This piece was written by Brett Aurich in response to the post, 'Liberals in the Midst.'  Brett addresses many of the myths surrounding the Affordable Health Care act, and the referenced statistics are found in the links below.  We borrowed the title in part from the excellent article by Ernest Dumas. 

Myth 1: Obamacare is being partially funded by a $700 billion cut to Medicare.   (FALSE)
Reality: Funding for Medicare will actually increase over the next 10 years. However, the rate of increase will drop, partially due to more aggressive prosecution of fraud and a reduction in overpayments to insurance companies.

Myth 2: Obamacare will introduce "death panels" that will severely ration care and will force elderly patients to commit suicide or submit to euthanasia.    (FALSE)
Reality:  There have been several versions of this claim; the most recent is that the Independent Payment Advisory Board will ration care and will make end-of-life decisions for patients.  In truth, the IPAB is basically powerless.  Ironically, death panels existed before health care reform -- they were run by your insurance company. Insurers have regularly denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, canceled policies on sick patients, refused to pay for vital, life-saving operations, and otherwise made financially-based decisions about who would get to live and who would be left to die.  According to one congressional report, three insurance companies -- UnitedHealth (UNH), WellPoint (WLP) and Assurant (AIZ) -- saved $300 million by canceling policies on over 20,000 sick people over a five-year period.

Myth 3: Obamacare will force the middle class to pay for health care for poor people and illegal immigrants. (FALSE)
Reality: Many health care reform critics have argued that America already has a universal health care option: emergency rooms. After all, the argument goes, when people without insurance find themselves in desperate need of medical attention, they can always find help in ERs, which are required by law to open their doors to anyone in need of care. Consequently, critics claim, poor people can get health care without passing the charges on to the middle class. But this health care isn't free -- in fact, standard treatment through a primary care physician is far cheaper than crisis care in an ER. Many hospitals aggressively bill emergency patients -- and their insurers -- to recoup the inflated costs of such care. Even so, they come up short. So who covers the shortfalls? Well, a significant source of hospital funding is taxes. For the rest, hospitals make up their ER losses by inflating the prices that insured customers pay -- and according to the Center for American Progress, this amounts to a $1,100 yearly "hidden tax" on health insurance. Put simply, emergency room care is already funded by taxpayers and the insured middle class. Granted, Obamacare will extend Medicaid to lower income families, and will subsidize health insurance for people who make up to 400% of the poverty line. On the other hand, it will also require people who can pay for health insurance do so, and will more aggressively prosecute Medicare fraud. More to the point, it will levy a 0.9% tax on households making more than $200,000 per year, and will increase taxes on medical machinery manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and insurers. Thus in all likelihood, it will actually reduce the burden on middle class families.

Myth 4: Obamacare is a socialist program. (FALSE)
Reality: Socialism is a system under which the government directly runs a nation's industries. Under this standard, New Deal programs like the Works Progress Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority could, arguably, be considered socialist. After all, they represented instances in which the government directly employed people to build and administer power plants and other public works that generated income.  Obamacare, on the other hand, will work through private companies. Rather than directly providing health insurance, either through a national program or through some sort of public option, the government will require that people deal with private insurers. Far from competing with private industry, the health care law will likely give it a lot of new customers.

Myth 5: Obamacare will bankrupt small businesses by making them pay for their employees' health insurance. (FALSE)
Reality: The basis of this claim is a requirement that companies with more than 50 "full-time equivalent" employees must offer affordable health insurance to their workers. The insurance in question must not cost more than 9.5% of the employee's annual salary and must pay for at least 60% of covered health care costs. A big part of the disagreement over the impact of this requirement lies in how you define a "small business." According to the government, the cutoff line between a small and a large business is 50 "full-time equivalent" employees. In other words, if a company's weekly work load totals more than 1500 hours -- the equivalent of 50 employees working for 30 hours per week -- then it is, officially, a large business, and is required to provide a competitive health insurance option. As a side note, Obamacare contains a pretty significant tax break for businesses with up to 25 employees that offer health insurance.

FACT: Healthcare reform bill signed into law by President Obama will outlaw denial of insurance coverage to those with preexisting conditions.
In America, people with health problems but no health insurance long have struggled to find and afford coverage. To those with such preexisting conditions, America’s health system has seemed, at the least, capricious: Why has it been so hard to get insurance when you need it most? Insurers have seen this same problem from another viewpoint. Selling coverage to someone with a preexisting condition might be a bit like selling auto insurance to a driver who wants help with an already-dented car. Insurance is meant to protect someone against future events, not pay for things that have already occurred.

NOTE:

Mitt's Plan (http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care) - passing the buck to the (broke) states - (that's a plan to fail.)
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.  In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens.

The Worst Part of Obamacare:
A requirement that all Americans obtain health insurance or pay a fine. Republicans challenged it as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. The Obama administration argued that it was needed to fix basic flaws in the insurance market and that it was crucial to provisions like the requirement that insurers accept all comers without regard to pre-existing health conditions. (TRUE)
Many people who cannot afford insurance and did not bother to get insurance, may find they qualify for medicaid or state insurance which will mitigate this problem.  This may sound bad, but costs the tax payer less than the uninsured ER visits the tax payer pays today.  And if they can afford it, why shouldn't they be insured? Instead of a fine, have them automatically enrolled in a low cost no frills default healthcare plan and send them the bill.

Thank God for Obama who followed through on his campaign promise; this is why I changed to Democrat and voted for him last time, because he promised to do something to improve health care, and I will not sit by and have Romney repeal excellent legislation.  People first.... we show our love for one another by keeping and growing Obama Care!!  It's humane and it's needed.

I am a proud Mormon, but I have to do what is right, let the consequence follow.  The right thing is to get more people access to healthcare.  Thanks Obama for keeping your campaign promise.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/07/11/the-5-biggest-obamacare-myths-explored-explained-and-debunked/

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=obama+care&x=28&y=11&sp-a=00062d45-sp00000000&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0324/Health-care-reform-bill-101-rules-for-preexisting-conditions

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/index.html

[caption id="attachment_1803" align="alignright" width="300"] Paul Ryan speaks at the RNC; the only thing we liked about him was the tie he was wearing.[/caption]

Post by Joseph M -

Sadly, I must put Condoleezza Rice's excellent speech to the side and take aim at Congressman Paul Ryan's 30-minute roller-coaster ride of soaring platitudes, sharp condemnations, and sad flat metaphors.  I like metaphors; I like to use them, read them, and hear them, but Paul Ryan proved to be a very poor man's Neal A. Maxwell when it came to spinning a yarn and using a metaphor.  (Seriously, his "ships sailing" line came straight out of a worn-out Barry Manilow song.)

That said, the RNC loved the guy.  The cheering and woo-hooing at his speech caused a few light-emitting diodes on my flat-screen TV to blow out.  But really, if we Mormons had any question about Ryan, he settled it with his admission that his iPod playlist "starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin."  Ever since we attended youth conference in the 1970s, we've all known that AC/DC stands for "Knights in Satan's Service," and that the song, Stairway to Heaven, has backmasking - (For proof, I tried to play it backwards on YouTube, but I couldn't find the reverse button.)

But in short, Paul Ryan's speech was mean-spirited and nasty.  I guess this is the standard operating procedure: the VP nominee is supposed to be the bulldog, while the P nominee is the nice one.  But Ryan's sarcasm and coloring of Obama's message of hope and change as "fading" and "tired" grated on me and affirmed what I already knew: I will not be voting for Paul Ryan when he runs in 2016.  He even took a stab at the youthful electorate who came out en mass to vote for Obama in 2008: “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.” He also stated that "you have not failed, your leaders have failed you." But these lines do not acknowledge the deception that Romney and Ryan have nothing in their bag of Trix to assist young graduates beyond cutting taxes for the wealthy and slashing government programs that help the poor.

Ryan went on to state that, "none of us have to settle for the best this administration offers – a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us." In saying this, he denigrated the real experience of people in poverty; he somehow believes that utilizing the safety net leads to a decrease in freedom rather than a decrease in suffering for families and children.  Ryan demonstrates this disdain for the poor with his proposed $1.4 trillion cuts in Medicaid.  And to clarify, Medicaid is the insurance for children in poverty and adults with disabilities.  Thus, Ryan and Romney hope to diminish the already-lacking health care program for people in poverty.  Apparently ending Obama's healthcare expansion is not enough for them - he said that Obamacare has "no place in a free country," and I suppose this exposes what Republicans think of our northern neighbors: Canadians, with their socialized medicine, are all lazy slaves under the fetters of a government intrusion in their lives.

So here is my problem with the whole speech: Paul Ryan lies.  I am getting tired of this.  The stories continue about Obama raiding Medicare; I don't even remember hearing this line of attack before Romney picked Ryan, the real Medicare cutter.  But it is a cunning move; if you are weak in an area, then attack your opponent in this same area to cover your own backside.  The $716 billion is an actual cut to Medicare recipients under the Ryan plan, but it consists of cuts to medical providers under the Obama plan.  So now Paul Ryan presents himself as the defender of Medicare, and he even enlisted his "role model" mother as the Floridian face of his plan to save old people. But in reality, he is devising a plan to usher in a new era for our seniors: Vouchercare.

And I am tired of all the "you did build that."  This obfuscates the meaning behind President Obama's original statement, and it pushes American individualism (every man for himself!) to the extremes of ugliness.

The deception doesn't stop there: Ryan used the example of the closure of a GM plant in Wisconsin to illustrate the failure of Obama's policies; he even related how Obama spoke at the plant in 2008 and pledged to work to keep it open.  The part that Ryan did not mention: the plant closed in December of 2008, a full month before Obama's term began.  How can this anecdotal evidence be interpreted as anything but deception when Obama cannot possibly be held responsible for a plant's closure that happened before he took office?

The following are a few more quotations from the VP nominee that float precariously on top of a half-truth or a full-blown lie:

"(Obama's presidency) began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America."  What Ryan fails to acknowledge is his party's and his own obstructionism in getting work done in congress to have prevented this downgrade.

"(His presidency) began with a housing crisis they alone didn’t cause; it ends with a housing crisis they didn’t correct."  The housing market continues to improve; it is being corrected, and for Ryan to state otherwise is false.

"He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing."  This is misleading because Ryan himself opposed Bowles-Simpson’s report.

Read this report from the Washington Post about the falsehoods in Ryan's speech.  I need to sleep.

But in closing: Paul Ryan posed this question - "Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?"  What Ryan doesn't understand is that we asked for this.  America voted for Obama because he promised us Obamacare.  Obama did exactly what he said he would do, and his has been a presidency of fulfilled commitments.  We don't want Ryan's kind of change, we want the change that Obama promised and has delivered on.  Four years later, it may sound trite, tired, or faded to Ryan, but for us, it is still change we can believe in.

[slideshow]

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vyPl2vDIn4&w=560&h=315]
Thanks to Rob and Sarah for sharing their video on YouTube and putting this out there!

...this HISTORIC VICTORY on health care!

(This post by Laura was originally published on 2.9.2012.  In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling, we are reposting it today.)

I was at the National Hispanic Medical Society conference in Washington DC when the House agreed to the Senate's amendment of the Affordable Care Act, on March 23, 2010.  The energy and excitement was electrifying!  My feelings that day are the same today--the Affordable Care Act is monumental and critical for our country.  Indeed, it is one of the primary reasons why I support Obama wholeheartedly.

My favorite facts about the Affordable Care Act:

• Expands health care to 32 MILLION Americans


• Insurance companies are prevented from dropping sick people


• Insurance companies cannot deny children coverage if they have a pre-existing condition


• No lifetime caps on coverage


• Cost: $940bn over 10 years; but it would reduce deficit by $143bn by tackling fraud, abuse, and waste


• Expands women's health preventative coverage, including services such as well-woman visits, mammograms, domestic violence screening, screening for STIs, and access to birth control without charge

Of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama said "A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, 'Huh. It works. It makes sense.'"

One of the most controversial aspects of the Affordable Care Act is this concept of the "individual mandate" or requiring people to have insurance.  The individual mandate is really important because it reduces the overall costs of health care for everyone.  But don't take my word for it.  Heck, (not h-e-ll, we are mormons after all) don't take Barack Obama's word for it!

"If you don't want to buy insurance, then you have to help pay for the cost of the state picking up your bill, because under federal law if someone doesn't have insurance, then we have to care for them in the hospitals, give them free care. So we said, no more, no more free riders. We are insisting on personal responsibility. Either get the insurance or help pay for your care."
Mitt Romney, defending the 2006 Massachusetts Health Reform in a debate with Rick Santorum, Jacksonville, Florida, 1/26/12

YES!  More cowbell.  At a time when partisan politics have harshly criticized the 2010 US health care reform, I long to hear Mitt Romney defend the Massachusetts Health Reform!  I believe there are far more important reasons for health reform (like, uhh, helping people), but it is soooo refreshing to hear it defended in 'Republican speak'.

I'm not the only one who feels good about this. Of Romney's words, Prof. John McDonough from Harvard School of Public Health said, "Romney has given in this entire presidential campaign last evening what I believe is the most effective and persuasive rationale and defense of the individual mandate."

A recent study reports that Taxachusetts (as my in-laws so lovingly call it) is doing very well after the 2006 health initiative.  Access to health care remains high, emergency room visits are down, and there has been some improvements in health outcomes.

"I gotta fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!"

President Barack Obama, you gained my (second) vote on March 23, 2010.  And I personally thank you for on behalf of all 32 million Americans who will now have access to health care!

Post by Doctor LauraClubFancy, your health care correspondent-

Read more here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/27/145993578/romneys-unlikely-and-persuasive-defense-of-the-individual-mandate

1. He frequently gets mistaken for Elder Bednar.

2. Unlike Elder Bednar, Roberts knows how to smile with his eyes.

3. In 1998, he petitioned the Supreme Court in behalf of several rerun television series -  and these were amazing T.V. shows such as Hart to Hart, T.J. Hooker, and Who's the Boss?

4. Roberts has been the focus of a lot of crazy conservative criticism: he was called "the worst part of the Bush legacy," and someone hacked his Wikipedia page to declare him "the 17th Chief Traitor." Additionally, Glenn (nobody misses you) Beck is selling T-shirts calling him a coward.  But despite all this, Roberts has kept good humor about him.  In explaining that he would be out of the country in Malta for two weeks teaching a class, he said, "Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea."

5. He is way more attractive than Ginsberg... and... well, Ginsberg.

6. His ruling proved a little too confusing for those at FOX News and CNN - (he didn't accept the individual mandate based on the commerce argument, but accepted it as a tax) - and these esteemed news organizations reported that the individual mandate was ruled unconstitutional before realizing they'd got it wrong.  FOX (see below) condescended to look to SCOTUSblog.com to get their information, since their own correspondents couldn't process what they were reading.  I love it.

7. Now that Healthcare Reform is a reality, Rush Limbaugh will leave the country!  (He said he'd go to Costa Rica... which, uh... has socialized medicine.)

8. Justice Roberts has given Romney the phrase that pays: the healthcare law is a tax! Except this maybe a hard argument for Romney - because if Obama is raising taxes on Americans by enacting healthcare reform, then what did Romney do back in Massachusetts with virtually the same plan?

9. Roberts' swing vote decision restores some faith in the Supreme Court; maybe every decision isn't decided by political affiliation or expedience?

10. His decision validated President Obama's first term in office and cleared the way for the expansion of healthcare - a hope and dream of mine for a long time now.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiujbRm9WhI&w=640&h=360]

Post by Joseph M-

[caption id="attachment_1152" align="alignleft" width="202"] (March 27th, 2012) Hundreds of activists gathered in front of the Supreme Court building to rally and show their support for the Affordable Care Act during the second day of hearings regarding the law. ~ Washington, DC ~ Photo by William Melton Jr. / SEIU[/caption]

The 110 page ruling by the Supreme Court largely upholds the Affordable Health Care Act, including the individual mandate.  And Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote based on the understanding that penalizing people for not having health care is a tax.This is a victory for President Obama and a victory for all of us, including our fellow (conservative-leaning) Americans who somehow don't know a good thing when they see it.

This will signal a shift in the election 2012. Many people will begin to look at Obama and the healthcare law differently now that this is decision has been handed down. Republicans will paint it as a tax, but the President will be able to claim a victory - and the implied insult of calling it Obamacare will fade and diminish, and this supposed pejorative will ultimately give President Obama the credit he deserves.

President Obama's official response on the ruling on C-SPAN2

Post by Joseph M- 

(Originally posted Feb. 5, 2012)

My principal reason for backing President Obama is his support and initiation of healthcare reform, and ultimately his signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law in 2010. Republicans have pejoratively labeled it Obamacare; meanwhile President Obama has embraced the term, saying, "I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care." I care too, and this issue is the political lynchpin for me. I cannot support any candidate who does not appreciate or understand the need for an expansion of access to healthcare in this country. Healthcare should not be a privilege of the wealthy, but a right for all. I believe that if we can get behind public monies for libraries, sports arenas, museums, parks, wildlife protection, and Bombs over Baghdad, then we should also ensure healthcare access.

And so you might further see my point: are you aware that through local tax payer money, you (and your children) can check out Saw I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and Saw: the Final Chapter from the Seattle Public Library and the King County Library System? And I just checked - you can get it at the Salt Lake City Library as well.

My belief is that providing healthcare is the right thing to do; it is the Christian thing to do, and this aligns with my Mormon faith. I echo the words written by Boyd Peterson in his essay entitled, Why I'm a Mormon Democrat:

"I believe that the Democratic party takes the strongest position on many moral issues. For example, King Benjamin's address in the Book of Mormon admonishes us to prioritize, 'feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants' (Mosiah 4:26). I believe the Democratic party works harder to protect and defend these moral priorities." 

And so I feel about President Obama. When I decided to vote for Barack Obama, I did so with the belief that he would bring change to America and especially its healthcare system. Of course, there is more to be done. However, President Obama has fulfilled his promise of change in so many ways; therefore, I will continue to support him and his presidency.

In addressing the specific issue of healthcare, I like these two quotations, one from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the second from the American Medical Student Association:

"Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: 'Every person has a right to adequate health care. This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons, who are made in the image of God.' Health care is more than a commodity; it is a basic human right, an essential safeguard of human life and dignity. We believe our people's health care should not depend on where they work, how much their parents earn, or where they live. Our constant teaching that each human life must be protected and human dignity promoted leads us to insist that all people have a right to health care."

USCCB - June 18, 1993, "A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform."

"In a time when thousands of people lose their health insurance every day, when health care is becoming elusive to even well-to-do Americans, and when any person is just one pink slip away from becoming uninsured, it becomes clear that health care for all is not just important to achieve, but imperative.

At its root, the lack of health care for all in America is fundamentally a moral issue. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal health care (defined as a basic guarantee of health care to all of its citizens). While other countries have declared health care to be a basic right, the United States treats health care as a privilege, only available to those who can afford it...

Americans purport to believe in equal opportunity. Yet, in the current situation, those who do not have health care are at risk for financial ruin and poorer health, both of which disadvantage them in society and thereby do not give them equal opportunity...

The Declaration of Independence states there are certain 'inalienable rights', including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If Americans believe in an inalienable right to life, how can we tolerate a system that denies people lifesaving medications and treatments? Similarly, if Americans believe in an inalienable
right to the pursuit of happiness, how can we allow millions of dreams to be smashed by the financial and physical consequences of uninsurance?"

AMSA - Aug. 27, 2009, "The Case for Universal Healthcare."

It feels dang good to be on the right side of history on this one.

To see Part 2 of this post click here.

Post by Joseph -

Did I even spell that right?  The Supreme Court of the United States of America heard oral arguments about the Affordable Care Act today - specifically the individual insurance mandate.  And the questions came hard and fast from the conservative justices on the Court.  In fact, somebody even posed the age-old question: if we allow the federal government to require individuals to require people to purchase health insurance, "what else can it not do?"  Can it not then require people to buy broccoli?  (And of course this was Scalia with this inquiry - although some people might have guessed Clarence Thomas; but alas, he has a policy not to ask any questions during oral arguments.  And I can sympathize.  When I am around people talking and sounding real smart, sometimes I don't like to say anything either.)  But Scalia's broccoli question puzzles me somewhat, considering that the same question has been asked for the past two years and was even posed on Fox News a few days back.  What I mean is this: at the very least, couldn't Scalia have been original and used a different example, like carrots?  Seriously, is broccoli the only healthy vegetable out there? Or does Scalia have stock in Green Giant?  Maybe he was hoping for an Etch-a-Sketch-style surge on Wall Street.

What is also interesting is that the Obama administration's lawyer had to answer the question straightforwardly: "No, that's quite different. That's quite different," Donald Verrilli said.  "The food market, while it shares that trait that everybody's in it, it is not a market in which your participation is often unpredictable and often involuntary. It is not a market in which you often don't know before you go in what you need, and it is not a market in which, if you go in and -- and seek to obtain a product or service, you will get it even if you can't pay for it."

But all joking aside, I am following this story more than what my health insurance plan allows.  We have come too far and fought too hard for this victory to have it taken away by some conservative judges.  Checks and balances haven't seemed this fair since the Supreme Court voted Bush into the oval office in 2000.

Here are two links about today's proceedings:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2017846888_apussupremecourthealthcare.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-considers-main-constitutional-question-in-health-care-law/2012/03/26/gIQAkyKWdS_story_1.html

Today, March 23, 2012, is the two year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act.

What an exciting moment in the history of our country. Look at the reaction moment photo.  Obama's face captures it all, with others cheering in the background.  It looks like Teddy Roosevelt's horse is also excited.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="531"] Barack Obama reacts to the House agreeing to the Senate's ammendment to the ACA[/caption]

Today the NPR health blog posted a great article about where we are in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  Has it met it's goals?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/22/149161895/where-implementation-of-health-overhaul-stands?ft=1&f=103537970

The article simply summarizes in table format each of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 cost and impact, what has been done, and whether or not it is "on track".  The table really impressed me as an excellent, well-referenced resource that I wanted to refer our readers to.  It divides the provisions into expanding coverage, senior benefits, and consumer protections.  Below are some highlights.

EXPANDING COVERAGE - 7 provisions

3/7 - Met goal

3/7 - Has not met goal

1/7 - Too soon to tell

An estimated 54 million people received at least one free preventive health benefit in 2011 (goal was 41 million).

48,879 people covered through 2011; Cost: $618 million through 2011 (goal was 200,000-400,000 covered).

SENIOR BENEFITS - 3 provisions

3/3 - Met goal

Prescription drug benefit included 3.8 million beneficiaries who saved $2.3 billion in 2011.  Old people should love Obama.

CONSUMER PROTECTIONS - 5 provisions

2/5 - Met goal

3/5 - Too soon to tell

Insurers can no longer impose lifetime limits.

I'm impressed, are you?

By Doctor LauraClubFancy, your health care correspondent.

Post by Joseph M -

I tried to stay rather upbeat (and nice) in my last post when I expressed my primary reason for supporting President Obama (expansion of access to healthcare in America), but in reality, I am not completely satisfied with how everything turned out. I am disappointed that we did not get the public option. While many in the far-left Democratic camp wanted a single payer system, I feel that this might be too much, too far, too Canada to ever get passed in Washington D.C. However, I wish that more moderate Democrats and Republicans would have gone "all in" and gotten us the public option; I suppose they were afraid of what might happen (and ultimately did happen) back home at election time. Yes, it appeared that many senators and representatives, in hopes of preserving their jobs in congress, carefully walked the edge of the healthcare blade in hopes that they would not be implicated by the far right when the final tally of votes was taken. But alas, the bloodletting of the 2010 congressional elections seemed to come straight out of the Rambo film franchise; the tea party republicans went for the gut, and bloody entrails were scattered across the ground. The moderate Dems and Repubs lost their jobs in such high numbers the unemployment rate ticked up half a percentage point (and yes, Obama was blamed for that too.) Even the beloved (but not far enough to the right?) Bob Bennett, Senator from Utah and grandson of Heber J. Grant, lost out to a tea party candidate, the some nameless son of Rex E. Lee, former president of BYU.

Even with the healthcare reform, millions of Americans will still be without coverage without a public option in place. I don't see anything Christian about the refusal to provide healthcare to American citizens, and their reasons always involve some sort of judgment of the poor: they're without healthcare because they don't want to work; they're lazy, they want free handouts; they don't take care of their health; it is their fault they are fat, or smoke, or don't exercise, or eat Krispy Kremes, (insert whatever you want to here - just be aware that wealthy people are perfectly healthy and never eat doughnuts or smoke cigarettes and thus deserve their healthcare.) I've become so frustrated with the Christian Right that I'm somewhat pleased that they don't claim us Mormons as Christian; in fact, it's gotten to the point that when I'm asked if I'm Christian, I feel as if I want to answer, "Heck no. I'm Mormon."

I know that name-calling happens on both sides of the political spectrum, but the raucousness that ensued during the healthcare debate in congress (the town hall meetings, Sarah Palin's death panel, charges of socialism) seemed to come very heavily from the conservatives. This wailing and gnashing of teeth only served to strengthen my feeling of resolve that Obama's plan was not only moral, but the right plan for America. He advocated a moderate plan that even the insurance companies could stand behind, and it's actually such a middle-of the road stance that many in Obama's own party disapproved.

I personally felt saddened by the loss of the public option, and my very liberal sister and I discussed the issue numerous times over the phone. She was angry that President Obama didn't fight harder for the public option: "Why is he being so weak? Why isn't he standing up to those Hatriots in Washington?" But I told her then, and I say it now: in the end, Obama's willingness to compromise and let it go only proved his skills as a leader. Healthcare reform was passed, millions more can now be covered. While Republicans dig in their heels on anything that Obama proposes and supports, he continues on. And so do we continue on in our support of him. Obama 2012.