I see that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has decided to reject the Medicaid expansion in Wisconsin because it is too expensive. The next part of Gov. Walker’s plan is for Wisconsin to tighten eligibility for Medicaid, lift a cap on childless adults and — get this — force people to buy insurance through a government-run marketplace known as an exchange. That’s wonderful, Scott. By the way, I couldn’t help noticing that your program is the same as Obamacare, so I’m not sure what the advantage would be. Maybe we could call it “Walkercare” instead of “Obamacare” and that would make Gov Walker feel better.
Neil Thex
Mesa
VofReason posted at 3:29 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.
Good point. Oh wait, except that we know that Gov. Walker is trying to limit the size and spend of the government and President Obama has no interest in either. Too, we know President Obama is interested in getting as many people on the Government dole as possible to ensure re election of his party that is spend first and budget later. But other than that, yup, just the same.
truth posted at 4:03 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.
Health Care in The World: the U.S. spends 33% to 50% more for health care than other industrialized countries.Those who have a better health care programs than the U.S. in 2012, France, Italy, San Marino, Andorra, Malts, Singapore, Spain, Oman, Austria, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Monaco, Greece, Iceland, Luxembourg, Neterlansa, U.K,, Irland, Switzerland,Belgum, Columbia, Sweden, Cyprus, Germany, Saudia Araba, United Areb Emirates, Isral, Morocco, Canada, Finland, Australia, Chile, Demark, Dominica, Costa Rica, U.S. is 36th.
Accuracy posted at 5:49 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.
Neil Thex wrote: “I see that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has decided to reject the Medicaid expansion in Wisconsin because it is too expensive.”
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is an "independent" group that represents "small business". One of biggest impacts of ObamaCare is the law's expansion of Medicaid. NFIB took ObamaCare to the supreme court in order to repeal it, and the Medicaid expansion requirement was overturned.
Now each state can decide whether or not they want to opt out of expanding coverage to their poorest with no penalty. There still remains many of the nation's governors divided over whether to accept America’s government-run health insurance program for the poor. And Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) became the 13th governor to reject the ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:51 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.
These < really > smart Governors are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
They hate government and refuse to accept the insurance pools called for by Obamacare.
Thing is ... those insurance pools are made up of PRIVATE FOR PROFIT INSURANCE COMPANIES. It's a Republican dream -- force people to buy insurance from a profit making company.
When the Governors refuse the Obamacare mandated insurance pools, the law then allows the GOVERNMENT to set up GOVERNMENT RUN INSURANCE which is nothing else than MEDICARE LITE.
And, instead of having an insurance pool where private companies make a profit they WILL have government run insurance.
Which is exactly what they claim they don't want.
valleynative posted at 8:11 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.
If you don't understand the difference between what the States are allowed to do and what the Federal government is allowed to do under the Constitution, then you should turn in your voter registration card.
The feds have no authority to tell citizens what they must buy (or what they may not buy, except across state lines). They try to justify such regulations as covered under their power to levy taxes, but that's stretching the power far beyond the intent.
Bluepoet posted at 10:16 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.
The Federal Government has passed this law. It has been challenged, in Supreme Court, and found constiutional. Each State has an either/or option. Governor Walker opted for the Federal-controlled option, just like Jan Brewer has done.
No one is forcing anyone to buy medical insurance. It's simply, and correctly, that every citizen needs to have this insurance, or pay a premium to opt out. This is the only way to ever have even a chance at curbing the runaway cost of health insurance. We all must agree that the status quo is not viable, right? And, I think we can at least agree that it's a big enough problem, that we should all be involved in its solution...
The real concern I have is that this legislation, as such, has not gone far enough to address this cost problem, and time will tell.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:36 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.
The number of people that WILL HAVE TO PAY for the 30+million that won't have to pay for Obamacare is getting smaller and smaller.
VofReason posted at 11:56 am on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.
Thank you Willie for again seeing right through the problem and clarifying that it indeed is yet another vicious attack on society by the evil Republicans. Strange that a significant portion of the country belongs to the republican party when they seem to be the root of all that is evil. One thing I am having trouble with, why did the Republicans vote 100% against Obamacare if it stood to be such a windfall for them and their ilk?
Arizona Willie posted at 1:02 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.
VofReason: why did the Republicans vote 100% against Obamacare? Because they were following their leader(s) who said their main goal was to make Obama a one term President.
Obamacare is essentially the same thing as Mittenscare was when he was Governor of Mass. With two extra clauses. One that requires private insurance companies to pay out at least 80% of premiums in benefits ( previously they only paid out 60% to 70% ) and the clause they can't refuse people with pre-existing conditions.
Boehner said " I got 95% of everything I wanted " in the health care negotiations with Obama. So why are the Repubs so opposed except for the fact it was that darn black President's name on the program.
valleynative posted at 3:23 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.
SCOTUS hasn't overturned Obamacare, not because they don't understand that it is clearly contrary to the design of the Constitution, but rather because their ideologies tell them that the benefits outweigh the damage to the nation. Many people disagree.
The fact that something seems to be a good idea doesn't justify throwing out the Constitutional limits on the authority of the federal government.
What will be the next thing Congress forces the citizens of the States to do, or else have to pay higher federal taxes?
Cerulean posted at 9:13 pm on Tue, Feb 19, 2013.
VoR asked "why did the Republicans vote 100% against Obamacare if it stood to be such a windfall for them and their ilk?"
In 1989 Stewart Butler at The Heritage Foundation developed what was then called the ‘Heritage Plan’ for health care privatization. What does that mean you ask? The Heritage Foundation (representing quintessential Republican ideals) proposed a system of regulated exchanges where private insurance could compete for individual mandated health coverage. Romney picked up the idea and further implemented the plan in Massachusetts.
When President Obama passed a similar plan for universal health care for all U.S. citizens, Republicans squawked. No, no, no we must do everything we can to make Obama a one term President.
sockratties posted at 6:25 am on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.
The bottom line: sick people are customers of the health care industry, especially insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants. Try to keep them from dying but don’t get them well. Hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars depend on them. There is no political incentive for politicians to reduce the cost of health care, only to look like they’re trying. Special interests always win out, even over the sick and dying.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:54 am on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.
valleynative: you said " SCOTUS hasn't overturned Obamacare, not because they don't understand that it is clearly contrary to the design of the Constitution, but rather because their ideologies tell them that the benefits outweigh the damage to the nation. Many people disagree. "
You're actually claiming that the ideologies of the right wing loaded Supreme Court motivate them to rule in favor of Obamacare. REALLY?
You do know that 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices are right wingers don't you?
Apparently not. If anything, their ideology would cause them to vote AGAINST Obamacare, not for it.
" Many people disagree. " Tough noogies. You don't have the political power to decide what is constitutional or not. The Constitution set up the Supreme Court but you would overthrow the Constitutional verdict of the Supreme Court because YOU don't like the result.
Did you also advocate that Bush the Lesser be thrown out of office when the right wing Supreme Court appointed him President?
I don't think so.
VofReason posted at 12:37 pm on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.
Yes Willie, because the Democrats said there was a scam, there was one in 2000. Perhaps it had to do with the fact that Florida also said there was no scam. Look at the bright side, Al Gore as President? Al Gore is what we call a clown. Though he did invent Global Warming, I don't think that gives him the chops to actually lead a country.
VofReason posted at 12:38 pm on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.
Oh, aren't like 58-60% of the citizens against Obamacare? Does that count for anything?
Accuracy posted at 6:55 pm on Wed, Feb 20, 2013.
VofReason……. Posted a very interesting question about “citizens against ObamaCare”.
There was a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters view ObamaCare law. It included a broad public opposition; 16% with a Very Favorable opinion and 33% with a Very Unfavorable one.
Meanwhile, many states still hope to escape ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion, even though Republican Gov. Rick Scott of Florida just reversed himself and announced that he would expand the state’s Medicaid program to cover the poor.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:59 am on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
VofReason: you said " Oh, aren't like 58-60% of the citizens against Obamacare? Does that count for anything? "
Not a darn thing.
When people are asked about " Obamacare " many claim to be opposed --- but when asked about individual items IN Obamacare -- the majority are in favor. Such as the clause that prevents insurance companies from refusing to insure someone because of pre-existing conditions. So people are reacting to the name " Obamacare " and the negative connotations the Republicans have heaped on it. The actual program they like.
It doesn't matter what percentage claim to be against it --- until such time as there is an election. Then those opposed can throw out the people behind Obama care and elect someone who promises to get rid of it.
Oh wait -- we just had an election like that 3 months ago.
And anti-Obamacare people LOST. The majority voted FOR Obama.
Unfortunately for you, this is still a Democracy.
With the attitude of regular Republicans and Tea-Baggers I don't know how long that will remain a true statement, though.
VofReason posted at 1:38 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
You are absolutely right here Willie. There are some components of Obamacare that most people would agree are very beneficial. Problem is, they should have stopped there and far short of impacting the viability of businesses and the country as a whole. See many people would have agreed that changes needed to take place, but when you have to shove something down people's throats (remember not a 1 Republican voted for) and bribe some of your own party, you have to question. Interesting how many friends of Obama are opting themselves out of this mess.
truth posted at 3:22 pm on Thu, Feb 21, 2013.
Please explain what should be done to Obamacare. The U.S. Pays 33% to 50% more a year for health care and is rated 37th in the world on health care. Life expectancy 37th, infant mortality 46th, standard of living 30th.
I see the Tribune is deleting articles again: Conservative spending, After Mitt Romney's presidential campaign was challenged by 9 media organizations over "exorbitant charges" to reporters covering the campaign. The campaign charged reporters up to $812 for a single meal and a place to file their stories, and $1,000 for a seat on the bus.
bobunf posted at 8:29 pm on Sun, Feb 24, 2013.
Japanese live four years longer on the average than Americans.
In Australia, Canada France, Sweden, Switzerland, Israel and Iceland people live three years longer.
People in New Zealand, Italy, Spain, Norway and Greece have an extra two years of life.
What's the difference between these countries and the US? The all spend half or less on health care as the US. And they all have universal health care.