1) the thought that 'people will die' is hype. NO ONE, regarless of insurance, ability to pay, etc, gets denied needed care. The law requires all Hospitals to administer any needed care, to anyone, at any time.
2) There are plenty of people who would like a venue, to provide everyone in the US with some form of health coverage, who just don't think that Obamacare is the right way to go about it. I fall in that group.
3) Onec Obamacare was law, I gave no support for those trying to kill it the way they did. It passed, it was found Constitutional, right or wrong, it should be followed. Had I been in charge of the House, I would never allowed such a stand. Now, what I would have tried to do, was pass a House resolution, fully funding Obamacare, on the condition that either everyone follows the law as written, or everyone gets one more year to enroll without penalty.
Does it not seem odd to anyone, that McDonald's (among MANY others) got a waiver so they wouldn't be punished for not providing ACA approved policies, but the workers on those policies did not? Can anyone, anywhere, show me in the actual law, where that is allowed? I sure don't know of any wording that allows it, yet donate enough campaign money, err....I mean bring forth a sound argument, and you can get a waiver.
MANY of us are ashamed of those that would rather have Cruz on their Coin than a healthy Baby in the hood.
It really is Sick, but is a mental illness they choose with dumbfounded glee.
Husker-J wrote, "1) the thought that 'people will die' is hype. NO ONE, regarless of insurance, ability to pay, etc, gets denied needed care. The law requires all Hospitals to administer any needed care, to anyone, at any time."
This is a common misconception on one key respect and you are technically telling the truth, but consider this: Hospitals are only required to treat someone to a point that a condition is stabalized. If you go into a hospital for example in diabetic shock, sure, they will try and bring you out of it and give you a small amount of meds, but after that you would still have diabetes, no medicine, no doctor and would wind up there again to start the cycle over. If you get cancer, you get stabalized and sent home, probably to die or until you get sick enough to go back to the ER. Look it up - they only stabalize people and if you enter any ER in the US, you will see a sign that says they can't turn you away, but they will only stabalize you. Plus, you get sent a bill that is likely a whopper - it's not free - you just don't have to pay or hav insurance before you get treated.
It's a LOUSY system. Obama Care is better than that. Glad you support sensible negotiations though. The waivers were wrong as you correctly identified. We could have a much better system if we followed our neighbors to the north.
My local hospital's policy is that indigent E-Room clientele are seen and treated ONLY if they have "LIFE THREATENING" conditions. i.e substantial bleeding/trauma, or illness which present an imminent threat of death if untreated. KenJ
(Do you support Romney care in Massachussetts? It's really the same product.)
Actually there is a huge difference between the two. Romneycare was put together, approved & implemented by a successful & proven leader; Obamacare was put together, approved & implemented by a disappointing & unsuccessful leader.