My name is John Morley Im helping my friend Mike to gather some honest feedback from people on politicalforum.com Mike is a respected expert in American History, who recently wrote a book called "The Truth Behind ObamaCare." Below is a short survey - it should only take you about 2 minutes to complete. As a thank you for filling out the survey, I will send you a FREE Gift - a full copy of the ebook, plus all the accompanying bonuses. Express your opinion here: You might be looking for a catch, but there isnt one. There is nothing to buy. We need honest feedback on the ebook to add the finishing touches and we need your help to do it. It's a win-win situation: By helping us improve the website, you get hundreds of research hours condensed into one quick, need-to-know document about ObamaCare. All for free. Thanks in advance for your feedback and help. John Morley
I recently completed the survey. If anyone cares to discuss the book, its online pitch, or the PPACA, here are a few of my survey responses: Q.1 - What worries me most about the PPACA is the burden of mandatory purchase of private health insurance being placed on the people without at the same time having an adequate, minimum guaranteed income or sufficiently strong welfare benefits in place to make sure the health insurance in question is within the means of all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic class, to easily procure. Q.2 - Honestly, I am not sure if there are any answers to questions that could put my mind entirely at ease. At least insofar as I am aware at this time, the public policies I'd most prefer regarding health care in the United States aren't ideologically compatible with all provisions of the PPACA. Though not enthusiastically in support of single-payer or the Beveridge model utilized in the UK, I am still quite a bit to the left of both Congress and the President on this. Q.3 - The media may have already answered it - I do not catch all of the information it divulges on a daily basis - but I would really like to know what kinds of provisions are in place for helping the poor afford private health insurance coverage and, if that insurance is very basic to keep costs down, what provisions are there in place to help under-insured people endure high costs of treatments many plans may not cover, or otherwise will require a large co-pay for? Q.4 - Using conservative buzzwords like prayer, patriot, and sovereign, along with the manner in which the information is presented, gives off a rightist, partisan, and even conspiracy theorist vibe liable to make a lot of centrist and progressive folk reflexively tune out and leave without giving the presentation's content serious attention and thought. I reckon this is only likely to make an effective appeal to a narrow range of nationalist, conservative, and classically liberal readers - to most of whom the content is already preaching to the choir, so to speak. Along those lines, I strongly recommend adjusting how some of the presentation is phrased to make it politically neutral - there are several instances where that neutrality is betrayed. To help a bit, I'd recommend not using "The Truth" much in the presentation, only use "ObamaCare" once to offer a colloquial reference to the bill's real name. Don't use the word "penalty" in reference to changes in taxation, and avoid using the word "commanded," as it implies the policy is far more authoritarian than most, and is therefore implicitly bad / evil legislation. The conclusion does precisely the same thing: "The Only Person You Can Trust To Take Care Of You And Your Family Is You... Don't let YOUR government decide what's in your very personal best interest. That's NOT their job. The journey to taking back your rights over your wallet begins right here, right now. Know The Truth. Be an American Patriot! Reclaim Your Freedom." And again, Free Bonus #2 is extremely partisan, and exudes a conspiracy theorist aura that for a lot of people will badly undermine the presentation's credibility. Free Bonus #3 in and of itself is fine, but reading that tax changes could - and I quote - "dramatically damage your quality of life" is another clear sign of a strongly libertarian or rightist set of biases. As an added concern regarding message delivery, I recommend using less underlining and highlighting. Use it only sparingly so that it carries special emphasis rather than looking sloppy. My intent is not to be negative here. Please bear that in mind. I found the presentation intriguing and it did, in fact make me very curious to read the material in question. The idea itself seems great but just needs better packaging in the pitch, in my humble opinion. Some efforts at reaching out across the aisle are there. I can tell the author wants broad appeal but needs to be careful about keeping the whole message - not just small parts of it - like that for it to succeed.
Many of the answers are here: http://www.coveredca.com/ Of course that only applies to one state but it's the biggest by population. And it's not up to me to educate you. Something about leading a horse to water? If you are committed to a right wing conspiracy belief about mind control, slavery, and other such nonsense then there's very little I can do for you. If you're honest about answers they're available. The book sounds like another right wing diatribe. But just to be fair I looked for info on the internet. Sure enough it appears to be a clever bait and switch by a right winger. Certainly the endorsements aren't balanced by a longshot. As Goebbels said "the best propaganda is that which does no more than serve the truth."
You may hate Obama care today but 10 years from now everybody is going to love it, is it perfect out of the box? of course not but not to worry they will fix it. I think the real question you must ask and do so honestly, how does America rank with other countries in health care? when you answer that question you to will become a liberal. River
Oi - true to my concern expressed in Q.1, I will soon be required to pay $240-280 per month for private insurance despite my net income being under $600 per month. The legislature of the state of Montana stripped the PPACA of provisions for those earning under $11,480 per year to receive subsidies, which is to say that I need to find about 15 hrs/wk more from another job in order to afford mandated insurance. When I exceed $11,480 per year, state subsidies will reduce my monthly insurance cost to $20 per month. This is an awfully bizarre, regressive scheme.
I'm a rock-ribbed fiscal Conservative with a very Libertarian outlook. That said, I'll surprise everyone by saying that Obamacare SHOULD have been single-payer from the beginning instead of the miserable mish-mash pile of **** that rolled out of Congress as a "mandate", and then was re-written by the Supreme Court as a "tax". And by single-payer, I mean single-PAYER, as in everybody pays! But what does an empty-suit socialist like Obama do? Even before the "exchanges" are set up, he's making sure that tens of millions of welfare moochers are going to get SUBSIDIES to pay their costs, while everybody else has to take the huge costs of this thing up the butt! It is DOA, and when even the marginal parasites figure that out, we'll finally elect a Congress full of people with the guts and intelligence to wipe our asses on the paper Obamacare is written on and flush it down the toilet of time....
I think ObamaCare is good. It is now 2015 and many can finally afford health insurance who couldn't before.
