Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Is the risk of a government shutdown worth a defunding battle on Obamacare?

  1. Yes
  2. No
sort: oldest | newest




Sep-24-13 2:28 AM

Yeah, because sending uninsured people to the ER for strep throat is working REAL well. Who do you think is picking up the tab?

Once again, lots of complaining, but no solutions.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-24-13 8:46 AM

Great plan - screw up health care for 250 million to cover another 40 million. Only a liberal would call that progressive.

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-24-13 12:06 PM

The same people will have to pick the "tab" up after Obamacare. Add to that a new tab for a big fat new government program with all their bureaucratic mouths to feed and that strep throat bill goes through the roof.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-24-13 7:18 PM

So, once again, you have lots of hot air and no answers.

The problem all started when employers started cutting family health benefits to pad their bottom lines. I'm not talking the mom and pop employers, although it is getting increasingly difficult for them to offer benefits when they are competing against the mega retailers of the world.

The only way that insurance is affordable for the masses is to have group policies, and when employers no longer choose to provide group insurance, it gets near impossible for many people to buy insurance, so you and I end up paying for it when we use our insurance to pay for the "$300" doctor visit.

Maybe if employers would have continued to provide insurance, we wouldn't be in this mess, and government wouldn't feel compelled to step in.

Maybe employees need to start standing up to their employers and demanding better.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-24-13 8:25 PM

The problem probably REALLY started when health insurance got tangled with employment in the first place. Now no one has a clue how much a medical procedure costs because all they ever pay attention to is the post-insurance bill. Is it possible that if all health decisions were left in the individual's hands (with some help from established charities in dire emergencies) that costs wouldn't have gotten so out of hand?

So in the true fashion of this administration, they feel like they just need to do SOMETHING, be it good or bad, just because they said they would.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-24-13 8:25 PM

I have no doubt that when this mess is finally fully implemented there will be enough people with exemptions (chosen winners) that it will never be repealed or cut back. It will be an ever growing monster of an entitlement just like the failing Social Security and Medicare. And by that time god forbid any politician try to cut the fat. They'll just keep feeding the monster with more bureaucracy and more money.

The AFFORDABLE care act will be anything but affordable for those of us actually paying the government’s bills.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 1:40 AM

The only reason why Social Security is "failing" is because Congress keeps borrowing from it to fund the war machine.

PR, having worked in hospitals, you wouldn't believe how expensive it is to run a hospital just from an infection control standpoint alone. Add that to all the people who for one reason or another won't be paying their bill and it becomes understandable why the costs to those who pay start to add up fast. How many migrant workers to you suppose pay their medical bills in full? I'm sure that a certain canning plant in the area sure likes that cheap labor, but do they pay all the costs of that cheap labor?

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-25-13 1:45 AM

Employers have a vested interest in providing health insurance. Healthy employees are more productive employees. Employees that don't have to worry about their family's mounting medical bills can focus more on the task at hand than the distractions of their medical bills. Many people usually end up receiving medical care because of general wear and tear on their bodies from working that can't be pinpointed to one workplace incident, such as back problems, joint problems, etc. Why shouldn't employers contribute to the cost of insurance?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-27-13 1:52 AM

Something that we saw beginning back in the 60's has now reached an uncontrollable level which we can't get out of. Hence the government can't agree or pass any legislation****her party will give an inch. Our government as it is now is dysfunctional.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-30-13 3:56 PM

SS Is not a entitlement It paid for by the people of this country. and if the Gov would keep it hand off it would never fail

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-30-13 7:11 PM

EaglesFan - which would you rather have - the company pay a larger portion of your healthcare premiums or rather an increase in pay along with the SS and Medicare contributions?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 11 of 11 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web