Obamacare? what are your thoughts

MunoRN, RN · Apr 15, 2014

It's easy to reduce costs when you arbitrarily and unilaterally decide to administratively delay parts of the law.

That's the basic role of the executive branch. Managing the implementation of laws is what the executive branch does, and has always done.

I think the frustration from the right is that they don't want anything to mess with their pre-determined script, which is that everything having to do with Obamacare will be as bad as possible. When the Obama administration does exactly what it's legally required to do, which is to mitigate the problems that occur in the implementation of a law, conservatives cry foul not because it's truly illegal (anyone with a basic understanding of our government knows it's not), but because their desire to see our country fail under opposing leadership isn't coming true.

SycamoreGuy · Apr 15, 2014

Please provide historical examples of other presidents unilaterally changing and refusing to enforce portions of laws they signed into law. Obama is cherry picking which portions of the law to implement in order to keep the full effect of ACA from effecting the midterm elections. After the election I doubt will see any more delays.

MunoRN, RN · Apr 15, 2014

Please provide historical examples of other presidents unilaterally changing and refusing to enforce portions of laws they signed into law. Obama is cherry picking which portions of the law to implement in order to keep the full effect of ACA from affecting

He is not refusing to implement any portion of law, he has altered the timeline of implementation which is well within his powers.

The last major healthcare bill was medicare Part D. Multiple aspects of the rollout of part D were delayed and altered by the Bush administration. What is it you think the executive branch's role is in implementing laws?

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/2014/03/26/fox-news-aca-delay-freakout-ignores-history/198627

MunoRN, RN · Apr 15, 2014

If you think it's a bad law (I agree) and don't want it to be a bad law, why would you get upset when anyone makes it less bad?

The obvious explanation to me would be that you want it to be a bad law.

NightNurseRN13 · Apr 15, 2014

Most of you will automatically discredit this because it is from the heritage foundation but these are some of the very real issues with Obamacare (AKA the Affordable Care Act). There are more at the website but the third one I've posted should be of interest to us. What happens when hospitals and SNF operate at a loss? Who's the first to get cut? It already happened in Indianapolis, 1000+ RNs cut.
The Charts Obama Doesn't Want You to See
[ATTACH=CONFIG]14116[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]14117[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]14118[/ATTACH]

i like how these official charts use the nickname "obamacare" instead of its official name

OCNRN63, RN · Apr 16, 2014

I don't know, what about "if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance"?

What about examples of all these cancer patients losing coverage with their doctor? Or do you just want to keep spouting bumper sticker slogans?

OCNRN63, RN · Apr 16, 2014

There was such a story going around recently, a woman undergoing cancer treatment supposedly wasn't going to be able to see her preferred doctor anymore, her meds weren't covered, and her costs were going up. The right considered it to be such a solid example of what's wrong with the ACA that they spent $30 million to publicize it.
It was all a lie as it turns out; her preferred physician is still in network, her meds are covered, and to cap it off she'll save at least $1,200 per year compared to her previous non-obamacare plan (without any subsidy).

Yes, but WAAAHHH! I hate Obama!

OCNRN63, RN · Apr 16, 2014

I don't disagree that was clearly not possible based on the how the ACA works, for both insurance plans and doctors, though I find it interesting that conservatives are trying to claim they're upset because something they don't want to happen didn't happen.
Conservative health insurance policy is based on the cost control mechanisms of the private market, particularly price control through competition. The "preferred provider" system existed long before the ACA. Basically what it does is encourage providers to offer reasonable prices in order to get business, those who charge excessive prices get less business, and individuals who want to see more expensive providers need to pay the additional difference. These are pretty core conservative beliefs on how health insurance should work, and the republican 'alternatives' rely heavily on these same principles.
So the "if you like your doctor/insurance you can keep them" idea was in opposition to conservative preferences, which turned out to not be the case (it turned out to be just what conservatives wanted in insurance policy), which somehow is upsetting to conservatives?
Is it maybe possible that conservatives have just decided to not like anything about Obamacare? When conservatives complain about getting what they wanted, it's hard to see any of their criticisms as being credible.

Irony: Conservative senior citizens ranting about "government health care." Fine, then I'm sure you won't mind if we revoke your Medicare, seeing as you're so opposed to "government health care." Wouldn't want you to compromise those principles.

OCNRN63, RN · Apr 17, 2014

Just to clarify...the law is the ACA, not the AFA. Feel free to just call it the slang term designed by the Republican opposition to confuse people and instigate dislike based upon the association with Obama.

What is "AFA" supposed to stand for, anyway? It gets difficult to keep up with all the epithets that get thrown at anything and everything the president does.

SycamoreGuy · Apr 17, 2014

What about examples of all these cancer patients losing coverage with their doctor? Or do you just want to keep spouting bumper sticker slogans?

Did you look at the charts? They reference the AP for their info by the way. Or do you just want to keep being one of Obama's sheep? Or should I say lemmings?

MunoRN, RN · Apr 17, 2014

Did you look at the charts? They reference the AP for their info by the way. Or do you just want to keep being one of Obama's sheep? Or should I say lemmings?

Which chart are you referring to?

elkpark · Apr 17, 2014

Please provide historical examples of other presidents unilaterally changing and refusing to enforce portions of laws they signed into law. Obama is cherry picking which portions of the law to implement in order to keep the full effect of ACA from effecting the midterm elections. After the election I doubt will see any more delays.

Actually (ahh, what short memories so many Americans have ...), this was a big controversy during the Shrub administration.

"Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements led to fierce controversy. He frequently used them to declare that provisions in the bills he was signing were unconstitutional constraints on executive power, and that the laws did not need to be enforced or obeyed as written. The laws he challenged included a ban on torture and requirements that Congress be given detailed reports about how the Justice Department was using the counterterrorism powers in the USA Patriot Act."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10signing.html?_r=0

"Signing statements were once obscure, but they became controversial under President George W. Bush, who used them to advance sweeping theories of his own powers and challenged more provisions, including a torture ban, than all previous presidents combined."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/politics/obama-issues-signing-statement-on-budget-bill.html

Other sources:

Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed

The Problem With Presidential Signing Statements | Cato Institute

Bush 'Signing Statements' Questioned - CBS News

Revealed: Bush's Presidential Signing Statements Have Been Used to Nullify Laws | Alternet

Analysis - Signing Statements | Cheney's Law | FRONTLINE | PBS