you will see that it's more dumbassery by dumb EXTREMIST conservatives.
Thanks Shaw for proving what EXTREMIST Conservative Idiots are like.
These people have shown us all just how the atypical Conservative thinks,
Hey Shaw,
I love this post. This out-does your others by 100%. It's now my favorite post on the extremes in the TeaPublican Party. Go Shaw!!!!
Les, Les, Les... I love ya man, you bring some balance and have even been critical of the current crop of conservatives.
But the continued labeling of Washington policies as Socialism is not accurate. Apart from the label, which frequently ends up being the locus of discussion, as opposed to the issue, the prime question becomes this...
Should we have a national standard on anything?
It seems to me that the Feds, and most of America, made that decision in the Civil Rights Era, pushing aside the states rights argument in favor of a muscular federal presence that can bring some consistency.
Seeking to bring some order across our 50 states is not socialism, it's good management.
Can you give me the logic of 50 different states all having different health care standards. How does the average person who chooses to move navigate that?
It's the same with gay marriage. If you are married in California, why are you not married in Wyoming? Doesn't this approach, in such a pluralistic country, lead to a disastrous patchwork of policies?
Couldn't someone argue that without a muscular fed,elected by the people across the country, essentially keeps what would become rogue states in line?
I may not agree with every policy my government passes, indeed I don't, but it seems to me, in some areas of life, especially in a mobile society, we need some uniformity, not 50 individual laboratories, as conservatives desire.
Shaw... web site issues aside, the biggest hit President Obama is taking is on the issue of people losing their current policies.
Whether or not those policies are any good is not germane. What matters is that the president said they, and anyone else who liked their policy could keep their policy.
I resent his defenders on the morning shows and elsewhere mocking people who bring that up and saying this is only a small fraction of people.
The fact is he knew when he said it, it was not accurate. Or, that the requirements would be so tight that few would qualify to keep their current policies.
He purposely advanced an untrue argument for political gain.
This from a president who promised to shoot straight with people and change the culture of Washington.
It's a shame because from I have seen, the product is great, at least for me and others I know...
In regards to the "socialism" charge... what's wrong with socialism? I think we need more of it. Socialism is when the government works on behalf of the people (instead of the Billionaires). Socialism is a good thing (as long as you don't go too far... as is the case with anything).
Also, there was no "forcing" as claimed above. The voters elected their representatives and the representatives acted on behalf of those who elected them. That's democracy and has nothing to do with "forcing". If the people were "forced" their recourse was to vote in representatives who would repeal the law (voting for Mitt Romney plus a few more Repub Senators) and the "forcing" could have been taken care of... but the people didn't do that (proof positive there was no "forcing").
In regards to the topic of this post... I am in complete agreement. Problems with the roll out should have been expected (it's a big program and there are always problems with big programs). They will be fixed.
Also, in regards to the assertion that president Obama "purposely advanced an untrue argument for political gain". From what I've heard the policies that are being cancelled are junk policies (the coverage is a joke) and they are a tiny percentage. The policies being cancelled didn't have anything to do with the regulations being "so tight".
According to the administration "people whose policies will be canceled will, in most cases, be automatically shifted to plans with better protections". So, although there is truth to what Dave Miller says, the fact is these crappy plans should never have been allowed to exist to begin with... and Obama perhaps should have made that case, but probably figured (correctly) that the Republicans would hay of the issue (and would be listened to).
What we're really talking about is the administration doing (or not doing something) "for political reasons" to counter what they KNEW the Repubs would do for political reasons. I'm not bent out of shape over it.
People who have shit policies should lose them. They only cost the rest of us more money when they cannot pay for their healthcare services because they are not covered or they can't afford their co-pays.
Dave. I shall not argue your point, with the small matter of the Constitution which I believe says somethig to the effect powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. It is clear many of the founders were concerned with a too powerful federal government. While much has changed as the nation has grown in size and complexity it remains wise to maintain a heathly suspicion of power
IMO the USA has elements of socialism and has for years. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment Ins., etc. and now ACA. I am not saying all these things are bad in principle and acknowledge the reasoning behind them was directed by admirable desires to improve the life of many. I think we both know the ACA is the first phase of the progressives desire and goal of single payer government controlled universal cradle to grave healthcare. Obama
and the ACA are the ice breakers.
Waiting to see 10, 20, 25 years from now how it will have skaken out. When the website is actually functioning as it is supposed to I'll be checking it out since I have no employer subsidized health insure now being self employed with a small retirement income from my former employer.
Part of the challenges and fun of life it figuring out how to best respond to ever changing times and circumstances. Something many conservatives and tea party folks struggle with. Or perhaps it is fear of the unknown?
Anyway, nothing is ever as obvious as it often appears. To either side.
Not surprising but yes, I was completely unaware of the problems.
Somehow a major change in health coverage is supposed to be implemented with no glitches.
Good dig, Shaw.
Dave you are absolutely right. I share the same resentment.
To many (perhaps most) he lied. A huge liability and I believe why his approval rating has experienced a significant drop That and to a lesser degree a poor rollout.
RN, let's get this straight. Much of America has a goal to see that citizens have access to health coverage they can afford.
Now, that is difficult and there will be problems and contradictions.
One of those problems is Libertarians who do not realize that the market has screwed the pooch and is more often than not a part of the problem.
It is foolish to assume we can achieve the goal without government involvement for the benefit of the citizenry.
Remember the days when health insurers were nonprofit? You get my point.
I'm afraid I just can't go along with the belief that President Obama DELIBERATELY lied about "keeping your plan." I do, however, believe that he meant A MAJORITY would be able to keep their plans. He certainly made a huge mistake by not qualifying that statement. And now he's paying the price, since his enemies are hammering him on this.
He was WRONG when he did that.
Let me ask you this: Is President Obama's big blunder in not qualifying his statement worse than what President Bush said when he warned America that we shouldn't wait until "a smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud?"
That certainly was a huge exaggeration in what Saddam was going to do, and the result of saying those words to the American people was that we were entangled in a war for ten years that cost hundreds and thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
I'm not saying this to excuse Mr. Obama, but to differentiate between a lie that got us into war and killed countless people, and a statement that should have been qualified by President Obama. In fact, as has been widely reported, a very small percentage will lose their current health plans because THEY ARE INADEQUATE, and those people will have to insure themselves so that they are covered and other people don't have to pick up the cost of their under-insured coverage.
I am not excusing President Obama or the people in his administration who did not catch this very avoidable mistake. He should have explained more thoroughly why some people would lose their coverage.
He's paying the price for not being more honest about this part of the health care bill.
But in the realm of presidential policies and politics, what he FAILED to say doesn't compare one iota to what George W. Bush DID say to convince the United States and its allies that we should attack Iraq.
I'm guessing no one will die from Mr. Obama's misstatement--in fact it's a good bet many lives will be saved because a better health care plan was mandated.
RN, we disagree here on universal health care. It is not "cradle to grave" socialism. It's what advanced societies do for their citizens. We are the ONLY advanced country that has been fighting against universal health care coverage.
\
The insurance companies are in business to make profits for their shareholders off of the lives of their insureds. I find that immoral.
Can you explain to us why a country with as huge a population as the U.S. shouldn't use that population as a pool to keep health care costs low? Or why you think no country should deliver health care to its citizens.
You do know that how we dealt with it before the A.C.A. was not only unsustainable, but that way actually cost people their lives.
Since the conservatives/libertarians did not put up a plan of their own, why are they complaining now?
"Remember the days when health insurers were nonprofit? You get my point."
Ducky... No. I get your point.
You on the other hand...
i would add, what is wrong with cradle to grave health care, paid for by a combination of our taxes and our salaries?
We all need to at least occasionally see a doctor and why should we expect someone else to cover our expenses if we face a catastrophic illness?
Jerry hit it... those tin policies suck and I am sure few of those people that hold them have the financial ability to cover a year of chemo should they get cancer.
Would not the responsible thing, dare i say conservative thing, to do be to have a policy that covers these potentialities?
The conservatives/GOP/Tea Party fume about liberals not accepting personal responsibility so us Dems legislate it and even mandate it, and then they complain.
How do win with this group?
Anyone have an answer?
Shaw, as for Obama and his statement, maybe if he, or his people just said he screwed up instead of their weasel explanations, it would not seem so bad...
At least to me...
Yes, Dave, they should have acknowledged that they made a big mistake. But in the whole scheme of things, what they did was not as bad as what Bush & Company did. Yet, I'm pretty sure the conservatives and the libertarians voted for Bush for a second term instead of for Kerry. IOW, they didn't think his lie about the mushroom cloud was that big of a deal.
Partisanship doth make cowards of us all.
Dave Miller - "How do win with this group."
You don't win. Their object is to obstruct and prevent government from working. You destroy, like Democrats have done to republicans in California. Republicans have no power. Democrats have achieved a super majority and effectively neutered the republicans. Republicans are irrelevant in state politics.
And guess what? CA has a balanced budget and has erased a multi-billion dollar deficit. All that was required was to get republicans out of the way.
Dave, in exchange for a small premium the tin policies cover some in patient and they cover some of the cost of an office visit.
They don't generally cover out patient or much of the cost of prescription drugs.
You are very exposed to a catastrophic bankrupting event.
I would like to see a cost/benefit comparison for those policies versus a bronze plan from an exchange.
I bet the exchange offers a whole lot more coverage for a reasonable premium increase.
The Most Insufferable Wingnut in the World November 3, 2013 at 4:44:00 PM EST
And those brainwashed delusional Obamanut sheep keep saying “I'm afraid I just can't go along with the belief that President Obama DELIBERATELY lied about "keeping your plan."
Gee, what a surprise. The Progressive bloggers who keep on defending Obama's lies and failures are at it again .
That my friends is Mutant Ninja Turtlery!
Jerry, perhaps you could show us a link to verifiable data supporting your statement CA has a balanced budget. What I have seen does not do so.Thanks in advance.
How many people were affected by the Medicare D rollout FUBAR? I don't mean dollars and cents. I mean individuals who couldn't get signed up in time to avoid the penalty.
To answer you question, Incognito, I found this on Medicare dot gov website:
What's the Part D late enrollment penalty?
The late enrollment penalty is an amount added to your Medicare Part D premium. You may owe a late enrollment penalty if, at any time after your initial enrollment period is over, there's a period of 63 or more days in a row when you don't have Part D or other creditable prescription drug coverage. Learn how to avoid the late enrollment penalty.
How much is the Part D penalty?
The cost of the late enrollment penalty depends on how long you went without creditable prescription drug coverage.
The late enrollment penalty is calculated by multiplying 1% of the "national base beneficiary premium" ($32.42 in 2014; $31.17 in 2013) times the number of full, uncovered months you were eligible but didn't join a Medicare Prescription Drug Plan and went without other creditable prescription drug coverage. The final amount is rounded to the nearest $.10 and added to your monthly premium.
The national base beneficiary premium may increase each year, so the penalty amount may also increase each year.
Here are the facts on the A.C.A. penalty:
The tax penalties go into effect in 2014, which means, if you’re uninsured for more than three months in 2014, you may incur the tax penalty and that penalty would be applied when you file your 2014 income tax return.
If you don’t qualify for an exemption to the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to purchase qualifying health coverage, then you will be subject to a tax penalty.
The penalty is phased-in over a three year period.
In 2014, the penalty will be the greater of 1.0% of taxable income or $95 per adult and $47.50 per child (up to $285 per family).
In 2015, the penalty will be the greater of 2.0% of taxable income or $325 per adult and $162.50 per child (up to $975 per family).
In 2016, the penalty will be at the greater of 2.5% of taxable income or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child (up to $$2,085 per family).
After 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the increase to the cost-of-living.
Households with incomes above 400% of FPL will be exempt from paying tax penalties if insurance in their area costs more than 8% of their taxable income, after taking into account employer contributions or tax credits.
People will be able to apply for exemptions to the tax penalty.
Shaw Kenawe,
Thanks for your response.
But what I was trying to find out is how many people early on could not sign up for Medicare D because the rollout was such a failure?
It is my understanding that the subsidies for the ACA are unavailable except through the exchanges, which so far aren't working well at all.
I saw this today at ABC News, and it's not a good sign:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/obamacare-paper-phone-web-apps-stuck-in-the-same-queue-memos-note/
"Obamacare Paper, Phone, Web Apps ‘Stuck in the Same Queue,’ Memos Note"
I am a person who might benefit from the exchanges. But I have to be able to access the exchanges! Otherwise I'm in serious trouble if the policy I have right now is nulled.
The Semi-Final’s sole existence is displacing A Musical.
On the other hound, she said that she “had no clematis”, I guess that no one told her any swig about it. “A GIN!”
Chuckle Chuckle Chuckle!
Oprah thinks that Penelope will believe anything she spits on things.
Yes, I am a Mad Hatter.
Our groaning miscalculating pigeons have turned me into a Mad Hatter!
Chuckle! Chuckle! Chuckle!
Isn't it a little early to be hitting the bottle Sensitive Skin...For Your Eyes Only?
RN,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/california-lawmakers-pass-96-3-billion-brown-budget.html
Hey!!! If you don't like it, then vote republican in the next election. Then you will find out what being screwed is all about...unless you are a billionaire.
Always
"The difference? A 120% increase in premiums, and a marked increase in deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pockets!! For The Same Coverage."
Quit the crybaby tantrum. Of course your rates are going to go up. Who do you think is going to pay for ACA subsidies. Just to help you out with an answer, The Middle Class.
Now quit crying and get work so others don't have to.
Post a Comment