/Pew poll: Health care law faces difficult future

There are 20 comments on the USA Today story from Sep 16, 2013, titled /Pew poll: Health care law faces difficult future. In it, USA Today reports that:

Three years after President Obama signed his signature health care overhaul, Americans are as negative toward it as they have ever been, and disapproval of the president on the issue has reached a new high.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#194 Nov 1, 2013
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>You don't trust a Liberal Bloomberg analyst?
The GAO number is @ 398 million dollars, not final though. Direct cost. Indirect costs may or may not be tallied by the GAO, but they will still increase the actual cost. Just sayin'
I trust the GAO to give unbiased accounting skippy.

Where did you hear bloomberg was liberal anyway? Did faux tell you to think that?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#195 Nov 7, 2013
ActuaIIy wrote:
<quoted text>
I trust the GAO to give unbiased accounting skippy.
Where did you hear bloomberg was liberal anyway? Did faux tell you to think that?
Holy S! batman, that is the funniest effing thing I have read all week! You are joking, right? Bloomberg is the very definition of liberal. The dictionary has a picture of Mayor Bloomberg next to the word liberal. You gotta be kidding.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#196 Nov 7, 2013
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>Holy S! batman, that is the funniest effing thing I have read all week! You are joking, right? Bloomberg is the very definition of liberal. The dictionary has a picture of Mayor Bloomberg next to the word liberal. You gotta be kidding.
So instead of a factual reply to this question:

Where did you hear bloomberg was liberal anyway? Did faux tell you to think that?

You dodge the question. Just saying something is liberal doesn't make it so skippy. No matter how many times you imbeciles repeat yourself.

Do you have anything FACTUAL or SPECIFIC that supports your theory skippy?

yawn

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#197 Nov 7, 2013
ActuaIIy wrote:
<quoted text>
So instead of a factual reply to this question:
Where did you hear bloomberg was liberal anyway? Did faux tell you to think that?
You dodge the question. Just saying something is liberal doesn't make it so skippy. No matter how many times you imbeciles repeat yourself.
Do you have anything FACTUAL or SPECIFIC that supports your theory skippy?
yawn
Fact#1: You are lazy or intellectually dishonest
Fact#2: Wikipedia says " Bloomberg is considered a social liberal, who is pro-choice, in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage and an advocate for stricter gun control laws."
Fact#3: Bloomberg pressed for bans on large soda, salt as only a liberal would.
Fact#4: He is a lifelong Democrat who switched parties temporarily to help him win election, changed the term limits to give himself a 3rd term, liberal.
Fact#5: In January 2011, city schools began a pilot program which allows girls over 14 years old to be provided with Plan B emergency contraception without parental consent, unless parents opt out in writing. Beginning with five schools, the pilot had been expanded to thirteen schools by September 2012. liberal
Fact#6: There are many many more examples to be found all over the place.
His fiscal policy is muddled and mixed, crony capitalism seems to be the norm.
CBOW

East Berlin, PA

#198 Nov 7, 2013
When setting premiums for next year, insurers baked in bigger-than-usual adjustments, driven in large part by a game-changing rule: They can no longer reject people with medical problems.

Popular in consumer polls, the provision in the health law transforms the market for the estimated 14 million Americans who buy their own policies because they don’t get coverage through their jobs. Barred from denying coverage, insurers also can’t demand higher rates from unhealthy people and those deemed high risks because of conditions including obesity, high blood pressure or a previous cancer diagnosis.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#199 Nov 10, 2013
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>Fact#1: You are lazy or intellectually dishonest
Fact#2: Wikipedia says " Bloomberg is considered a social liberal, who is pro-choice, in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage and an advocate for stricter gun control laws."
Fact#3: Bloomberg pressed for bans on large soda, salt as only a liberal would.
Fact#4: He is a lifelong Democrat who switched parties temporarily to help him win election, changed the term limits to give himself a 3rd term, liberal.
Fact#5: In January 2011, city schools began a pilot program which allows girls over 14 years old to be provided with Plan B emergency contraception without parental consent, unless parents opt out in writing. Beginning with five schools, the pilot had been expanded to thirteen schools by September 2012. liberal
Fact#6: There are many many more examples to be found all over the place.
His fiscal policy is muddled and mixed, crony capitalism seems to be the norm.
As usual when asking for facts republitards like you run like typical cowards.

Opinion one....you made the claim dumb azz the burden of proof is upon you so you are the lazy one.

Opinion two No where on the Wiki page does it say anything like your dumb azz claimed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_News
Ignore the rest of your opinions because one and two were false.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#200 Nov 11, 2013
ActuaIIy wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual when asking for facts republitards like you run like typical cowards.
Opinion one....you made the claim dumb azz the burden of proof is upon you so you are the lazy one.
Opinion two No where on the Wiki page does it say anything like your dumb azz claimed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_News
Ignore the rest of your opinions because one and two were false.
Ha! You Liberal Liar! I can share the link for everyone to read, Wiki does in fact say that, word for word, I copied and pasted #2, lol! Bloomberg is considered a social liberal, who is pro-choice, in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage and an advocate for stricter gun control laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomber...
Look under "Elections," my dear twit.
I can show you the facts, but I can not force you to understand them. Anyone with half a brain in this forum would agree Bloomberg is a liberal, even liberals! What do you have to gain by denying it? Oh, just my point about a liberal Bloomberg analyst figured up how the ACA website costs are very very high, the associated costs are going to be over a billion dollars, not rupees or rubles or pesos, dollars. Dollars that this administration is printing at a rabid rate for some reason.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#201 Nov 11, 2013
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>Ha! You Liberal Liar! I can share the link for everyone to read, Wiki does in fact say that, word for word, I copied and pasted #2, lol! Bloomberg is considered a social liberal, who is pro-choice, in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage and an advocate for stricter gun control laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomber...
Look under "Elections," my dear twit.
I can show you the facts, but I can not force you to understand them. Anyone with half a brain in this forum would agree Bloomberg is a liberal, even liberals! What do you have to gain by denying it? Oh, just my point about a liberal Bloomberg analyst figured up how the ACA website costs are very very high, the associated costs are going to be over a billion dollars, not rupees or rubles or pesos, dollars. Dollars that this administration is printing at a rabid rate for some reason.
Hey numnutz are you aware there is a difference between Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg media?
You really aren't very bright skippy.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#202 Nov 11, 2013
ActuaIIy wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey numnutz are you aware there is a difference between Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg media?
You really aren't very bright skippy.
Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial software, data and media company headquartered in New York City. Bloomberg L.P. was founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981 with the help of Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, Charles Zegar[6] and a 30% ownership investment by Merrill Lynch.[7] Bloomberg L.P. provides financial software tools such as an analytics and equity trading platform, data services and news to financial companies and organizations through the Bloomberg terminal (via its Bloomberg Professional Service), its core money-generating product.[8] Bloomberg L.P. also includes a wire service (Bloomberg News), a global television network (Bloomberg Television), a radio station (WBBR), websites, subscription-only newsletters and two magazines: Bloomberg Businessweek and Bloomberg Markets.[9]

So, do you understand any of that? I can try to explain it. Basically, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg runs this media company, so, what kind of direction/bias do you think it will have? Mickey Mouse's bias, or Mikey Bloomberg's? The point is, they reviewed the ACA website cost, and pegged the price tag pretty high, for a website that does not work, and is fundamentally flawed. Can't blame Bush for this one.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#203 Nov 12, 2013
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>Bloomberg L.P. is a privately held financial software, data and media company headquartered in New York City. Bloomberg L.P. was founded by Michael Bloomberg in 1981 with the help of Thomas Secunda, Duncan MacMillan, Charles Zegar[6] and a 30% ownership investment by Merrill Lynch.[7] Bloomberg L.P. provides financial software tools such as an analytics and equity trading platform, data services and news to financial companies and organizations through the Bloomberg terminal (via its Bloomberg Professional Service), its core money-generating product.[8] Bloomberg L.P. also includes a wire service (Bloomberg News), a global television network (Bloomberg Television), a radio station (WBBR), websites, subscription-only newsletters and two magazines: Bloomberg Businessweek and Bloomberg Markets.[9]
So, do you understand any of that? I can try to explain it. Basically, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg runs this media company, so, what kind of direction/bias do you think it will have? Mickey Mouse's bias, or Mikey Bloomberg's? The point is, they reviewed the ACA website cost, and pegged the price tag pretty high, for a website that does not work, and is fundamentally flawed. Can't blame Bush for this one.
Read my question again skippy.

You aren't very bright

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#204 Nov 12, 2013
ActuaIIy wrote:
<quoted text>
Read my question again skippy.
You aren't very bright
I understood, sure, maybe I am not the brightest bulb in the pack and I sometimes put my underwear on backwards a few times. But, what is your point? What does your sidetracking have to do with the crux of the matter? Do you think the ACA does not face a difficult future? Do you think it is a stellar piece of legislation? Why do you think the ACA is good for America, specifically?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#205 Nov 12, 2013
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>I understood, sure, maybe I am not the brightest bulb in the pack and I sometimes put my underwear on backwards a few times. But, what is your point? What does your sidetracking have to do with the crux of the matter? Do you think the ACA does not face a difficult future? Do you think it is a stellar piece of legislation? Why do you think the ACA is good for America, specifically?
The point, besides atop your head, is you are confusing the media with the person.

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#206 Nov 12, 2013
Um, okay then.(shakes head in a sad side to side moion)
Moving onward, did anyone watch the President's (non-)apology for failing to get the website working? That was pretty lame, then the media tried to apologize for him, all the headlines wer some form of "Obama apologizes for website delays"

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#207 Nov 12, 2013
Naughtyrobot wrote:
Um, okay then.(shakes head in a sad side to side moion)
Moving onward, did anyone watch the President's (non-)apology for failing to get the website working? That was pretty lame, then the media tried to apologize for him, all the headlines wer some form of "Obama apologizes for website delays"
So let get this straight skippy. The right cries when Obama allegedly apologizes, the right cried when he doesn't apologize. The right cried because the aca was passed, the right cries that President Obama wouldn't delay the aca, and the right cried that people were not signing up fast enough?

That about right skippy?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#208 Nov 13, 2013
ActuaIIy wrote:
<quoted text>
So let get this straight skippy. The right cries when Obama allegedly apologizes, the right cried when he doesn't apologize. The right cried because the aca was passed, the right cries that President Obama wouldn't delay the aca, and the right cried that people were not signing up fast enough?
That about right skippy?
Obama did not apologize, he did a blame shift/I'm angry speach, as usual. The ACA was written poorly, "deemed passed", "passed" without being read, moves a huge portion of the economy into government control, puts beaureaucrats in charge of your healthcare, requires you to buy a product or face fines, prevents people from keeping coverage they like, costs working Americans more money, the healthy 18-35yr olds that the system needs to work-don't have jobs to pay into the system. If people are expected to sign in and sign up and the website is not working, then of course a delay is needed. It is not that hard to figure out that this is a train wreck. Healthcare needs to be reformed, but not like this.

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#209 Nov 13, 2013
Naughtyrobot wrote:
<quoted text>Obama did not apologize, he did a blame shift/I'm angry speach, as usual. The ACA was written poorly, "deemed passed", "passed" without being read, moves a huge portion of the economy into government control, puts beaureaucrats in charge of your healthcare, requires you to buy a product or face fines, prevents people from keeping coverage they like, costs working Americans more money, the healthy 18-35yr olds that the system needs to work-don't have jobs to pay into the system. If people are expected to sign in and sign up and the website is not working, then of course a delay is needed. It is not that hard to figure out that this is a train wreck. Healthcare needs to be reformed, but not like this.
Fact - over 58% of bankruptcies were in fact due to exorbitant health care bills;

"Between 46.2% and 54.5% of all bankruptcies (midpoint estimate 50.35%) were caused, at least in
part, by illness or medical debts. Thus, medical bankruptcy involved between 1,850,098 and
2,227,000 Americans in 2001 (midpoint estimate = 2,038,549).(For further details and definitions
see:“Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy” Exhibit 2 – available after February 1 at
http://content.healthaffairs.org/webexclusive... )
· The number of medical bankruptcies increased approximately 2200% between 1981 and 2001.
· Most medical debtors had some health insurance, but many suffered gaps in coverage:
v 75.7% had health insurance at the onset of the bankrupting illness.
v 68% had coverage at the time of their bankruptcy filing
v 62% had continuous coverage
v 1/3 of those with private coverage at onset lost it during the course of illness
v Only 2.9% of the uninsured went without coverage voluntarily – most others couldn’t afford it"

http://www.pnhp.org/bankruptcy/Bankruptcy%20F...

Fact - bureaucrats are not in charge of your health care - you buy your health care from private insurers through exchanges - regulations were put in effect that bars them from exempting you from pre-existing conditions, and incorporates preventative care, among many other viable shortfalls insurance companies purposefully exempted to make a profit, at your expense.

Fact - insurance companies could kick you at any time in the past - say you suddenly developed COPD, BANG - next renewal, you get a termination letter - this can no longer happen.

The ACA does need to be tweaked - but dismantle it - absolutely not! You prefer the status quo? Every time you change insurers, they want a detailed synopsis of every single procedure you've ever had, every doctor you've ever seen, every medication, much more intrusive than current law.

And if you by chance missed something, and put in a claim - your not covered, because you did not give full disclosure.

And you think this was better?
CBOW

East Berlin, PA

#210 Nov 13, 2013
House Democrats delivered a fix-it-or-else ultimatum Wednesday to President Obama, giving his administration until Friday to find an affordable solution for the millions of Americans losing their health plans under ObamaCare -- or risk some Democrats backing a Republican solution.

The ultimatum from President Obama's own party is another sign of the unrest within the Democratic caucus about the cancellation notices. The end-of-the-week deadline is significant, because House Republicans are planning to call a vote Friday on a bill that would extend current policies for another year. COOOOOL!!!!!!

“MORAL OF THE STORY....”

Since: Mar 09

DONT RUN FROM THE COPS...DUH

#211 Nov 13, 2013
CBOW wrote:
House Democrats delivered a fix-it-or-else ultimatum Wednesday to President Obama, giving his administration until Friday to find an affordable solution for the millions of Americans losing their health plans under ObamaCare -- or risk some Democrats backing a Republican solution.
The ultimatum from President Obama's own party is another sign of the unrest within the Democratic caucus about the cancellation notices. The end-of-the-week deadline is significant, because House Republicans are planning to call a vote Friday on a bill that would extend current policies for another year. COOOOOL!!!!!!
Don't you just loooove it when the Dems eat each other alive for all the country to see??

Good stuff!
CBOW

East Berlin, PA

#212 Nov 14, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you just loooove it when the Dems eat each other alive for all the country to see??
Good stuff!
It does provide some solace from their unbridled progressiveness.....

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#213 Nov 14, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact - over 58% of bankruptcies were in fact due to exorbitant health care bills;
"Between 46.2% and 54.5% of all bankruptcies (midpoint estimate 50.35%) were caused, at least in
part, by illness or medical debts. Thus, medical bankruptcy involved between 1,850,098 and
2,227,000 Americans in 2001 (midpoint estimate = 2,038,549).(For further details and definitions
see:“Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy” Exhibit 2 – available after February 1 at
http://content.healthaffairs.org/webexclusive... )
· The number of medical bankruptcies increased approximately 2200% between 1981 and 2001.
· Most medical debtors had some health insurance, but many suffered gaps in coverage:
v 75.7% had health insurance at the onset of the bankrupting illness.
v 68% had coverage at the time of their bankruptcy filing
v 62% had continuous coverage
v 1/3 of those with private coverage at onset lost it during the course of illness
v Only 2.9% of the uninsured went without coverage voluntarily – most others couldn’t afford it"
http://www.pnhp.org/bankruptcy/Bankruptcy%20F...
Fact - bureaucrats are not in charge of your health care - you buy your health care from private insurers through exchanges - regulations were put in effect that bars them from exempting you from pre-existing conditions, and incorporates preventative care, among many other viable shortfalls insurance companies purposefully exempted to make a profit, at your expense.
Fact - insurance companies could kick you at any time in the past - say you suddenly developed COPD, BANG - next renewal, you get a termination letter - this can no longer happen.
The ACA does need to be tweaked - but dismantle it - absolutely not! You prefer the status quo? Every time you change insurers, they want a detailed synopsis of every single procedure you've ever had, every doctor you've ever seen, every medication, much more intrusive than current law.
And if you by chance missed something, and put in a claim - your not covered, because you did not give full disclosure.
And you think this was better?
So, the answer is a monstrous bill, they few people read before passing, that takes choices away from people, encourages businesses to lay off full time and rehire as part time, pushes doctors to retire early, scraps people's healthcare plans, increases prices and costs taxpayers even more? There are a few parts of the law that are ok, but very few. It would be better to start over and do it right. The whole thing seems to be a setup to put us into a single payer system. No thanks.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Insurance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Health care: Illegal immigrants would get Medi-... 4 hr wild child 2
Facility fee being billed as copayment? 5 hr sarah2345 1
News Avoiding Job Applicants who Smoke: Is Snuffing ... 17 hr Nope 2
News House adopts compromise GOP budget targeting 'O... 18 hr Your Ex 19
work place health paid insurance - cannot affor... Apr 30 Jose A Rodriguez 3
News Senators Seek 'Living Wage' for Capitol Hill Co... Apr 30 Black Annie 9
News Survey: Nearly 9 in 10 US adults now have healt... Apr 22 Jose A Rodriguez 4
More from around the web