Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Health care: Bad medicine for some?

May 2, 2013

Those representatives in Washington, D.C., who were quick to applaud the passage of the Affordable Health Care Act are now trying to make sure they are not a part of it. So says U.S. Rep....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(39)

Captain

May-02-13 4:38 AM

What's interesting is how the media has become so politically biased that it can simply cite any source, hoping to steer the public (on any given issue) into believing what it (the media) wants us to believe.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Christopher

May-02-13 5:22 AM

Exactly. Just like the Republicans that admitted they voted against a bi-partisan gun bill JUST to not give President Obama a "victory". Nice way to conduct business, but normal from the party of "no".

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

May-02-13 7:02 AM

Just as the President uses executive action to circumvent the will of the the people.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-02-13 7:46 AM

I am more than appalled to see this editorial. I called the paper..left a message with Mr. Bacon..stating that this article was FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

No wonder he never called me back. Guess the paper was already willing to promote this FALSE information as long as it bashed the President.

This is how we get manipulated when we only have one major paper and that paper insists on promoting just one side of political debate..even if that side is WRONG in its facts.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-02-13 7:52 AM

"If this sounds unbelievable, it’s because it is. There’s no effort to “exempt” Congress from Obamacare. No matter how this shakes out, Congress will have to follow the law, just like everyone else does...But no one is discussing “exempting” congressional staffers from Obamacare. They’re discussing creating some method through which the federal government can keep making its current contribution to the health insurance of congressional staffers." Erza Klein

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-02-13 7:57 AM

from Media Matters.. "White House, Congress required to carry health insurance like everyone else. Starting in 2014, Americans will be required to have minimum health insurance coverage, with exemptions for certain people with religious objections or the inability to afford coverage. The bill does not exempt government employees such as leaders and staffers at the White House and Congress."

and this from FACTCHECK Does the health care bill specifically exempt members of Congress and their staffs from its provisions?

A: No. This twisted claim is based on misrepresentations of the House and Senate bills, neither of which exempts lawmakers.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-02-13 8:06 AM

To me what is truly disturbing is the fact that I actually called this paper and left a message stating that the article on Rep Reed was FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

You would have thought that they would have at least called me to investigate why I would make such a statement. This paper then could do their own research and come up with their own conclusions.

They failed to do either. Easier to take the word of Hannity, Politico, etc than to conduct any of their own research.

This paper has once again demonstrated that they would rather push the right wing agenda than conduct any investigation into the truth.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Dcronlg

May-02-13 8:11 AM

This august publication is citing fat Uncle Fester -- who, along with his family, will receive unlimited and premium healthcare for the rest of his/their life as a perk of being a Congressman -- as a stellar example???

The clueless church lady gaggle and Uncle Fester in the same breath as self-appointed moral guardians and watchdogs of the peoples' business...ROF****...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

May-02-13 9:37 AM

Dcronig-do you feel the same when they cite Chuckyou Schumer?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

PhilJulian

May-02-13 9:42 AM

The more I hear about Obamacare the less I like it. The idea lost my support when they eliminated the public option that would have provided competition for insurance companies. Forcing small sompanies to provide insurance will simply put them out of business. Oh, that's ok - we don't need employers as long as government is handing out the freebees!

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-02-13 10:57 AM

Seems judeye is upset because busy people don't have the time or take the time to answer her whines about what she believes is wrong and a complaint about a conservative. You ever think they have better things to do then call a liberal whiner back. Makes me wonder how many more calls you might have made. Or if they are considering just putting you on auto block. lol

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

American

May-02-13 10:58 AM

Obamacare is doing more damage to our healthcare then any other bill has. Should be classed up there with bubonic plague.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcia

May-02-13 11:05 AM

No one who gets their insurance from their employer, will get their coverage through the exchanges, unless their employers decides to use the exchanges. No large employer will do that, because they get better prices by having a large pool to keep the price down. That is the point of the exchanges, to help individuals and small companies pool with others to create a large pool of people to keep the price down. Why would the federal government, or a large employer like Cummins, have to use the pool? They don't. Reed and the Observer is just lying outright to the public to advance an anti-Obama agenda, since they couldn't win in the courts.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DKexpat

May-02-13 2:35 PM

Interestingly, the federal government budgeted $2B to help states set up exchanges. So far – so far – it's up to $4B+, with NYS accounting for about $340M of that. (California is over $600M.)

Oops!

But I agree with judeye – the article is “stale” and not factual – and the Observer should do a m-u-c-h better job of reporting “real news” rather than inaccuracies like this.

Let's all debate facts, shall we, rather than innuendo...

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

May-03-13 5:50 AM

ObamaCare should be repealed in its entirety and all similar laws related to medical care should be left to individual states to decide what if anything should be done to replace ObamaCare. That is what the United States Constitution requires, if anyone is curious enough to check.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

May-03-13 5:52 AM

Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 & 2014!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

May-03-13 5:53 AM

Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200

Please read this.... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59 JUDGE KITHIL wrote: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

May-03-13 5:54 AM

Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

May-03-13 5:55 AM

We could go on and on and on. Wise up Democrats and help get rid of this disaster!

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Carlaw

May-03-13 5:59 AM

We will do one more:

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS...

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment.

Is this worth defending politically?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Chuck392

May-03-13 6:41 AM

Other "bad" consequences of Obamacare are what it does to jobs. Just had a company in Jamestown announce that their employees will be cut 10 hours a week so that they don't have to offer them health insurance. And there's lots of companies, big and small that have adjusted hiring practices due to the impending law. Google around and see what the biggest employer in the US (WalMart) has done because of Obamacare. The worry about Congress being exempt or not is a drop in the bucket.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

joew

May-03-13 7:38 AM

Wonder why Sen Max Baucus(one of the principal architects of Obamacare)who is retiring soon now thinks Obamacare is a "trainwreck"!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-03-13 7:56 AM

Chuck392..so a company like Walmart..where they have record profits..decides to let you and me fund their employees health care and you are fine with that?

We not only pay for their health insurance, we also often help to supplement their food (food stamps), housing, and fuel bills all because the company they work for is more interested in increasing their own greedy profits than pay their employees a decent wage or offer them good benefits.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DarkStar

May-03-13 8:03 AM

Everyone loves throwing out Walmart and other companies names.

How about JCC? They use a large number of adjunct professors since it's much cheaper than highing fulltime professors, and now due to Obamacare they are cutting the number of courses each adjunct can teach so they can avoid having to pay for their health insurance.

So judeye, do you hold them to the same standard as Walmart.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

May-03-13 8:04 AM

I agree Phil the public option should have been left in. It was a compromise from a single payer system. This was not enough for many in our Congress so they demanded the public option be eliminated as well. What we got left,...and yes we had to fight for even this little bit of change...is the ACA.

Which is far from what we should have. Yet it is helping millions of people right now. Ask anyone whose child is still covered under their policy until age 26, or has NO caps on what the insurance company will pay, or can no longer be denied coverage due to a pre existing condition. Saving lives..yes I think the ACA is worth it.

How much money would a single payer system save us?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 39 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web