Have the village dolts figured out by now that you are no longer in charge of your own health care. Now the corporate parasites (campaign contributors who buy candidates every election) will decide what you get, how much you get, when you get it and how much you pay. When you get health care it will be delivered by the same dull-witted and poorly motivated lifelong bureaucrats who think working between breaks is really too much to expect from a career civil servant.
You have not figured out that you never were in charge of your health care. You get laid off and/or have a preexisting condition, you have very little recourse other than pony up and pay huge HUGE premiums or go without and risk financial bankruptcy if something big comes along.
People that want insurance should be able to get it at a fair price without the BS..
Obamacare isn't perfect but the way things were was worse.... Fix the issues with Obamacare, don't go backwards.
Santa...best post on here. The present system only works for those who are army ants in big corporations. I pay my own family insurance and it has gone from 620/mo to 1600/mo in 7 years. Ane we are all in perfect health. My brothers wife(they are both right wingers) can't get insurance because she has juvenial diabetes, and they complain all day about it. The new systen needs to be fixed, but atleast its a system.
MANY AMERICANS ANGRY OBAMACARE PREVENTS THEM FROM BEING SCREWED BY INSURANCE COMPANIES
Sarah Wood | Oct. 29, 2013 | Free Wood Post
Well, it’s true, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is booting some people off their existing insurance plans and people are #$%$.
Now instead of paying hundreds to thousands per month and having a deductible also in the thousands while having a plan that barely covers anything people will now have the opportunity to get better coverage. It’s outrageous is what it is.
Under the new health law, health insurance companies are being forced to use the money for coverage instead of profit. President Obama obviously hates insurance company CEOs and American citizens’ right to be screwed over.
Free Wood Post caught up with a few outraged citizens:
“My current health plan is being dropped and now I’m forced to find a new plan,” said Judy Forrestsmith. “Before I was paying $1500 per month with a $5000 deductible and barely any prescriptions covered, and now this president made it so I have preventative coverage included, prescription benefits, I can’t be denied, I get a subsidy to pay for my care, there’s no cap on coverage, and I won’t have to file for bankruptcy if something happens to me. I mean really, who does he think he is? What if I want to pay those insurance companies $18,000 per year, $5000 more out-of-pocket, and be denied coverage if I seem too expensive? Now I don’t have that choice!”
Edgar Millonsty said, “All I want is to have the ability to be denied again and pay way more than I receive back in coverage. Is that too much to ask? I’m getting really tired of this dictatorship telling me I should be paying less and receiving more. It’s just undercover Marxism.”
“First they’ll make sure we have health care then what’s next, maintaining our voting rights? Allowing homosexuals to be seen as equal and not get taxed more? Use money for education instead of war?” said Larry Belittleton. ” I can’t believe we would have a president who cares more about the people than profit. It sickens me.”
The new health care law going into effect has people who enjoy being screwed over extraordinarily angry, and they should be. Now, with health insurance companies being forced to actually provide coverage people will no longer just be throwing their money away and padding the pockets of insurance company CEOs’ pockets.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
patient care should be between the doctor and the patient -whoever came up with the idea of an HMO anyway? I don't see the purpose they serve other than giving people a hard time about their treatments and scre@#ing them out of proper care so the HMO can make more $$$. I can't imagine the doctors like it any better....
Re: "When you get health care it will be delivered by the same dull-witted and poorly motivated lifelong bureaucrats who think working between breaks is really too much to expect..."
You are exactly right, camvest, except you don't realize "the same dull-witted and poorly motivated lifelong bureaucrats" are precisely the same ones you are now dealing with at the private Health Ins. Co.s and the HMO's. They are all in place and still running the show. That is one of the problems. Obamacare will be a little better in providing more coverage (ie no denials for pre-existing conditions or for the outrageous occasion of actually getting sick) but Obamacare would have been immensely better with single payer.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I would prefer to pay cash and go to a doctor of my choice. That will be less affordable if I am paying additional taxes to government. I would prefer that various departments not have access to my private financial information. I am just guessing that out of every $1.00 I give to the government at least 75% of that is wasted by pork (bridges to nowhere), payoffs to campaign contributors ($500 million to bankrupt Solyndra), and foreign aid that provides me with absolutely no tangible benefit (payments to Al-Qaeda or foreign aid to Iraq, Egypt and Israel). As far as government credits for contributions to health care plans, well, taxpayers have to foot that bill, too, so how is any kind of government credit a benefit. I really think a lot of people really don't understand what a wasteful and stupid scam government really is! A lot of folks think they are getting something good with this program, but the bill was written by staffers and lobbyists for the benefit of corporate parasites. It just seems a lot of Americans are very naïve about government. Better crack those history books!
OBAMACARE WILL DESTROY AMERICANS’ PRIVACY, WARNS MARSHA BLACKBURN
The Daily Edge | 25/10/13
A prominent House Republican today issued dire warnings that OBAMACARE WILL GREATLY ENDANGER AMERICAN’S PRIVACY IN MULTIPLE AND UNSEEMLY WAYS.
“IT’S SHOCKING,” SAID REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TN), “ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS TOLD ME THAT HE JUST WENT TO SEE A DOCTOR WHO ASKED HIM TO STRIP DOWN TO HIS UNDERWEAR AND PUT ON A ROBE. THE DOCTOR THEN GAVE HIM A THOROUGH PHYSICAL EXAMINATION, EVEN GOING SO FAR AS TO DRAW A SAMPLE OF BLOOD FROM HIS ARM. WHAT IS THIS? #$%$ GERMANY?”
Upon being informed that all plans offered under Obamacare’s Marketplaces must offer free preventive medicine, including blood pressure and cholesterol screenings and a range of immunization vaccines, Blackburn appeared flustered.
“WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?” SHE SAID. “I’VE BEEN TOLD THAT SEVERAL KIDS IN MY DISTRICT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FORCED TO SIT IN A CHAIR WHILE A FRIENDLY DOCTOR EXAMINED THEIR TEETH VERY CAREFULLY, ONE BY ONE. SOME OF THEM EVEN SAW A SEPARATE DOCTOR TO HAVE THEIR EYES CHECKED TOO! WHAT IS THIS #$%$ GERMANY?”
Upon being informed that all plans offered under Obamacare include free vision screening and oral health risk assessments for children, Blackburn grew indignant.
“WHAT ABOUT THE MAN WHO TOLD ME THAT A DOCTOR JUST STUCK A CAMERA UP HIS BUTT? APPARENTLY OBAMA, WANTS TO STICK CAMERAS UP THE BUTTS OF MILLIONS OF MEN ACROSS THE COUNTRY. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT. THIS ISN’T #$%$ GERMANY!”
Apparently, Rep. Blackburn was referring to a colonoscopy, one of the colorectal cancer screening benefits now available to men over 50 free of charge under Obamacare.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
GOP’S HUMILIATING NEW PREDICAMENT: WHY IT MAY HAVE TO FUND THE LAW IT HATES!
Now that Obamacare's flaws are evident, GOP and the right are about to face a fresh new round of delicious tension
BY BRIAN BEUTLER | NOV 4, 2013 | Salon
REPUBLICANS KNOW THAT AS TIME GOES ON, THE CONSTITUENCY OF NEW AFFORDABLE CARE ACT BENEFICIARIES WILL GROW, AND EVENTUALLY CROSS A POINT OF NO RETURN PAST WHICH “REPEAL,” IN THE SENSE THAT THEY’VE BEEN PROMISING CONSERVATIVES THEY WILL “REPEAL OBAMACARE,” WILL BECOME IMPOSSIBLE. AFTER ALL, REPUBLICANS ARE IN THE MIDST OF PROVING HOW POLITICALLY DANGEROUS IT IS TO PASS LAWS THAT RESULT IN PEOPLE LOSING THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE.
THEY UNDERSTAND THE ATTRACTION OF GOVERNMENT BENEFITS AS WELL AS ANYONE, WHICH EXPLAINS WHY THEY’RE ATTACKING THE LAW SO AGGRESSIVELY IN THE EARLY DAYS OF ITS ENROLLMENT PERIOD, before coverage kicks in on Jan. 1, and while its botched rollout is preventing hundreds of thousands of people from completing applications for insurance.
If the Obama administration manages to fix Healthcaregov pretty quickly, then the story will change after the new year and Republicans will have to undertake an awkward political reversal.
At the same time, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that in most of the country, the Affordable Care Act rollout has been a fiasco. It’s probably the case, actually, that even if the errors get corrected quickly, the salient facts about the past month and the coming weeks — the failure of the federally facilitated exchanges, the millions of cancellation notices — will loom large over the program, particularly on the right, well into next year.
THIS WILL BECOME A SOURCE OF UNUSUAL TENSION IN EARLY JANUARY WHEN IT’S TIME FOR CONGRESS TO FUND THE GOVERNMENT ONCE AGAIN. THE IRONIC CONSEQUENCE OF THE OCTOBER SHUTDOWN IS THAT IT SUPPRESSED THE GOP’S APPETITE FOR BRINKMANSHIP BEFORE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HAD BEEN GIVEN A CHANCE TO MAKE SUCH A BAD FIRST IMPRESSION.
IT’S UNLIKELY THAT REPUBLICAN LEADERS WILL ALLOW RANK-AND-FILE CONSERVATIVES TO RESUSCITATE THE DEFUND-OR-SHUTDOWN STRATEGY, PER SE. BUT THE TEMPTATION WILL BE ENORMOUS.
THE GOP’S DILEMMA WILL PRESENT DEMOCRATS AN ADVANTAGE ABOVE AND BEYOND SIMPLY HOPING THAT REPUBLICANS SELF-DESTRUCT AGAIN. THEY CAN USE GOP LEADERS’ AVERSION TO SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN TO EASE THE STRAIN REPUBLICAN INTRANSIGENCE HAS PUT ON THE PART OF THE BUDGET THAT FACILITATES OBAMACARE AT THE MARGIN.
For the next five weeks, House and Senate negotiators will try to convene around a viable budget for the rest of the fiscal year. The “grand bargain” President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner twice pursued probably won’t be struck. But it’s easy enough to imagine Democrats and Republicans agreeing to cut some non-entitlement spending (farm subsidies, perhaps), raise some non-tax revenues (user fees and sales, for instance) and ply the savings into the discretionary budget. Pay down sequestration for a year or two and send agreeable allocations to congressional appropriators.
Many of the agencies in government that administer the Affordable Care Act receive their funding from the so-called “Labor-H” or “Labor-HHS” appropriations bill. For two years now, the Department of Health and Human Services has operated without a current budget. Congress has simply renewed its out-of-date budgets every time funding has expired. Then in March, HHS’ antiquated budget had its wobbly legs cut out from underneath it when sequestration took effect.
If the budget negotiations succeed, Democrats should insist on a full-year appropriation for HHS, not just to smooth the rocky implementation of Obamacare but to restore funding to badly damaged programs and agencies like Head Start and the National Institutes of Health.
“It’s a disaster. A disaster if we continue with the yearlong sequester and continuing resolution,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who chairs the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Labor-H bill, on the Senate floor during the shutdown.
Failing a full-year HHS budget, Democrats should insist on restoring HHS funding to its pre-sequestration levels. Put another way, they should refuse to let the GOP use the budget process to undermine Obamacare by shrinking the entire HHS budget by tens of billions of dollars — by making the Centers for Disease Control and NIH and poor children collateral damage in their war against the Affordable Care Act.
THE DEMOCRATIC AIDES I’VE SPOKEN WITH AREN’T LABORING UNDER AN ILLUSION THAT REPUBLICANS WILL BE INCLINED TO DO OBAMACARE ANY FAVORS IN THE COMING BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS. BUT THEY DO BELIEVE THAT THE OCTOBER CATASTROPHE CONVINCED REPUBLICANS THAT THE NOTION OF SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT — OR PARTIALLY SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT — OVER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS AN EXISTENTIAL LIABILITY. DEMOCRATS SHOULD USE THAT SKITTISHNESS TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. AND IF THE ACA’S EARLY WOES DRAW THE GOP BACK INTO BRINKMANSHIP — WELL, THAT’LL BE A PROBLEM FOR THEM TO DEAL WITH.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
COST OF HEALTH CARE LAW IS SEEN AS DECREASING
ANNIE LOWREY | December 2, 2013 | The NY Times
WASHINGTON — The rollout of President Obama’s health care law may have deeply disappointed its supporters, but on at least one front, the Affordable Care Act is beating expectations: its cost.
OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, THE GOVERNMENT IS EXPECTED TO SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS LESS THAN ORIGINALLY PROJECTED ON THE LAW, ANALYSTS SAID, WITH BOTH THE MEDICAID EXPANSION AND THE SUBSIDIES FOR PRIVATE INSURANCE PLANS ENDING UP LESS EXPENSIVE THAN ANTICIPATED.
Economists broadly agree that the sluggish economy remains the main reason that health spending has grown so slowly for the last half-decade. From 2007 to 2010, per-capita health care spending rose just 1.8 percent annually. Since then, the annual increase has slowed even further, to 1.3 percent. A decade ago, spending was growing at roughly 5 percent a year.
But even though the Affordable Care Act might be more a beneficiary of changes in health care spending than the primary driver of them, the law’s provisions to control costs could prove increasingly important as the economy improves, demand for health care increases and spending picks back up.
“It was a trend that was happening; we noticed that trend; we took advantage of that trend,” said Jason L. Furman, the chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers. “Some of it was the Affordable Care Act catching up with the private sector, and some of it was pushing the private sector forward.”
ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS HAVE POINTED TO FALLING HOSPITAL READMISSION RATES AS ONE STRONG SIGN THAT COST-CONTROL PROVISIONS IN THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ARE WORKING. ALSO, THEY NOTED THAT A GROWING NUMBER OF INSURERS AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS ARE AGREEING TO CONTRACTS THAT PAY FOR THE QUALITY OF CARE, RATHER THAN THE QUANTITY, ANOTHER INDICATION THAT THE LAW’S ENCOURAGEMENT ON THAT FRONT IS STARTING TO PAY DIVIDENDS.
BUT THOSE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ONLY A TINY PORTION OF THE SLOWING RISE OF HEALTH CARE COSTS; OTHER CHANGES, LIKE RISING DEDUCTIBLES AND COPAYS THAT DISCOURAGE SOME PEOPLE FROM SEEKING EXTRA SERVICES, PLAY A BIGGER ROLE, ANALYSTS SAY. STILL, THE KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, A NONPROFIT RESEARCH GROUP, ESTIMATES THAT THE WEAK ECONOMY ACCOUNTS FOR AS MUCH AS THREE-QUARTERS OF THE SLOWDOWN IN THE GROWTH OF SPENDING ON HEALTH CARE.
BUT EVEN IF ONLY ABOUT A QUARTER OF THE SAVINGS IS BECAUSE OF NONECONOMIC FACTORS, SAID LARRY LEVITT, A TOP OFFICIAL AT THE KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION, “THAT’S REAL CHANGE IN THE HEALTH SYSTEM.”
Critics, however, say they see little evidence that the law will lead to significant cost savings.
“These claims are just as groundless as the ones that misled so many Americans to believe they would be able to keep their previous coverage,” argued Charles Blahous, a former Bush administration official now at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
To be sure, the Affordable Care Act will lead to a drastic bump in health spending by the government starting next year, with an estimated nine million Americans signing up for Medicaid and perhaps as many as seven million buying a subsidized health plan through the government exchanges. But economists expect the underlying rate of spending growth to remain low.
And whatever the reasons for the slower growth, taxpayers appear set to reap some benefits.
Already, THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE HAS QUIETLY ERASED HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM ITS PROJECTIONS. IT NOW ESTIMATES THAT MEDICARE SPENDING IN 2020 WILL BE $137 BILLION LOWER THAN IT THOUGHT IN 2010, A DROP OF 15 PERCENT; MEDICAID SPENDING WILL BE $85 BILLION, OR 16 PERCENT, LOWER; AND PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS ARE EXPECTED TO BE ABOUT 9 PERCENT LOWER.
SOME ECONOMISTS SAY THEY BELIEVE THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE MIGHT BE UNDERESTIMATING THE LONG-TERM EFFECT OF THE SLOWDOWN, BECAUSE IT EXPECTS THAT SPENDING GROWTH WILL EVENTUALLY RETURN TO ITS PREVIOUS TREND LINE. DAVID M. CUTLER, A HARVARD ECONOMIST AND FORMER OBAMA ADVISER, CAUTIOUSLY SUGGESTS THAT THE SLOWER GROWTH MIGHT STICK AROUND, AND IF SO THE SAVINGS FOR THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT BE A WHOPPING $750 BILLION OVER 10 YEARS, HE SAYS.
WHETHER SUCH IMPROVEMENTS WILL LAST DEPENDS ON WHETHER PRIVATE FIRMS — NUDGED ALONG BY WASHINGTON — CREATE AND RETAIN INCENTIVES TO KEEP SPENDING LOW.
“In the past five decades, there are only two periods when we’ve been able to sustain low excess health care cost growth for an extended period,” Mr. Levitt, of the Kaiser foundation, said, referring to the current trend and a period in the 1990s, when the Clinton administration tried and failed at overhauling the health care system. “There was a sense in the system: ‘Something is coming, and we need to get ready for it.’ ”
This time may be more durable. INSURANCE AND HOSPITAL EXECUTIVES IN MASSACHUSETTS, ILLINOIS AND CALIFORNIA, AMONG OTHER PLACES WHERE REFORMS HAVE GONE THE FURTHEST, REPORT A CONSENSUS THAT SPENDING GROWTH HAD BECOME UNSUSTAINABLE, AND THAT EXPECTATIONS THAT WASHINGTON WOULD FORCE CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM SPURRED THEM TO MAKE CHANGES THEMSELVES.
WHATEVER THE REASONS, THE OVERALL SLOWDOWN IN HEALTH COSTS HAS LED TO LOWER 2014 INSURANCE PREMIUMS THAN ANALYSTS ANTICIPATED. THAT MEANS NOT ONLY CHEAPER PLANS FOR MANY CONSUMERS, BUT SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
ONE STUDY BY THE LIBERAL CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS, FOR INSTANCE, FOUND THAT AN AVERAGE INDIVIDUAL PREMIUM FOR A PLAN WITH RELATIVELY HIGH OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES IN THE INSURANCE MARKETPLACES IS $3,900, ABOUT 16 PERCENT LOWER THAN THE $4,700 EXPECTED. IF THOSE SAVINGS WERE TO STICK, THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WOULD COST ABOUT $190 BILLION LESS THAN EXPECTED OVER THE COURSE OF A DECADE, THE CENTER ESTIMATED.
Mr. Levitt pointed out that “premiums are particularly important for federal costs because of the way the tax credits work.” An individual purchasing a middle-of-the-road “silver” plan, for example, is required to devote a certain fixed proportion of his income to health insurance, with the federal government picking up the rest of the tab. “The government pays the rest of the premium, so it is more exposed to changes,” he said.
On top of that, the law might be smaller in scale than originally envisioned. Pervasive problems with the HealthCaregov site might result in fewer sign-ups than government analysts anticipated, for one. But analysts cautioned that it was too soon to tell how the problems with the website would affect enrollment in private insurance.
On the public front, the 2012 Supreme Court decision allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion slashed the number of people eligible for that program. The White House has stressed that it hopes that all states join the Medicaid expansion, which would help reduce costs for state governments as the federal government picks up most of the bill for the newly covered.
But if the 25 states that have not expanded Medicaid continue to elect not to join in the expansion, federal spending would be about $45 billion lower in 2016, according to calculations by the Urban Institute and the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
OBAMACARE SIGNUPS SURGE AS 29,000 ENROLL FOR HEALTH INSURANCE ON SUNDAY AND MONDAY
Reuters | 12/04/2013 3:45 pm EST
WASHINGTON, Dec 4 (Reuters) - About 29,000 people signed up for health insurance through the troubled HealthCaregov website on Sunday and Monday, A NUMBER THAT IS HIGHER THAN THE SITE'S FIRST MONTH OF OPERATION IN OCTOBER, sources familiar with the numbers said on Wednesday.
In October, only about 26,000 signed up through the glitch-prone website, and intensive efforts are being conducted to work out the problems with HealthCaregov.
The information is being reviewed, but it looks like the total will be 29,000 for enrollment in the federal exchange for the first two days of the site's relaunch from midnight Sunday to midnight Monday, the sources said.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I FIND THE BRUTAL ATTACKS ON ACA TO BE DEVOID OF ANY SENSE OF WHAT IT FEELS TO BE ALONE AND SICK AND TERRIFIED
The Reality Of The Affordable Care Act
Andrew Sulliivan | Nov 5, 2013 | The Dish
LET’S GO TO KENTUCKY, A DEEP RED STATE WHICH HAS NONETHELESS SET UP ONE OF THE BEST SYSTEMS FOR GETTING HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE POOR. We have heard an awful lot of gripes from those with insurance on the individual market, and those with Cadillac-style plans who have been forced to adjust. But THE PEOPLE WE HAVEN’T YET TRULY SEEN OR HEARD ARE THOSE GETTING AFFORDABLE INSURANCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THEIR LIVES. Maybe I’m a squish, but this report from the NYT helped put some of the political #$%$-fighting into perspective:
THE WOMAN, A THIN 61-YEAR-OLD WHO REFUSED TO GIVE HER NAME, CITING PRIVACY CONCERNS, HAD COME TO THE PUBLIC LIBRARY HERE TO SIGN UP FOR HEALTH INSURANCE THROUGH KENTUCKY’S NEW ONLINE EXCHANGE. SHE HAD A PAINFUL LUMP ON THE BACK OF HER HAND AND OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS THAT WORRIED HER DEEPLY, SHE SAID, BUT HAD BEEN UNABLE TO AFFORD INSURANCE AS A HOME HEALTH CARE WORKER WHO EARNS $9 AN HOUR.
WITHIN A MINUTE, THE SYSTEM CHECKED HER INFORMATION AND FLASHED ITS CONCLUSION ON MS. CAULEY’S LAPTOP: ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID. THE WOMAN BEGAN TO WEEP WITH RELIEF. WITHOUT INSURANCE, SHE SAID AS SHE LEFT, “IT’S CHEAPER TO DIE.”
WHAT PRICE CAN YOU PUT ON THAT?
Or on this:
So far, [insurance agent Donald Mucci] has enrolled just a few longtime customers in exchange plans. They include Mrs. Shields, 49, a widow who had been rejected by insurance companies because she has diabetes. She is paying $745 a month for coverage through a program for people with pre-existing conditions, but the program will end in January.
Mrs. Shields, who has an annual income of about $17,000, qualified for a monthly premium subsidy of $232 a month. WITH MR. MUCCI’S HELP, SHE CHOSE A SILVER-TIER PLAN OFFERED BY ANTHEM THAT HAS A $2,450 DEDUCTIBLE AND A $4,500 OUT-OF-POCKET MAXIMUM. SHE WILL PAY A MONTHLY PREMIUM OF $151 AFTER THE SUBSIDY.MR. MUCCI SAID HE WOULD GET A COMMISSION OF $18 FROM THE TRANSACTION. BEFORE THE HEALTH CARE LAW, HE SAID, HE WOULD TYPICALLY RECEIVE A LOT MORE.
“IS IT A WIN?” HE SAID. “FOR JUDY, IT SURE IS.”
AT THE CORE OF THIS TECHNOCRATIC EDIFICE IS SOMETHING QUITE SIMPLE: THE LIFTING OF INTENSE ANXIETY, THE RESTORATION OF PERSONAL DIGNITY, THE CHANCE TO LIVE BETTER AND LONGER, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE FREE OF PHYSICAL PAIN. IN THE END, THOUGH I REMAIN SKEPTICAL ABOUT WHETHER THE ACA IS THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE PLIGHT OF THOSE IN SUCH NEED, IT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION AT HAND. I WANT IT TO WORK. AND I FIND THE BRUTAL ATTACKS ON IT TO BE DEVOID OF ANY TRUE SENSE OF WHAT IT FEELS TO BE ALONE AND SICK AND TERRIFIED.
Sentiment: Strong Buy