Obama Tells Us to Cancel Cell Phone and Cable to Pay for Obamacare

So, if you make less that $40,000 a year and find the high cost of Obamacare to be overwhelming, President Obama has a message for you: cancel your stupid cable TV and you dang iPhone service you ingrates. THEN you will be able to afford his mandated-by-law take over of our national healthcare system.

This is what Obama told a Latino audience at a townhall held on March 6 by several Spanish language media networks.

Obama was presented with a question about a family that makes $36,000 a year and found that the cheapest Obamacare plan they could find would cost them $315 a month. This, the family felt, was too expensive and something they could not afford.

The President’s response was chilling. Obama said, “if you looked at their cable bill, their telephone, their cell phone bill… it may turn out that, it’s just they haven’t prioritized health care.”

So, he expects people to cancel their phones and TV to be able to afford his mandated, fiat healthcare charges?

But wait, isn’t this the same President who said that healthcare would be cheaper than a cell phone bill?

I can use my own expenses as an example here. I have minimum cell service and a minimum cable TV package and both bills together barely get to the $315 a month that the healthcare above would cost. So, it is clear that Obama lied right out that his takeover of our healthcare system would produce cheaper insurance rates than a cell phone bill.

But I guess we are getting used to this President being an outright liar…

Stupid Democrat Thinks 225-Year-Old Constitution is 400 Years Old
Democrats Fundraising With Terrorists
  • LiberalNightmare

    What do I cancel so that I can afford my new, twice as expensive deductable? My mortgage?

    • I recommend cancelling every dhimmocrat you can…

      • jim_m

        Allow me to voice my displeasure at the new disqus feedback policy which doesn’t show how many down votes a comment gets. I fear that our resident lefties are no longer getting the satisfaction of knowing how many people disagree with them.

        • Brucehenry

          I was wondering about that. Thought I was just being ignored. Whew! I feel better now.

          • jim_m

            It’s like some idiotic elementary school self-esteem policy that forbids any negative outcome, like the score cannot be kept in a kickball game for fear that someone might figure out that losing sucks.

          • Brucehenry

            Is it present throughout the Disqus system or is it just Wizbang that’s being politically correct?

          • jim_m


          • Everywhere – but as long as it preserves even one person’s self-esteem, isn’t it worth it?


          • jim_m

            Sadly, Disqus management has missed the point that self esteem is gained not from how we deal with success but by how we deal with failure. By eliminating failure we don’t create self esteem, but instead create unrealistic egotism.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, if Disqus is listening, I agree that the negative votes should show. I disagree that negative votes are a sign of “failure,” though.

    • jim_m

      You should be proud to sacrifice to support Dear Leader’s great works of national transformation. Rest assured that your traitorous comments have been noted and the IRS will be contacting you to ensure your future happy compliance with Dear Leader’s wonderful agenda.

      • NEVER, in his sicko psycho unrealistic dreams!

  • jim_m

    How dare the American people presume to decide that their wants and needs take precedent over his ideologically driven policies. Thank goodness that this law will make flouting obama’s desires illegal and these ungrateful peasants will be properly punished.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Can you imagine the outcry if W had told a group of Latinos to cancel their cable TV and cell phones so they could afford a cheap health insurance policy?

    • Retired military

      Yet Obama can tell them that so they can afford an expensive insurance policy which is 3X worse than what they could have had before Obamacare was passed.

      • Isaiah

        Well, because he is looking out for them of course. The evil Republicans aren’t. Yet he can create executive order after executive order…except on immigration policy. Something tells me he cares less about latinos than the Republicans….

    • David Bradshaw

      I wonder how many obama supporters have obama phones,wide screens and cable subsidized by the taxpayers?…meanwhile I have a basic cell,no cable and can’t afford Odumbo care even with 5k deductibles for each of us..thanks

  • Retired military

    Why didn’t he suggest this to the uninsured before Obamacare was passed?

  • RDOwens

    You pay $315 monthly for cellphone and cable? In our household, that is not a minimum plan. Time to trim those premium channels and go to a prepaid cell plan.

    • jim_m

      It isn’t the place of government to use the threat of fines or anything else to force people to prioritize one legal behavior over all others.

    • warnertoddhuston

      Why should I trim anything? Who are you to tell me what I should trim and what I shouldn’t? You are as bad as the assholes in Washington.

      • RDOwens

        Lighten up, Francis. I was just pointing out that $315 for phone and cable doesn’t sound like the “minimum package”. Spend whatever the heck you want; I don’t have the “minimum package” but pay far less than $315 monthly.

        • warnertoddhuston

          Screw you, pal. You don’t know what I have nor what costs are in my area. Go back under the rock you came from.

        • jim_m

          THe point remains that while it may not be the most frugal choice to spend $315 on cable and your cell phone, it is still your choice and the government is way out of line saying that they are going to make that choice for you and that if you don’t prioritize your spending the way they want you to they will punish you (by levying a rather large tax on you).

          • RDOwens

            I certainly agree, Jim.

            I merely forgot that having fun was forbidden. I shall not make that mistake again. Cheers!

          • jim_m

            If your initial post was a joke or sarcastic, I think that you need to practice on your ability to express that because it was lacking any indication that it was other than completely serious.

        • Mind your own business, RD.

          • Guest

            rdopwens was referring to the fact that even if you cut cable and phone you could not afford obamacare as there not that expensive , but I am glad obama was fool enough to say it , need to spread it around as another thorn in the sides of liberals because they dont care about the poor or anybody the way they claim to .they want to only make everybody make the same and we all become equally poor so they can control us easier , its call social communism

  • 914

    Go to hell Obama! The sooner the better.

  • Paul Hooson

    Well, I think this is what rubs some people wrong here. They work hard to pay taxes, and should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and relax to an evening of great cable TV or other luxury, but are told to sacrifice for others that can’t afford health care. It seems like nothing much has changed to control health care costs or to make health care more affordable. Things are as bad, if not worse now here….

    • Turns out a law declaring health “insurance” that covers incidental and routine expenses Affordable™ is just as effective as a royal command that the tide turn. Who knew?

      • Anyone with two brain cells to rub together?

        Which obviously excludes the entire progressive movement.

    • Work under the table, pay as little taxes if any at all, as possible.

  • Trista

    Dear President Obama,

    I want health insurance. I believe in having health insurance. A few years ago I was very sick and was hospitalized several times and I realized then how important it was to have health insurance. Right now, I cannot afford it. Not even “Obamacare”, because apparently my husband and I earn “too much”. Too much would be less than $31 000.

    I have a college degree and I earn around $12000 a year. I could not find work so I have been working in retail, earning little more than minimum wage and doing what I have to do because we have to survive. My husband earns around $19000. This year, we had to pay in on our taxes even though I chose to be taxed as a single person and paid more than I should have. I guess we are being penalized because we don’t have children that we cannot afford, so we don’t get any “breaks”.

    We do not own a house. We have one vehicle that we are making payments on and can barely afford the upkeep and insurance on it. It’s a challenge to have two working people and one vehicle. We do not have cable or a landline. We have not seen a dentist in over 5 years, but we need to. We do have cheap prepaid phones that cost us less than $20 a month because we only use it for emergencies. If we gave it up it would not cover the cost for medical insurance. We live from check to check, have no savings, no retirement, no investments and barely make it from week to week to cover our expenses for food and gas. I should also add that we get no government assistance and would not accept it even if we did qualify. We live a healthy lifestyle as far as possible, exercise and take care
    of ourselves. We have no addictions and no real “bad habits”. We hardly ever go out, have never taken a vacation together and don;t spend our money frivolously. In fact, we are hardworking, honest people who barely survive.

    Please, walk in my shoes for a week and tell me again how I can cut my expenses to pay for the insurance that I so desperately need.

    Respectfully, I disagree.

    • Brucehenry

      You don’t say, Trista, whether you HAD insurance when you were hospitalized and realized how important health insurance is. If you didn’t, what happened to all the bills you ran up? It would indeed be nigh impossible to pay for several hospitalizations on a combined $31K income. You have my sympathy.

      But if those bills were left unpaid guess who picked them up? Premium payers, shareholders, and maybe taxpayers depending on where you were treated. Meaning me and my family, among others, and I assure you I and my family struggle to make ends meet, too.

      Also, be aware that if those bills were left unpaid that screwed up your credit, and you may be paying nearly twice as much for your car as you would have if those bills had been covered. And remember, a few years ago Obamacare wasn’t the law of the land. You couldn’t afford insurance THEN, either, apparently (if my assumption is correct).

      Besides, we are constantly told by conservatives that the only people making minimum wage are entry level kids, and that adults who are still making minimum wage must not WANT any better for themselves. That if you just apply yourself, stay married, and don’t smoke crack, you will soon enter the middle class and start living the American Dream.

      I guess you will tell me that’s not so, and I will believe you. Please let everyone else on this board know that you are pulling up on your bootstraps as hard as you can but not getting very far. Maybe Jim and a couple of others here could use a hike in your shoes, as well as the president.

      PS I bet you qualify for a big subsidy, and I bet your premium would be more affordable than you think if you looked into it. And remember if you’ve been hospitalized before you may have a pre-existing condition and without Obamacare you might not get coverage at ANY price.

      • Trista

        Brucehenry, I did not have health insurance at the time of my first hospitalization and no, I would not have been able to pay the bills on my income. However, my bills were paid timely and in full thanks to the help of close family members. I assure you that neither the tax payers nor premium members were burdened with my expenses. Thankfully, I did get health insurance after that which I kept for a number of years. I canceled it when I could no longer afford to keep it.

        I did not mention any of this as I did not think it was relevant to the point I was making, which was that I disagree with President Obama’s assumption that I would be able to afford the premiums if I prioritized my expenses.

        PS. I actually have pretty good credit.

        • Brucehenry

          Well, I was making an assumption, no offense. There are lots of folks who DON’T have family members who can pay their medical bills for them if they themselves are unable, and lots of folks whose credit gets ruined because they can’t pay the medical bills they run up.

          I still maintain that you probably qualify for a subsidy and your premium may well be very low based on what you’ve told us about your income. I also maintain that you need insurance — will your family members be able to help you if you get sick AGAIN? And remember that your earlier hospitalization may have left you with a preexisting condition that, thanks to Obamacare, you will not be penalized for.

          Also, you should remember ( and so should Warner) that Obama was talking about this one particular caller when he hypothesized that maybe the guy wasn’t making health insurance a priority. He didn’t say everyone should drop their cable and cell phone service as Warner would have us believe.

          And again, I can certainly sympathize (empathize, really) with your paycheck to paycheck situation. I hope your story will serve as a lesson to some commenters here who have repeatedly told me that all one needs to do in America to succeed is to work hard and not do drugs, and that no one is “stuck” in a minimum wage job. That those who have worked a low wage job for years must be too lazy to work their way out of it. That’s obviously not the case for you, so why do you think that view is so common on the Right?

          • jim_m

            Sorry, Bruce. obama was generalizing when he said that “it’s just they haven’t prioritized health care.” The fact of the matter is that people have prioritized health care, but they have placed it behind cable and the cell phone. This is where most young adults prioritize it because their health care needs are typically rather limited.

            But this isn’t good enough for you and obama. You both have to use the full power of the federal government to dictate to each and every individual where health care must be prioritized. You voted against freedom and individual liberty. You voted to say that individuals should ave no right to decide for themselves what is best.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah a generalization can indeed be inferred. Point to you.

            Many people would rather have cell phones and cable than car insurance, too, but we make them prioritize car insurance so that others don’t have to pay if they have an accident.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, but you don’t necessarily have to own a car. You don’t really have much of a choice about being alive. Forcing car insurance as a prerequisite for driving is not violating any basic human rights. Forcing health care insurance on people because they happen to be breathing and they can’t stop doing so without killing themselves does.

          • Brucehenry

            Think of the individual mandate as a new civic duty.

            Just as military conscription was once unheard of, and only when the Civil War was raging was it first used in the US, it became a normal duty in the years after World War Two. Does anyone today think that the government does not have the power to conscript young men for military service if the Congress passes a law allowing it?

            We had a crisis in this country. Healthcare costs were soaring and millions and millions of us had no insurance. Most medical bills that WEREN’T covered by insurance weren’t being paid by the people who incurred them, forcing everyone else to shoulder that burden. No one since Hillary made a serious attempt to address the issue until Obamacare. And in the meantime, our populace and our economy grew weaker, flabbier, less agile.

            Something had to be done. The individual mandate, while you may find it odious, is the only way to be sure everyone pays their fair share. The rules against preexisting conditions and the subsidies make coverage available for nearly all. And for most of the rest, the least able to afford it, there is Medicaid.

            Only in HateObamAmericaLand is everyone paying their fair share for health coverage a tyrannical usurpation and a trampling of basic human rights.

          • jim_m

            No I am not going to think of the latest left wing fad as my freaking civic duty. It’s none of your GD business how I want to prioritize my spending and you have no business dictating to the nation how they should live their lives. Period.

            We already have enough data to demonstrate that obamacare is not working.

          • DaveTheLoveable

            If you have such a problem with ‘other people’ being left on the hook for others healthcare (“Most medical bills that WEREN’T covered by insurance weren’t being paid by the people who incurred them, forcing everyone else to shoulder that burden.”), I only have one question for you: Where exactly do you think all of these WONDERFUL subsidies come from? Other people are still paying out the nose, there’s just a gov mandated middleman now…

          • Brucehenry

            So you would prefer that these moochers pay NO cost at all. Other people ARE still paying out the nose, but theoretically at least a little less, and now the moochers are paying too. Better.

          • DaveTheLoveable

            But it’s not better! I admit, I agree with your basic premise; I don’t want to pay other’s med expenses; but at least before it was a choice, not gov fiat to force us to pay…

          • Brucehenry

            But it WASN’T a choice. If you were a stand up guy who made sure his family was covered, you STILL paid for others either in the form of higher premiums, tax funds, or both.

            The difference is, now, that those who would have chosen irresponsibility have had that choice removed. You still pay for others in the form of subsidies, but at least theoretically, as everyone is finally paying in, premiums should level off. More, and healthier, premium payers means lower premiums, supposedly.

          • DaveTheLoveable

            It WAS a choice, because no one was forcing you to buy said insurance, responsibility not withstanding. While I agree, I don’t necessarily want to pay for others responsibility, it bothers me deeply that the gov has decided to make that choice for me… – “You still pay for others in the form of subsidies, but at least theoretically, as everyone is finally paying in, premiums should level off. More, and healthier, premium payers means lower premiums, supposedly.”; everything always works ‘in theory’…

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, those who were irresponsible enough to remain uncovered had a choice. Those who were doing the right thing didn’t. You’re fine with that?

            But I’m reminded of the riddle: What’s the difference between theory and practice? Answer: In theory, nothing.

          • DaveTheLoveable

            The difference is everything works in ‘theory’, but in practice things don’t always go so smoothly. To your other point, you’re half right; those irresponsible types did have that choice to be irresponsible, but those who chose to get insurance also had a choice (Like I said, responsibility not withstanding); but now thanks to the ACA, that choice has been taken away – That’s what really bothers me- Before, I had that choice, knowing I was entering into that risk pool; now Dear Leader has removed that choice- I must now pay whether I have insurance or not, under penalty of law

          • Brucehenry

            As you did before, either in the form of your tax money if you weren’t covered, or higher premiums AND tax money if you were.

          • DaveTheLoveable

            True enough, but how exactly is it any different now? except of course for the higher deductibles AND gov middlemen… (also, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but premiums are higher now too)

          • Brucehenry

            It’s different now because those who previously chose not to pay at all have to pay now, either in the form of signing up or as a penalty. In the long run that should reduce upward pressure on premiums unless the law of supply and demand has been repealed.

            Yes, I’ve noticed that premiums have gone up lately. I’ve been noticing that for 30 years. Had you not noticed it?

          • Jwb10001

            No Bruce the government does not make them have car insurance, at least not for their own car. If you own your car you only need to insure damage and injury to the other guy. If you don’t own your car the lending company makes you insure it not the government. This over simplified argument is stupid and most people know it why would someone that proclaims to be as smart as you repeat it?

          • Brucehenry

            Right you only are required to have liability insurance for your car so that others don’t have to pay if your car is involved in an accident. Never said otherwise, although it’s true I wasn’t specific. But only the most tendentious would claim they didn’t know what I meant.

  • Hank_M

    It is amazing isn’t it? The man who can’t spell “Respect”, the man who can’t pronounce corpsman, the man who thinks places like Charleston, South Carolina and other Atlantic cities are in the Gulf, the man busy running the country into the ground with his deficits, presumes to tell us how to live and prioritize our own budgets.

    Am I missing a laugh track or something?

    • jim_m

      Am I missing a laugh track or something?

      Nope, just the roar of applause from the mindlessly adoring left.

  • Guest

    dumber & dumber so people that are looking for work #renewui will have no phone or internet to look for a job but hell u can get the #epicfail #obamacare

  • GarandFan

    That’s what happens when El Presidente goes ‘off-teleprompter’.

  • Vagabond661

    If you like your cable bill, you can….ah nevermind.

  • Terri Herstad

    In a round about way, he just told us to turn off our connection to the media. If we do that, he can’t push his agenda on us because we won’t be there to listen. Did he think about that? I don’t agree with cancelling cellphones. I haven’t had cable in 15 years and still can’t afford to pay $177/month PLUS COPAYS through the “Affordable Care Act.” He failed to mention there are COPAYS attached to the monthly bill.

    • Hank_M

      “he can’t push his agenda on us because we won’t be there to listen”

      No need to listen, he’s shoving his agenda down our throats.

      • Terri Herstad

        Fair point made. He forgets that without our connection to the media, we will end up developing the ability to question what his agenda is really about. No cable? In many communities, that means no TV. Cut your internet for healthcare? Decreased connection to the media through the web. Cut your cell bill? How can the NSA spy on us then? Premiums have risen and he has done nothing to bring them under control.

  • JWH

    Yes, cancel your cable. If you don’t have health insurance and you show up at the ER with grievous injury, then your medical bills have been passed on to me. And I resent it.

    • Proper insurance would be about sharing risks instead of expenses, but medical insurance has become a shared-expense pool because of the things people charge to it. So even if the person you’re complaining about has coverage, if you and he have the same carrier you’re not much better off.

      Now carry that thought over to single-payer, in which there is, in effect, only one insurance carrier, and get really mad.

      • JWH

        I’m actually OK with subsidizing another person’s expenses if he and I are on the same carrier (or different carriers) because he and I are both paying into the system with our premiums.

        What drives me nuts (despite my leftward political lean) was a liberal guy I chatted with a few years ago. He blurted out, “I think healthcare should be free!”

        I was in the temporary employment market at the time, and I had gone to some expense, and not an insignificant expense at that, to maintain basic health insurance in case something happened to me.

        I would have slapped the guy upside the head with my insurance declaration package, but thanks to his lack of coverage, I would have been on the hook for his icepack.

        • jim_m

          “I think healthcare should be free!”

          Somebody pays for it, unless you are demanding that the people that can provide healthcare services do so for no remuneration (which is in fact what a LOT of people think should be the case. I cannot tell you how many people I have encountered that think that people providing all sorts of allied health services are doing so on a volunteer basis in their spare time).

          • jim_m

            Just to riff off of the healthcare should be free thing….

            People think that blood should be free because it is collected from volunteer donors.

            Did you want someone who knows what they are doing to stick a needle in your arm? That costs something.

            Did you want a sterile bag so when the blood is transfused you don’t get a load of bacteria injected into your veins that could cause fatal sepsis? That’s gonna cost you too.

            Did you want it tested for HIV, Hepatitis, Chagas Disease, West Nile Virus, Syphilis, and a host of other things so you don’t die from the blood? Between the cost of the tests themselves, the cost of the machines that run the tests, the cost of the certified professional to run those machines, a clean facility to do those tests in and the mountain of regulatory bullshit that has to be complied with it starts to add up.

            Not to mention all the miscellaneous disposables that are used to check you hemoglobin, your temperature, the bandaids, etc, The machines to collect it, test it, process it and store it, and the people to collect it, transport it, process it, store it, deliver it to the hospital, find other donors to come in and donate, etc and you are lucky if you can squeeze it all in for under $200.00 (blood can sell to a hospital at anywhere from $150-290 depending on how it has been treated and where it is coming from and going to. It gets more expensive in rural areas where it is harder to deliver)

            That doesn’t even get into what the hospital has to go through to get it to you.

            So yeah, blood is free if you want to scoop it off of the ground with your bare hands. You want something safe and beneficial, you’re gonna have to pay for that. Idiots always think that they should have whatever they want from others at no cost to themselves. The rest of us call it theft.

          • JWH

            At the other end of the spectrum, I think you can make the case that healthcare providers inflate costs of their services.

            A couple years ago, I got some complete bloodwork done. My insurer covered it 100 percent under the rubric of preventive care, which I expected, because a piece of paper says that my employer and I pay them money each month, and in exchange, I get that kind of thing fully covered.

            But I was floored when I saw the explanation of benefits. Totaled up, the billed charge — the “retail” cost — was around a couple thousand dollars. But the allowed cost — that is, what my insurer paid — was a couple hundred bucks.

            I recognize insurers get discounts. That’s what negotiated rates are for, after all. But a 90 percent discount tells me that the retail cost is way, way out of whack.

          • jim_m

            The “allowed cost” is from a number of factors. It could be from a new test or treatment that the insurer does not yet approve, it could be due to special carve outs to the provider where some things are deeply discounted (at a loss) in order to get the more lucrative things paid for.

            A big factor is that insurance companies pay most of their payments based on a markup over what Medicare and Medicaid pay, and those two organizations are hopelessly out of touch with technology, science and the marketplace.

            For instance, HCFA (Now CMS) was paying $12.95 for Antigen typing of blood for transfusion. A person who has been mutiplely transfused can develop antibodies against various blood group antigens and therefore the blood must be screened for those antigens to prevent an adverse reaction to the transfusion (some severe reaction types can cause kidney failure and even death). So in their wisdom they decided that they would pay $12.95 for this test.

            Now sometimes you have to screen dozens (even hundreds) of units to find the right ones. The government only paid you one $12.95 fee per unit transfused. Sometimes you had to screen for more than one antigen because the patient had developed multiple antibodies. You got $12.95. Sometimes the reagents alone cost upwards of $50.00 per test (not including labor and other costs). You still got $12.95.

            Somebody has to pay. The government has set the price far below cost because they are corrupt, ignorant and cheap, and don’t care who gets hurt by their decisions because they know there will never be any repercussions coming back on them. So the people who end up paying are those who have crap insurance or no insurance.

            The costs are not bloated because of greed. I’ve seen too many hospitals go out of business to believe that the costs are high because of greed. The costs are bloated because government has intervened in a stupid fashion and screwed up the system so people are trying to find ways to compensate and recover their operating costs.

            Yes doctors (whose professional fees are completely separate from the services bill) and administrators do get paid well, but this is nothing compared to industry and nothing compared to the corrupt payouts found in government.

          • I think you can make the case that healthcare providers inflate costs of their services.

            Because “insurance is paying for it,” the patient has no way to know, nor reason to care, what any of it really costs. That very well might include the guy who thinks providers inflate their costs. Maybe he thinks that because he has no clue what those costs should be.

          • JWH

            Actually, I don’t have any idea. I have no access to hospitals’ economic data, to which I will readily stipulate. But … when a product is apparently available at an 80 percent discount from retail price, I wonder how genuine that retail price actually is.

            It reminds me of my local JC Penney or Jos. A. Bank, where items are always on “sale” at something far below the retails price. That tells me my local department store’s really doesn’t expect to sell anything at retail.

          • JWH

            Also riffing off of “healthcare should be free.” I actually prefer single payer over the “let’s treat people who are sick in the ER regardless of their insurance or need” system, provided that everyone — every citizen who is able to do so — pays into that system in one way or another. Single-payer isn’t “free healthcare.” It’s “everybody pays for the healthcare ahead of time.”

  • Well, of course… They can all get a free Obamaphone anyway.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    The brutal irony of course is that Obama’s core supporters to a large extent are so lacking in upward mobility their choices really do come down to having health insurance or possessing modern-day, quasi-necessities such as cell phones.

  • Alpha_Male

    My wife is an ICU nurse with 20+ years of experience and I’ve asked her what we should do to reform health care and she honestly has no clue.

    The problem with single payer is they never take into account, like most utopic fictions, the human condition; if people aren’t compensated for extra effort they will do the minimum to meet the required job description. If a Dr. is going to be paid 100k a year and is expected to see a certain number of patients per day that is exactly what they are going to do, no more no less, there is simply no incentive to do anything else. A prime example is the privately owned hectare of land on Russian communal farms, that one hectare out produced the communal farm ten fold simply because that hectare was theirs to do with as they pleased, they worked the minimum amount, as required by the Soviets, and then would spend all their time on their private property which they could produce for profit. It would be wonderful it we lived in a Star Trek universe where a pill could cure diabetes and a machine could repair the most grievous wounds, unfort., we have to live in reality.

    Laissez faire economics, as purposed by some radio talk show hosts, isn’t the answer either. The market will not correct itself when it comes to health care, people aren’t clipping the 2 for 1 open heart surgery in their local fliers and one just has to look at dentistry to understand that Dr.’s, like dentists, will collude to maintain price. Parents don’t want to find the cheapest solution to helping their sick child, and they certainly don’t want a government official telling them what they will and won’t do.

    I’m curious to know what solutions people have. I think we can all agree that health care is too expensive but at the same time we have to understand that the U.S. has the best and most innovative health system in the world simply because of the profit motive. Any thoughts?

    • jim_m

      Health care does not need reform. How we regulate it and how we pay for it is what needed changing. Unfortunately, what we got was to amp up the regulation and we screwed up how we got it paid for making it far more expensive. In other words we added more government and it got worse. Shocker.

      • Alpha_Male

        Agreed, cost is the issue and gov’t. solutions are def. not the answer, never have been and never will be.

        Then again open market solutions aren’t the answer either, the nature of health care is unique in that market forces are hard to bring to bear with it. If your in an accident and admitted to the hospital you don’t have time to shop around for the best deal and if your child is sick your not looking for the 20% off coupon in your local mailer, you want the best possible care, the same thing the millionaires kid is getting.

        What are some ideas to actually bring down costs? It’s ridiculous that basic lab work costs thousands of dollars, that an admittedly complicated procedure, like open heart surgery, should cost upwards of $250,000 and a basic 15 min visit to your doctor should run $200 or more.

        Malpractice reform isn’t the only answer, Texas has limited the damages awarded for pain and suffering, liability coverage is down for doctors and we’ve gotten a flood of them, but costs have risen at the same rate as everywhere else, so that’s not the solution either.

        If you had a magic wand what would your thoughts be to make health care more affordable while keeping it the best in the world?

        • jim_m

          Before government intervention there was a tradition in health care that you donated a certain portion of your work to charity. In other words you treated the poor and indigent for free. But with government intervention it became illegal to treat people for free if you were also billing medicare/medicaid. So health care practitioners and organizations became used to the idea that they had to be paid for everything no matter what.

          If we have a health care delivery problem for people with lower incomes it is because the government created that problem.

          If I had a magic wand I would go back to the age when government didn’t dictate to physicians how much they got paid and from whom. Government intervention has been a toxic and corrosive agent in healthcare , we need less of it not more.

          • Alpha_Male

            I don’t know , there are many Dr.’s that donate time at free clinics around the country and that’s not even taking into consideration organizations like Dr.’s without Borders, so delivery has never been an issue.

            The problem is medicine is so much more complicated and detailed than it was in the days you reference. The days when almost all doctors were gp’s and the usual course of action was, “take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning” is no longer applicable.

            The true answer, if I had a magic wand, would be that students would flood out of med school smelling of roses and unicorn farts and work tirelessly for the betterment of mankind, unburdened by debt, the threat of malpractice would be nonexistent and they would be very happy to live in a 2200 square foot home in a middle class neighborhood. Single payer assumes that scenario but as we’ve seen time and time again reality has a way of slapping Facist/Socialist utopians up side the head.

          • jim_m

            What you are not understanding is that it used to be much more that Doctors donating time to various missions to help the poor. Doctors used to donate a significant portion of their daily practice to the poor and not just for special events. They used to donate that to the neighborhoods and cities that they lived in and not overseas.

            Again that things you point out are due primarily to the effects of government regulation. Government has incentivised doctors to go into other specialties because that is what the government has paid better for. No one wants to be a family practice doc because it pays less and you still have the high malpractice costs.

            Yes, we could solve high malpractice costs by putting sane limits on awards. But who stands against that? The dems.

          • Brucehenry

            Jim thinks we can go back to the days when folks left a bushel of potatoes as payment on the porch of the kindly country doctor who treated little Johnny’s mumps.

            Is everything sepia-toned in your world, Jim?

          • Jwb10001

            You’re right now we live in a world where average family saves $2500 per year on healthcare… oh wait we don’t live in that world either do we? Thanks to the AFFORDABLE care act everything costs more.
            This thing what ever it is, is a complete train wreck, if it weren’t Obama wouldn’t be delaying the implementation every other day.

          • Brucehenry

            It’s true Obamacare sucks in a lot of ways. It’s also true that Medicare for all would have been better, in my opinion.

            But even if there had been no Obamacare the healthcare system would have been worse, in terms of cost, than it was in 2009. Just as it was worse in 2009 than it was in 2004, than it was in 1999, than it was in 1994, than it was in 1989, yada yada.,

            But my point in the above comment is how ridiculous is Jim’s “magic wand” wish to “go back” to a golden age (that never existed) when kindly doctors treated lots of patients pro bono. How big a percentage of each doctor’s practice does he reckon that was? And when was it? The 1950s? The 1920s? In sleepy Southern town with only one doctor, how many black families got treated pro bono? If a doctor didn’t like your religion, or your morals, or your politics, or your union membership, or your fucking FACE, did he give you free medical care?

          • jim_m

            Listen dumbass, the question was “if you had a magic wand…” my response was perfectly reasonable and takes into account that this is not achievable. I see you’re back to being an ignorant ass.

          • Brucehenry

            If you had a magic wand you’d go back to when the government didn’t dictate to doctors how much they got paid AND FROM WHOM.

            So if these kindly country doctors in your ideal sepia-toned world didn’t see fit to donate their services to, say, a poor Seventh Day Adventist, or a poor black family, or a poor union member, or a poor “whore” or a “libertine” that said, poor person could just fuck off and die.

            There’s your perfectly reasonable statement, laid bare to show its perfect reasonableness.

          • jim_m

            The fact is that the vast majority of doctors DID donate significant portions of their practice. Just because you hate humanity and think that only through coercion will a man give anything of their own substance to help another man does not mean that there have not been social systems where people actually did these things.

            My statement was reasonable. Yours is filed with projected bigotry and hate. Just because you are a bigot does not mean that everyone else is.

          • Brucehenry

            Doctors picked and chose whom they would treat pro bono, if at all, based on their own whims, foibles, organizational abilities, and prejudices. Yes indeed many did a great deal of pro bono work. Others did little if any.

          • jim_m

            Yes, and as I said, you assume that they all did it in a prejudiced and bigoted fashion because that is how you would do it.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you got me. They probably all — every last one — did it in a saintly fashion free of human foible, because, like you, they were all saintly and free from any prejudice whatsoever.

          • jim_m

            Got that right

          • jim_m

            Sorry. We’re not in Kansas anymore.

  • Nagra Gautiavana

    Why is it that Obama, Pelosi, Reed, etc… spoke of how they were going
    to HELP those in need. Now those in need that cannot afford it costs
    seem like evil slackers leeching off of the system?

    Here is my story with a good ending.

    For a family of four, $210/mo to my company offering a ACA LEGAL crap Indemnity for $400/mo. Went to ACA website expecting $2500 savings and less than my cell phone bill….what did I find?…..$560/mo cheapest and a $12,000 deductible. All the ACA said cheaper? But the real killer is the catastrophic valued deductible on those plans. This is absolutely unaffordable.
    Good news if your a Christian…..

    The deductables are the real killer.

    I found a solution for that is a Health Care Sharing Ministry. I have heard good things about them; they are ACA compliant; and the cost is $370/mo or $255/mo with $1000 personal responsibility(like a deductible).
    THIS IS NOT INSURANCE. You can talk the providers into giving you cash discounts and get 100% coverage beyond the $1K up to $250,000 and in many cases beyond the $250K. Good Luck.
    See, sometimes conservatives do offer alternatives.

    Additionally, Texas did not aid medicaid because in a few years Texas will be the one PAYING for medicaid had they taken the presidential option.
    The ACA will save a lot of money in the near future and the states that took the medicaid expansion will have a HUGE bill that they cannot pay.
    This is foresight not politics. The President should have not placed this in such a way that for a good decision it supposedly hurt people.

  • Isaiah

    Mr. President,
    I invite you to come to my house and tell me what I can cancel so I can pay my premium. I imagine a family only making $36,000 may have a bit of trouble coming up with the $10,000 deductible.

  • Isaac Carter

    This is just Obama’s way of saying “Let them eat cake!”


    Cancel their cellphone service? I think most, or at least, a tremendous number of, people would sooner give up eating. Which, looking around, MAY NOT be the worst idea. Dear Leader’s approval numbers already low enough, this may sink him………..

  • Would you look at that snarky face of his when he says that crap: How about him not going on his expensive vacations, with wifeie and kidos taking his two dogs on a separate plane, golfing, among many other things. Spendaholics can’t dictate how anyone spends or prioritizes their way of spending, excuse me. Shut the H up, Obummer.

  • Paul Paine

    Planned societies always end in the same sad way. History is full of examples. We are all on “The Road to Serfdom”. (F. A. Hayek-Read it if you dare.)

  • Hm, I’m just comfortable with this but still not entirely convinced, hence i’m going to research a touch more.

    payer services