health insurance has been going up since the 1990's. the whole reason the ACA was needed.
it was a self defeating circle. rates climb. people fall out pool shrinks rates climb etc etc
but - the ACA is just a sloppy band-aid. the real problem is Health Insurance. the whole concept is screwed. and the ACA just props up the failed system.
just picture how bad rates would be with a smaller pool of enrollies as before. cry all ya like - its better than it would have if left alone. and it still sucks.
just picture how bad rates would be with a smaller pool of enrollies as before. cry all ya like - its better than it would have if left alone. and it still sucks.
Rates climb. They have never come close to climbing 35-40% in a year
So if they left it alone, it may have climbed 7-10%. They didn't and it climbed 35-40%. How is that better than if they would have left it alone?
it was a self defeating circle. rates climb. people fall out pool shrinks rates climb etc etc
In the insurance industry the phenomenon is cynically known as a "death spiral":
1) An insurance company charters a risk pool; only healthy people can join; premium rates are low 2) Many healthy people join the pool, attracted by low rates; claims are virtually nonexistent at first; premiums remain low 3) Some pool members are injured or eventually get sick; they file claims 4) Company raises premiums based on claim history 5) Healthy members find cheaper coverage available in another (usually new) pool 6) Company raises premiums based on smaller number of members left in pool 7) Some members, healthy or not, drop out because they can no longer afford coverage 8) Company raises premiums based on smaller number of members left in pool 9) Go to 3
Eventually the only members left in the pool are the very sick and/or those who can't obtain insurance elsewhere at any price. If the pool charter does not include a (rare) guaranteed-renewable provision, the insurance company dissolves the pool because it is no longer viable or profitable. The death spiral is complete. Those with pre-existing conditions ... virtually everybody who's left ... remain uninsured, because no company will insure them.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe:
Rates climb. They have never come close to climbing 35-40% in a year
Don't presume to tell me "never." In the early 1990s my private excess-major-medical health insurance plan entered a death spiral. FWIW, I was healthy enough at the time to hold a 2nd class pilot's medical certificate from the FAA, there were no unusual risk factors in my health history, and I had filed no insurance claims in the previous three years. But in just one year my premium (coverage for just myself) skyrocketed from less than $300 to more than $800 a month ... a one-year increase of at least 167%. I was one of the lucky ones; I was able to find health insurance elsewhere at reasonable rates.
(I will agree with you, though, that a 167% premium increase does not come close to "climbing 35-40% in a year.")
Also FWIW, premiums for my current health insurance plan, which has a large and stable risk pool, have remained essentially flat for the past two years. My premiums right now are actually somewhat lower than two years ago, primarily due to slightly increased deductibles and copays. This year's renewal may be different, but I won't know that until October.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-14-2014).]
Also FWIW, premiums for my current health insurance plan, which has a very large risk pool, have remained essentially flat for the past two years. My premiums right now are actually somewhat lower than two years ago, primarily due to slightly increased deductibles and copays. This year's renewal may be different, but I won't know that until October.
So did you really think that I was specifically making that comment to you individually, or to any individual here, and not speaking on the health insurance increases nationally as a whole?
Did we not all know that when Obama was talking about $2,400 less per year in premiums for a family, that he wasn't speaking about each and every individual family, but statistically as a whole?
So again, individually, your premium may stay the same for now. Eventually, I would have a hard time understanding why it wouldn't catch up to your situation and make a huge jump upward. Obviously, I hope it doesn't. But there are eventualities that were created by Obama and the democrats in the government.
So did you really think that I was specifically making that comment to you individually, or to any individual here, and not speaking on the health insurance increases nationally as a whole?
You are the one who chose to use the word "never" ... even chose to emphasize it. By the way, I agree with you that 35 to 40% annual increases in health care costs, and health insurance premiums, are outrageous and unsustainable. It's not that we're not spending enough on health care already, we're just not spending it wisely.
quote
But there are eventualities that were created by Obama and the democrats in the government.
In case you overlooked it, my "death spiral" experience was in the early 90s ... long before "Obama and the democrats in government" got involved. IMO, the fundamental problem is the business model of the current health care and health care insurance systems in the U.S. "Managed Care" systems promoted by the insurance companies and millions of indigent people receving most (or all) their health care at hospital emergency rooms, as just two examples, were grossly distorting health care economics decades before the ACA was even proposed.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 08-16-2014).]
Originally posted by Boondawg: Each mans vote is sacred. And not of anyone's business, comment, approval or disapproval.
Any American that gets out and votes for who they think is best for the job can in no way possibly waste their vote. The only wasted vote is the one never made.
My vote may not be wasted when it is cast, but you can bet your bottom dollar those who are currently in power who are working to dilute the voting poll by letting all the illegals stream in across the border are doing their level best to make my vote count for less (of course, only after those illegals are given voting rights - which I am sure will eventually happen).
Soon, only illegals or guaranteed voters will be eligible to vote.
The ACA wasn't needed. It is a contradiction of terms, and remains an outright lie. With all the known info causing the aforementioned ”death spiral”, how was ANYONE stupid enough to fall for this?
Yes, some situations weren't ideal, but why should I be required to pay for someone else's decisions? I'm referring to abortions, birth control, health issues resulting from smoking, drinking, drugs, and sleeping around.
First of all, anyone on the public dole should lose voting priveledges. Since these people can't take care of themselves and seem to want birth control funding, their sex organs can be removed. Should cut down on single parents, HIV/AIDS, unwanted children, the endless growing cycle of useless people, and criminals.
Secondly, only property owners should get to vote. Renters don't add value. They detract. No vote. Section 8 = no vote.
Soon, only illegals or guaranteed voters will be eligible to vote.
The ACA wasn't needed. It is a contradiction of terms, and remains an outright lie. With all the known info causing the aforementioned ”death spiral”, how was ANYONE stupid enough to fall for this?
Yes, some situations weren't ideal, but why should I be required to pay for someone else's decisions? I'm referring to abortions, birth control, health issues resulting from smoking, drinking, drugs, and sleeping around.
First of all, anyone on the public dole should lose voting priveledges. Since these people can't take care of themselves and seem to want birth control funding, their sex organs can be removed. Should cut down on single parents, HIV/AIDS, unwanted children, the endless growing cycle of useless people, and criminals.
Secondly, only property owners should get to vote. Renters don't add value. They detract. No vote. Section 8 = no vote.
Issues should clear up quickly.
I think you should extend your "sex organs removed" to teenagers as well.
I mean, you already have 96% of the country getting their "sex organs removed"...... And that's the number of people who have received Government assistance and "couldn't take care of themselves." as you so elegantly put it. Why not just go after all the people who don't vote with a certain party? That should clear it up pretty quickly. I'm still for removal of all teenagers though. They are the #1 cause of teen pregnancy!
Soon, only illegals or guaranteed voters will be eligible to vote.
The ACA wasn't needed. It is a contradiction of terms, and remains an outright lie. With all the known info causing the aforementioned ”death spiral”, how was ANYONE stupid enough to fall for this?
Yes, some situations weren't ideal, but why should I be required to pay for someone else's decisions? I'm referring to abortions, birth control, health issues resulting from smoking, drinking, drugs, and sleeping around.
First of all, anyone on the public dole should lose voting priveledges. Since these people can't take care of themselves and seem to want birth control funding, their sex organs can be removed. Should cut down on single parents, HIV/AIDS, unwanted children, the endless growing cycle of useless people, and criminals.
Secondly, only property owners should get to vote. Renters don't add value. They detract. No vote. Section 8 = no vote.
Issues should clear up quickly.
There are so many things wrong with the above idea (is that what it is?) that I will just say that 9 out of 10 tyrants probably agree with you.
P.S. And I'm a believer in Personal Responsibility.
Soon, only illegals or guaranteed voters will be eligible to vote.
The ACA wasn't needed. It is a contradiction of terms, and remains an outright lie. With all the known info causing the aforementioned ”death spiral”, how was ANYONE stupid enough to fall for this?
Yes, some situations weren't ideal, but why should I be required to pay for someone else's decisions? I'm referring to abortions, birth control, health issues resulting from smoking, drinking, drugs, and sleeping around.
First of all, anyone on the public dole should lose voting priveledges. Since these people can't take care of themselves and seem to want birth control funding, their sex organs can be removed. Should cut down on single parents, HIV/AIDS, unwanted children, the endless growing cycle of useless people, and criminals.
Secondly, only property owners should get to vote. Renters don't add value. They detract. No vote. Section 8 = no vote.
Issues should clear up quickly.
Maybe a bit exaggerated but "useless" will get people going around here. I think the system is out of balance as it stands.
I think you should extend your "sex organs removed" to teenagers as well.
I mean, you already have 96% of the country getting their "sex organs removed"...... And that's the number of people who have received Government assistance and "couldn't take care of themselves." as you so elegantly put it. Why not just go after all the people who don't vote with a certain party? That should clear it up pretty quickly. I'm still for removal of all teenagers though. They are the #1 cause of teen pregnancy!
Brad
No. There are 2 involved for a pregnancy. Unfortunately, not aleays both teens.
96%? Either your numbers are way wrong, or you're telling my that 96% of the country is is on the public dole. Do 96% of Americans just waste their day away on my dime? I doubt it. But at least, after the first few examples, they wouldn't be creating more of their kind.
There are so many things wrong with the above idea (is that what it is?) that I will just say that 9 out of 10 tyrants probably agree with you.
P.S. And I'm a believer in Personal Responsibility.
Yes, horrible, isn't it? Some people have no responsibility, hence they're on the public dole. When they make me pay, they make me responsible. If this is what they want, I am not going to jail them on my $, so other measures must be taken. No one wants this, but something must be done. People who can't live responsibly will lose their choices. I just don't want to get sucked down the hole they're creating with them.
Maybe a bit exaggerated but "useless" will get people going around here. I think the system is out of balance as it stands.
Perhaps useless is a bit harsh, but I was looking for a descriptive word for someone whose life is as follows: 1. Do not work. Ever. 2. Collect money from the government for food, housing, necessities. 3. Steal 4. Get hair/nails done 5. Get gold tooth 6. Have sex as often as possible, with as many people as possible 7. Leave trash everywhere 8. Blame others for your condition 9. Do not take care of anything 10. Try to make everything a race issue 11. Watch TV all day
What word do you have for this? Perhaps ”public nuisance” or ”wastrel” would have been better.
Soon, only illegals or guaranteed voters will be eligible to vote.
The ACA wasn't needed. It is a contradiction of terms, and remains an outright lie. With all the known info causing the aforementioned ”death spiral”, how was ANYONE stupid enough to fall for this?
Yes, some situations weren't ideal, but why should I be required to pay for someone else's decisions? I'm referring to abortions, birth control, health issues resulting from smoking, drinking, drugs, and sleeping around.
First of all, anyone on the public dole should lose voting priveledges. Since these people can't take care of themselves and seem to want birth control funding, their sex organs can be removed. Should cut down on single parents, HIV/AIDS, unwanted children, the endless growing cycle of useless people, and criminals.
Secondly, only property owners should get to vote. Renters don't add value. They detract. No vote. Section 8 = no vote.
Issues should clear up quickly.
wow... I hope you or someone you care about never falls on hard times. wow...
Where are you getting your 35-40% numbers? One person, with one quote from his insurance agent? Maybe the guy was paying too little and the insurance company finally said "hey, we are losing money on this plan". Maybe the insurance carrier had a bad year and paid out too much.... maybe they were just a bad company. You don't know the circumstances, but you attribute it to the ACA directly for some reason.
As for the news, I have read articles of people paying more and people paying less. So, yes, they are reporting it. I don't know where you get your news, but I have heard both sides. So, don't tell me that the news isn't doing their job. They are, if "you" choose to get news from various sources.
I give government feedback with my vote. I am also watching the performance of ACA to see how it is progressing. It is slowly catching on and expanding. Unlike you, I don't expect 40 M people to signup overnight. Humans by nature are slow to do much, so it will take time. I would like to see what happens in 3-5 years, as that would be a better indication of the success or failure of the program. I remember when Canada was up in arms about their healthcare program and how it was going to destroy the industry. Hmmm, seems to be working, I hear less and less complaints and I also hear how wait times are not an issue and more doctors are being hired, etc... (based on Canadians and Canadian news, which is available because I live on a border town).
BTW, anyone want to comment on the success of ACA in Kentucky? Oh wait, I know... it is only successful with the poor and lazy... right? (hard to read)
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: The 43% increase in premiums was for the same coverage, not any increase in coverage.
I just talked to a patient of mine who is a business owner 2 patients ago. His insurance agent told him it would cost 38% more to provide the exact same coverage next year.
Regarding the republicans not out to solve any problems, well, here is how bad the democrat and Obama performance was. Had they not been able to solve anything, and things had gone on as they would, premiums would have gone up 7-10% for the same coverage instead of the 35-40% the democrat "solution" was.
Regarding it being 5 million, that was the estimate that I had heard. You pointed out it was more like 10 million. At least according to HHS. OK. We'll go with 10 million. Yeah! You hit 25% of your target instead of 10%. You epic failure was a little less epic, yet still craptacularly epic.
So we get back to the fundamental issue.
Obama said repeatedly that his plan would REDUCE insurance premiums on average $2,400 per year per family. It is up 35-40%. His estimate is that 40 million more would be insured. It is 10 million (your and HHS numbers. Fine). Do you find this level of government performance, no matter who is doing it, acceptable? Is this the type of government and execution we should just sit and tolerate? Do you believe when the government misses its own projections by this degree, they should have to answer the American public about it?
If the news was doing their job, they would have provided coverage of person after person who wound up paying several hundred more dollars per month for a policy that was substantially worse coverage than what they had. There were some stories about that in the news, but not nearly the constant drum beat it could have been, and would have been if a republican had been at the head of this horrendous performance.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: BTW, anyone want to comment on the success of ACA in Kentucky? Oh wait, I know... it is only successful with the poor and lazy... right? (hard to read)
Where are you getting your numbers? Do you have a link to the original MSNBC article or better yet, the data they used?
I don't doubt there will be some who benefit from the ACA. There are some who benefit from no border security, but I don't think it's a good idea. Solyndra benefitted from government money, but I don't think that was a good idea, either.
When looking at the big picture, are we getting the results we were told to expect? No. Not by a long shot.
You don't know the circumstances, but you attribute it to the ACA directly for some reason.
As for the news, I have read articles of people paying more and people paying less. So, yes, they are reporting it.
I give government feedback with my vote. I am also watching the performance of ACA to see how it is progressing. It is slowly catching on and expanding. Unlike you, I don't expect 40 M people to signup overnight. Humans by nature are slow to do much, so it will take time.
I don't know what the ultimate average percentage increase is going to be. Regarding attributing it to the ACA, well that isn't even difficult to figure out. We know historically what the increase per year has been, and know what the estimates have been. When that is pretty well established, and then ACA comes out, and there is an approximately 3 to 4 times larger percentage increase than historical, you know it is due to the ACA.
I attributed it to ACA "for some reason". I just gave you the obviously well known reason. The more interesting question is, since the answer is so blatantly obvious, why would you or anyone else not attribute it to the ACA? How could it be, that for some reason, you don't attribute the rise to the ACA? Regarding the news reporting incidences of less and incidences of more, I just said that they did. What? To you, that absolves them? Much of what the media does now is via emphasis. Story after story after story of something to put it out of proportion. Or in this case, not report on it as often to de-emphasize it.
Like you. And your paltry response. You vote in response to government performance. That's a good start. When they epically fail in their performance, that's it? That's all you have? And yeah, like you are going to vote for a different party than the ones unilaterally and solely responsible for this debacle.
Since you apparently haven't figured out your civic duty, you could also be calling them repeatedly (figuratively) screaming at them for their horrendous performance.
"I would like to see what happens in 3-5 years". What???
You haven't already seen enough evidence in their performance?
Uh, remember the website? That wasn't "a glitch". "A hiccup." "Understandable growing pains." That was an utter and abject debacle.
You should have been calling the offices of the people you voted for that voted in this abomination, demanding that heads roll for having 3 years to get a functional website, and having spent billions of dollars, and it didn't only not work, it was a horrible failure.
You should have been calling screaming at them for making a system where it was required that they have access to all kinds of your personal data, and after 3 years, they couldn't ensure the safety and integrity of your personal data. Putting you (if you signed up) and everyone that signed up for it at personal risk. And I wasn't the one that put out what their goal was and what their expectations were. You don't get to portray me as imposing unrealistic expectations on them. They were the ones that told us what their expectations were, not me. I never imposed on them that premiums would go down $2400/yr for the average family, either. I and others actually warned repeatedly that those were entirely unrealistic, fantasy expectations. And Obama repeatedly stuck to that number. These aren't debatable perspectives. This is the actual reality of their performance. And for that performance level, your tact is "...I would like to see what happens in 3-5 years..."?
That is what my question was. When someone is that complete of a failure in their performance of their projections, how in the world do you give people that perform like that 3 to 5 more years?
There is not a single business in the world (with maybe the possible exception of GM, now that I think about it) that would give management that underperforms to that degree, 3-5 years to see what happens.
If you had your own money invested in a business that performed at the level of the current administration, would you give them 3-5 more years? I mean, even if you agreed with the plan in concept, you wouldn't throw those bums out and get some people in there that could actually execute the concept?
Regarding anyone wanting to comment on the "success" of ACA in Kentucky, well, sure.
1. You selected one of the top 5 states, if not the number 1 state. 2. Even one of the best states didn't quite even get to 1/2 of their uninsured on insurance. 3. According to Kentucky's website: 413,410 are newly insured this year and 640,000 are still not. 4. Of the 413,310, only 82,795 actually bought insurance from the ACA. (20%) 5. 330,615 of the 413,310 were added to the ranks of the insured by going on medicaid Regarding the medicaid plan, Kentucky taxpayers used to pay 29% of the cost before ACA, and the federal government "paid" for 71%. Well, actually U.S. taxpayers paid 71%, since the federal government actually doesn't have any money.
In order to try to induce states to expand medicaid, the ACA will have the federal government (aka they will tax citizens) pay 100% of the medicaid cost. That will be for 2014 to 2016. Why that time frame? I don't know. Coincidentally, it matches Obama's term. Prrrrobabllly just coincidental. Then it goes to 90%
So hurray? Kentucky got about half insured. But all they really did was get 80% of those added onto medicaid, which due to the plan shifts that cost as a tax to taxpayers across the entire country? Well done?
If you are that upset, change the law... or are you just going to "scream" at everyone and tell others what they should be doing? Actions speak louder than words. So, I assume you are running for office this year. You are going to repeal "Obamacare" and set this country on the "correct path". Because someone that is so against something should do everything in their power to fix it.
Cheers!
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe:
I don't know what the ultimate average percentage increase is going to be. Regarding attributing it to the ACA, well that isn't even difficult to figure out. We know historically what the increase per year has been, and know what the estimates have been. When that is pretty well established, and then ACA comes out, and there is an approximately 3 to 4 times larger percentage increase than historical, you know it is due to the ACA.
I attributed it to ACA "for some reason". I just gave you the obviously well known reason. The more interesting question is, since the answer is so blatantly obvious, why would you or anyone else not attribute it to the ACA? How could it be, that for some reason, you don't attribute the rise to the ACA? Regarding the news reporting incidences of less and incidences of more, I just said that they did. What? To you, that absolves them? Much of what the media does now is via emphasis. Story after story after story of something to put it out of proportion. Or in this case, not report on it as often to de-emphasize it.
Like you. And your paltry response. You vote in response to government performance. That's a good start. When they epically fail in their performance, that's it? That's all you have? And yeah, like you are going to vote for a different party than the ones unilaterally and solely responsible for this debacle.
Since you apparently haven't figured out your civic duty, you could also be calling them repeatedly (figuratively) screaming at them for their horrendous performance.
"I would like to see what happens in 3-5 years". What???
You haven't already seen enough evidence in their performance?
Uh, remember the website? That wasn't "a glitch". "A hiccup." "Understandable growing pains." That was an utter and abject debacle.
You should have been calling the offices of the people you voted for that voted in this abomination, demanding that heads roll for having 3 years to get a functional website, and having spent billions of dollars, and it didn't only not work, it was a horrible failure.
You should have been calling screaming at them for making a system where it was required that they have access to all kinds of your personal data, and after 3 years, they couldn't ensure the safety and integrity of your personal data. Putting you (if you signed up) and everyone that signed up for it at personal risk. And I wasn't the one that put out what their goal was and what their expectations were. You don't get to portray me as imposing unrealistic expectations on them. They were the ones that told us what their expectations were, not me. I never imposed on them that premiums would go down $2400/yr for the average family, either. I and others actually warned repeatedly that those were entirely unrealistic, fantasy expectations. And Obama repeatedly stuck to that number. These aren't debatable perspectives. This is the actual reality of their performance. And for that performance level, your tact is "...I would like to see what happens in 3-5 years..."?
That is what my question was. When someone is that complete of a failure in their performance of their projections, how in the world do you give people that perform like that 3 to 5 more years?
There is not a single business in the world (with maybe the possible exception of GM, now that I think about it) that would give management that underperforms to that degree, 3-5 years to see what happens.
If you had your own money invested in a business that performed at the level of the current administration, would you give them 3-5 more years? I mean, even if you agreed with the plan in concept, you wouldn't throw those bums out and get some people in there that could actually execute the concept?
Regarding anyone wanting to comment on the "success" of ACA in Kentucky, well, sure.
1. You selected one of the top 5 states, if not the number 1 state. 2. Even one of the best states didn't quite even get to 1/2 of their uninsured on insurance. 3. According to Kentucky's website: 413,410 are newly insured this year and 640,000 are still not. 4. Of the 413,310, only 82,795 actually bought insurance from the ACA. (20%) 5. 330,615 of the 413,310 were added to the ranks of the insured by going on medicaid Regarding the medicaid plan, Kentucky taxpayers used to pay 29% of the cost before ACA, and the federal government "paid" for 71%. Well, actually U.S. taxpayers paid 71%, since the federal government actually doesn't have any money.
In order to try to induce states to expand medicaid, the ACA will have the federal government (aka they will tax citizens) pay 100% of the medicaid cost. That will be for 2014 to 2016. Why that time frame? I don't know. Coincidentally, it matches Obama's term. Prrrrobabllly just coincidental. Then it goes to 90%
So hurray? Kentucky got about half insured. But all they really did was get 80% of those added onto medicaid, which due to the plan shifts that cost as a tax to taxpayers across the entire country? Well done?
... But all they really did was get 80% of those added onto medicaid, which due to the plan shifts that cost as a tax to taxpayers across the entire country? Well done?
Originally posted by tshark: No. There are 2 involved for a pregnancy. Unfortunately, not aleays both teens.
96%? Either your numbers are way wrong, or you're telling my that 96% of the country is is on the public dole. Do 96% of Americans just waste their day away on my dime? I doubt it. But at least, after the first few examples, they wouldn't be creating more of their kind.
According to Google 96% of the country have been on some form of Government assistance at some time in their lives. If we follow your plan that means that 96% of the people in the country are not fit to have children.
If you are that upset, change the law... or are you just going to "scream" at everyone and tell others what they should be doing? Actions speak louder than words. So, I assume you are running for office this year. You are going to repeal "Obamacare" and set this country on the "correct path". Because someone that is so against something should do everything in their power to fix it.
What is considered "some form of Government assistance" ?
quote
Originally posted by Fats:
According to Google 96% of the country have been on some form of Government assistance at some time in their lives. If we follow your plan that means that 96% of the people in the country are not fit to have children.
I want people to have responsibility for their actions. If there is no accountability, apparently the general public can't be expected to have responsibility. The LAST thing I want is more government control of my personal life...hence my objection to obamacare. Obamacare is just people willingly giving up control to the government. I object to government control, no matter which party is running thing--and to the fact that I have to add the part about political parties.
Very odd. We have the left the right, and America. The left seems to be for the left, the right for the right, and where does that leave America?
Hmm, I thought you want to sterilize people if they ask their government for help.
quote
Originally posted by tshark:
I want people to have responsibility for their actions. If there is no accountability, apparently the general public can't be expected to have responsibility. The LAST thing I want is more government control of my personal life...hence my objection to obamacare. Obamacare is just people willingly giving up control to the government. I object to government control, no matter which party is running thing--and to the fact that I have to add the part about political parties.
Very odd. We have the left the right, and America. The left seems to be for the left, the right for the right, and where does that leave America?
If you are that upset, change the law... or are you just going to "scream" at everyone and tell others what they should be doing? Actions speak louder than words. So, I assume you are running for office this year. You are going to repeal "Obamacare" and set this country on the "correct path". Because someone that is so against something should do everything in their power to fix it.
Cheers!
I am upset about the Affordable Care Act, because I care about our country, its financial solvency, and about the citizens of the U.S.
But I am that upset because, if we must have the law, then the people (yet again, unilaterally and solely) responsible for the law should execute the law.
When the chief executive, the President, has to make substantial changes to the law over 30 times in the first year of the law, then the law was massively flawed in the first place. When many of the changes to the law constitutionally should be made only by congress, the law making branch, and the President makes the change instead without them, that violates the constitution and should make congress scream. Which the house of representatives did. And could. Because the country did vote the republicans into the majority. Then it would have to be acted on by the senate portion of congress, also. Well, that still should be fine even though the democrats control it. Because they were the ones that unilaterally passed the bill in the first place. And if it is that deeply flawed, then they should vote for fixes to the law. But they have refused to do that. They have sat by and allowed the president to unconstitutionally change the laws.
So, yes, I am telling you. If you voted one of these democrats into the senate, and any democrats into the house of representatives, you should be screaming at them. You should be loudly and repeatedly voicing that, hey, we have this wonderful law and you have executed it miserably. You must do better than this level of incompetence. We the people of the U.S. deserve much better than your performance.
And you should be screaming at them for allowing the constitution to be violated, if you voted for any democrats. You democrats were responsible for the law. You passed it without apparently realizing how flawed it was. You want to change your own law? That is what congress is for. They write the laws. The president doesn't have the authority to disregard the law you passed and unilaterally change it. That is a blatant violation of separation of powers. Congress writes the laws. The president executes them. He doesn't rewrite and change them. Regarding actions speak louder than words, no, I am not running for office. I have an even more meaningful work to do daily. I'm calling my representative and senators. My representative is republican. He is doing the right thing. One of my senators is a republican. Already doing the right thing. One senator is a democrat. I have let her know what is right and what the expectations are. She doesn't care what I think, because she knows I would never vote for her in a 100 lifetimes. The only thing that might make her behavior change is if those that vote for her would call and insist on her following the laws and the constitution.
When we can vote her out, I will do what I can to have that happen. And repeal Obamacare, so that something that might actually work and be financially solvent would actually be tried. So I'm being careful here. I may make a case why ACA is horrible for our country. But I'm not telling anyone they have to agree.
But if someone did vote for those that caused it to be enacted, and are actually for it, then, yes, I am telling you. You have a responsibility to do what you can to make sure that those in charge are making it work the best it can.
You need to be asking them why premiums are going up way higher than what they were before the ACA "fix", and why they aren't actually going down like we were told.
"useless" will get people going around here. I think the system is out of balance as it stands.
