-
what is the problem? looking for a pros and cons type list here. tia.
-
Taxes. They should just get rid of the FDA and all regulations to allow for more competition. Legalize weed too. Then everyone could afford it!
/RadicalLibertarianRant
-
con: i don't think anybody knows what is ALL included in it
-
Pro: They can't turn away kids born with conditions by calling it a "preexisting condition".
-
Pro: They can't turn away kids born with conditions by calling it a "preexisting condition".
you're talking about insurance companies, right?
-
Pro: They can't turn away kids born with conditions by calling it a "preexisting condition".
you're talking about insurance companies, right?
Right.
-
Pro: Everyone will be able to get insurance.
Con: This is not going to do anything to lower the cost of healthcare.
-
pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.
cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.
-
con: i don't think anybody knows what is ALL included in it
I had a chance to go to a lecture where a guy from a public policy think tank (I can't remember which one) discussed the Affordable Care Act. Basically, he said that this was every idea, short of a single payor program, thrown together over the past 25 years or so.
He said it was good because something was bound to work. He said it was bad because we really have no idea what actually did work because there were so many moving parts.
-
They should just get rid of the FDA
this is a joke, right?
-
con: i don't think anybody knows what is ALL included in it
I had a chance to go to a lecture where a guy from a public policy think tank (I can't remember which one) discussed the Affordable Care Act. Basically, he said that this was every idea, short of a single payor program, thrown together over the past 25 years or so.
He said it was good because something was bound to work. He said it was bad because we really have no idea what actually did work because there were so many moving parts.
the good news of this whole thing is that we are finally addressing the need to fix an incredibly broken and horrible system. people that want things to stay status quo are completely clueless.
-
pro - all the pros listed (all very :thumbs:)
con - it does nothing to address main issues of why healthcare costs so much to begin with: tort reform (for as greedy as insurance companies are, the personal injury lawyers suing doctors are just as greedy, requiring doctors to go back to the greedy insurance companies), the availability of technology that we can't afford on a national level but it is considered the norm in health care (very, very expensive and redundant equipment that needs to be paid for: similar machines in GC, DC, Hays, Colby, Goodland...Newton having a DaVinci machine for example), we are a population of fat slobs that creates much higher health care demand with much more expensive procedures to fix/monitor than other single payer systems that are the inspiration for this but it isn't accounted for anywhere in the system.
-
Con: impacts food service industry with fines for not offering health insurance plan at $2000 per employee
-
Con: impacts food service industry with fines for not offering health insurance plan at $2000 per employee
Does not affect local businesses! :emawkid:
-
Con: impacts food service industry with fines for not offering health insurance plan at $2000 per employee
only those that have more than 50 employees.
also, good news... more workers will have health insurance. also, many food industry workers are under 26 and they would still be able to be on their parents insurance. also, medicaid will be extended to many more people and the federal government will reimburse states for the expense. this means that food industry employees that are employed by businesses with over fifty employees and are over 26 will be eligible for medicaid unless they make a lot of money which in that case, yay! good for them. they can pay for their own insurance.
-
Con: impacts food service industry with fines for not offering health insurance plan at $2000 per employee
Does not affect local businesses! :emawkid:
Please explain, That certainly changes things
I forget the number and don't want to look it up, but the business has to have at least 50 employees for this to be in effect. It may be more, but 50 sounds right. It is certainly not less.
-
Also, sorry I luked Daris.
-
Pro: Everyone will be able to get insurance.
Con: This is not going to do anything to lower the cost of healthcare.
Well...
A lot of people are focusing on two things: The mandate and the pre-existing conditions. The reason we're able to fund the pre-existing conditions is because we're forcing all of these healthy people to buy insurance and allowing a bunch of unemployed art history majors the ability to mooch off of their parent's insurance into their mid-twenties. The hope is that by greatly expanding the pool, we can lower the individual cost of healthcare for those who want to buy insurance. Will it work? Eh, I don't know. But that's the general thought.
From an overall cost perspective, there are a TON of things going on right now that the ACA is trying to address. The EHR stimulus, the healthcare exchanges, reduced payments to physicians, a change from a fee-for-service to an outcomes based reimbursement model, ACO's, a tightening of of reimbursement standards, etc. Trying to keep up with regulatory standards right now is really, really hard. Financially successful hospitals are gobbling up less successful ones and creating tighter and more efficient care delivery networks.
I guess if I were to look at it from my perspective, I'd boil the ACA down into three things:
1) Trying to insure as much of the population as possible
2) Attempting to decrease the personal cost of healthcare by addressing #1 and by utilizing an exchange system similar to what Switzerland has
3) Trying to decrease the cost of healthcare in general by making it more efficient and essentially pouring gasoline on the fire of consolidation that was already happening in the industry
Anyway, that's my two cents. I left a lot out, but that's because I save my really long winded stuff for realignment.
-
con: i don't think anybody knows what is ALL included in it
I had a chance to go to a lecture where a guy from a public policy think tank (I can't remember which one) discussed the Affordable Care Act. Basically, he said that this was every idea, short of a single payor program, thrown together over the past 25 years or so.
He said it was good because something was bound to work. He said it was bad because we really have no idea what actually did work because there were so many moving parts.
the good news of this whole thing is that we are finally addressing the need to fix an incredibly broken and horrible system. people that want things to stay status quo are completely clueless.
It's already helping. A lot of the change people haven't seen yet and probably won't for a few years.
There's a lot of mechanical stuff going on in the industry that's just going to take time to sort out. Healthcare is the most convoluted and inefficient industry that you can possibly imagine.
Well, outside of government, of course.
-
Con: I have to listen to my redneck coworkers rant about how awful it is on the daily.
-
Con: I have to listen to my redneck coworkers rant about how awful it is on the daily.
Oh man. I have been neglecting just how big of con this is. It's nearly insufferable.
-
Con: I have to listen to my redneck coworkers rant about how awful it is on the daily.
When people talk about how awful it is, I ask about specifics. They then talk about socialism, and I ask them if they supply proof of insurance when they go get their tags renewed.
They grumble, I smirk, and then I tell them to drop the pizza and get the eff off of my porch.
-
Also, is there anyway to hide this thread from Trim before he sees it? Last time we talked about this was the angriest I have seen Trim without him choking someone out. This time he may not be able to restrain himself.
-
another thing is that super big retailers like wal-mart, which is the absolute worst, will no longer be able to shove employees onto medicaid, etc. they'll have to come up with something. so i guess a con could be that you'll be paying 1% more for your walmart bills or whatever if you shop there to make up for the added cost that they are about to incur.
-
Please, Daris. No one here shops at Wal-Mart. :kstategrad:
-
another thing is that super big retailers like wal-mart, which is the absolute worst, will no longer be able to shove employees onto medicaid, etc. they'll have to come up with something. so i guess a con could be that you'll be paying 1% more for your walmart bills or whatever if you shop there to make up for the added cost that they are about to incur.
Great point, Daris.
-
Con: I have to listen to my redneck coworkers rant about how awful it is on the daily.
Oh man. I have been neglecting just how big of con this is. It's nearly insufferable.
Recently I've been telling them to return to Kenya. So credit to joe for that at least :wink:
-
Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate? An article I read in Forbes seems to think so. Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.
-
Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate? An article I read in Forbes seems to think so. Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.
Are lawyers still going to be able to sue the crap out of doctors? If so, they are still going to carry expensive malpractice insurance and have the fear of getting sued that leads to the myriad of unnecessary procedures to begin with. The only way doctors will stop doing these tests is if they are ran so thin that they become so stressed to the point they don't care about getting sued anymore. Doctors don't run those test now because they've got free time on their hands.
-
Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate? An article I read in Forbes seems to think so. Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.
There may be a tightening of supply where the cost of going to med school and what you'll make as a practicing physician will go down.
Like anything, the higher level of specification you do, the more you'll make. Specialists probably won't get hit as hard as general practitioners.
-
Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate? An article I read in Forbes seems to think so. Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.
There may be a tightening of supply where the cost of going to med school and what you'll make as a practicing physician will go down.
Like anything, the higher level of specification you do, the more you'll make. Specialists probably won't get hit as hard as general practitioners.
yeah. everybody will get hit a little bit. but they already have been.
if i had a twenty two year old that was thinking about becoming a gp, i'd tell him/her to be something else. it's a problem when a decent amount of drug reps make about as much as the md's they are calling on. also, i'd tell that 22 year old to be an orthodontist. very little actual work and straight cash. not a lot of insurance.
-
Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate? An article I read in Forbes seems to think so. Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.
Are lawyers still going to be able to sue the crap out of doctors? If so, they are still going to carry expensive malpractice insurance and have the fear of getting sued that leads to the myriad of unnecessary procedures to begin with. The only way doctors will stop doing these tests is if they are ran so thin that they become so stressed to the point they don't care about getting sued anymore. Doctors don't run those test now because they've got free time on their hands.
That's part of it, but the doctors also have a pretty nice financial incentive to run tons of tests on their patients.
-
Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate? An article I read in Forbes seems to think so. Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.
Are lawyers still going to be able to sue the crap out of doctors? If so, they are still going to carry expensive malpractice insurance and have the fear of getting sued that leads to the myriad of unnecessary procedures to begin with. The only way doctors will stop doing these tests is if they are ran so thin that they become so stressed to the point they don't care about getting sued anymore. Doctors don't run those test now because they've got free time on their hands.
That's part of it, but the doctors also have a pretty nice financial incentive to run tons of tests on their patients.
That's getting taken care of, though. A lot of those things are being taken care of in the billing process. There is a check to make sure something is medically necessary. If it's not, the hospital won't get paid for it.
The government, specifically CMS, is getting much, much, much tighter and demanding a higher level of specificity in the process (i.e. moving to ICD-10) to better measure whether or not providers are performing the tests that make people better.
The days of Medicare handing over a blank check are over. There are audits now where if you can't back up what you bill, they'll come in and make you pay them back. Believe me, those audits scare the crap out of everyone.
-
Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate? An article I read in Forbes seems to think so. Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.
There may be a tightening of supply where the cost of going to med school and what you'll make as a practicing physician will go down.
Like anything, the higher level of specification you do, the more you'll make. Specialists probably won't get hit as hard as general practitioners.
yeah. everybody will get hit a little bit. but they already have been.
if i had a twenty two year old that was thinking about becoming a gp, i'd tell him/her to be something else. it's a problem when a decent amount of drug reps make about as the md's they are calling on. also, i'd tell that 22 year old to be an orthodontist. very little actual work and straight cash. not a lot of insurance.
Yep. A lot of providers are very cognizant of how long it takes them to see a patient, and they're doing whatever they can to find ways to increase throughput.
In most other nations where healthcare is a much lower percentage of GDP, that's how physicians make their money.
-
Are concerns about shortage of Physicians legitimate? An article I read in Forbes seems to think so. Some thoughts that the lack of supply might just in turn reduce the myriad of unnecessary procedures which will even things out though.
There may be a tightening of supply where the cost of going to med school and what you'll make as a practicing physician will go down.
Like anything, the higher level of specification you do, the more you'll make. Specialists probably won't get hit as hard as general practitioners.
yeah. everybody will get hit a little bit. but they already have been.
if i had a twenty two year old that was thinking about becoming a gp, i'd tell him/her to be something else. it's a problem when a decent amount of drug reps make about as much as the md's they are calling on. also, i'd tell that 22 year old to be an orthodontist. very little actual work and straight cash. not a lot of insurance.
I know a few docs that wish they would have gone to PA school for this reason. Less stress, less liability, not much less pay than gp or ped. My little sister is 21 and trying to go to PA school and this is a big reason why. Not much difference in pay, huge difference in school.
-
I've worked in health insurance for a while. All of this stuff has confirmed to me what I feel I knew was the case all along: Politicians are completely full of crap and most of what the government does is useless. I'm not anti Obamacare. In fact, I'm pro government funded, government run healthcare. All I'm saying here is that everything said by a public figure on the subject is bullshit. Nothing will change. Not really.
-
pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.
cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.
Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread
-
pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.
cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.
Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread
Sorry, none of that is true. Very little, if anything, in this thread is true. I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.
-
pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.
cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.
Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread
Sorry, none of that is true. Very little, if anything, in this thread is true. I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.
There won't be wholesale change, no. To the consumer that's already purchased insurance, it won't be that much different at all, and for those that have to purchase it, that's what will be different for them.
Are we moving to a Singapore model? No. Should we? Yes. Will it ever happen in this country? Probably not, or at least not in my lifetime. The infrastructure isn't there.
The ACA is going to try and cover the uninsured, stop the bleeding, and hopefully chip away at the problem. It's not a magic bullet or wholesale solution, and I don't think anyone in this thread claimed otherwise.
-
positives - previously uncovered people covered, some cost controlling measures instituted.
negatives - no serious reform of the systemic problems in the american health care model, insurance middleman profits institutionalized, possible market control of runaway cost growth (e.g. significant % of population could not, or soon would not, be able to afford health care) sidestepped, permitting future growth to continue unchecked.
-
have 2 doctor pals and they both hate it and say most other dr people do to. This seems bad. I am one of those people that want doctors people to be rich as shazbot!.
I don't think it does anything to bring down costs, which was part of the deal when it passed.
It is 14 million pages, which is just stupid
If they wanted to make it illegal to disallow people with pre existing conditions (great idea), they should have. That wouldn't have been so many pages.
Assholes had to be given tons of crap for their states just to vote for it, otherwise they wouldn't have
Assholes like the people that came up and their pals are exempt from it. If it was so great, why isn't everyone doing it? Isn't more healthy people being in the system part of it?
Assholes voted for it, without having any idea how it worked or what was in it. (I know this happens all the time, but I really hate it)
-
Taxes. They should just get rid of the FDA and all regulations to allow for more competition. Legalize weed too. Then everyone could afford it!
/RadicalLibertarianRant
Exactly. Legalize weed but socialize it. Only the government can sell it. Then use that income to pay for healthcare. There would probably be lots of cash left over for nukes and crap.
-
have 2 doctor pals and they both hate it and say most other dr people do to. This seems bad. I am one of those people that want doctors people to be rich as shazbot!.
I don't think it does anything to bring down costs, which was part of the deal when it passed.
It is 14 million pages, which is just stupid
If they wanted to make it illegal to disallow people with pre existing conditions (great idea), they should have. That wouldn't have been so many pages.
Assholes had to be given tons of crap for their states just to vote for it, otherwise they wouldn't have
Assholes like the people that came up and their pals are exempt from it. If it was so great, why isn't everyone doing it? Isn't more healthy people being in the system part of it?
Assholes voted for it, without having any idea how it worked or what was in it. (I know this happens all the time, but I really hate it)
not really providing any info as to what parts you don't like
-
have 2 doctor pals and they both hate it and say most other dr people do to. This seems bad. I am one of those people that want doctors people to be rich as shazbot!.
I don't think it does anything to bring down costs, which was part of the deal when it passed.
It is 14 million pages, which is just stupid
If they wanted to make it illegal to disallow people with pre existing conditions (great idea), they should have. That wouldn't have been so many pages.
Assholes had to be given tons of crap for their states just to vote for it, otherwise they wouldn't have
Assholes like the people that came up and their pals are exempt from it. If it was so great, why isn't everyone doing it? Isn't more healthy people being in the system part of it?
Assholes voted for it, without having any idea how it worked or what was in it. (I know this happens all the time, but I really hate it)
not really providing any info as to what parts you don't like
Is lack of brevity a part? I think the fact that it's so difficult for people to understand is something to not like.
Anecdote: my mother-in-law benefited quite a bit from ACA, acknowledges that fact, and still hates Obama.
-
I don't think so. You can't say, "you can't have lifetime maximums" and that's that. You are going to have to spell out in hundreds of pages the specifics of what that means and how it will be applied. I mean, most people can look at their home owners insurance policy and think they understand their coverage and they don't. they are just reading their declarations page. if most people ever got into their T&Cs they would have no idea what was actually covered and what wasn't. but, you can't just ditch them. just like that policy, you can summarize what the main points are ie. no lifetime maximums, can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, required to have coverage, etc.
-
Con: impacts food service industry with fines for not offering health insurance plan at $2000 per employee
only those that have more than 50 employees.
anyone who employs more than 50 people and doesn't offer health insurance can just rough ridin' deal with it imo
-
pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.
cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.
Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread
Sorry, none of that is true. Very little, if anything, in this thread is true. I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.
yeah, i'm pretty sure all of that is true. if your big complaint is that it doesn't go far enough then ok, i guess that's a con. :dunno:
-
pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.
cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.
Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread
Sorry, none of that is true. Very little, if anything, in this thread is true. I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.
yeah, i'm pretty sure all of that is true. if your big complaint is that it doesn't go far enough then ok, i guess that's a con. :dunno:
No, like this entire thread, if I evaluated each statement's veracity, my answer in each case would be, "No, not really.". For exaple, the idea that there is now more access to healthcare is false because deductibles are rising so fast that more and more people cannot afford them - especially those who couldn't afford heath insurance before Obamacare. As a result, people don't go to the doctor even when they have insurance.
-
thread just heated up :dance:
-
pros- more humans will have access to healthcare. it will make our country healthier as a whole (more emphasis on preventive med). kids will be able to stay on their parents insurance longer. can't be denied for pre existing conditions or dropped from your insurance. insurance companies are absolutely rough ridin' evil, so sticking it to them in small ways will be fun.
cons- if you make a crap ton of money and are in great health, you'll probably have to pay more and pay for things you don't want/need. the government is getting involved in things that could (should?) be choices left up to individuals.
Thanks Dr. Richard Daris /thread
Sorry, none of that is true. Very little, if anything, in this thread is true. I'd find it depressing if I gave a crap.
yeah, i'm pretty sure all of that is true. if your big complaint is that it doesn't go far enough then ok, i guess that's a con. :dunno:
No, like this entire thread, if I evaluated each statement's veracity, my answer in each case would be, "No, not really.". For exaple, the idea that there is now more access to healthcare is false because deductibles are rising so fast that more and more people cannot afford them - especially those who couldn't afford heath insurance before Obamacare. As a result, people don't go to the doctor even when they have insurance.
well that is a much better answer than, "no, not really"
-
I am one of those people that want doctors people to be rich as shazbot!.
Why? I mean, I'd like everyone to be rich as shazbot!, as long as I don't have to pay for it.
-
well that is a much better answer than, "no, not really"
I'm (probably poorly) trying to commincate the idea that when an issue that you actually know something about comes up, it's like, "OMG THIS IS ALL BULLSHIT RHETORICAL PLATITUDES!"
-
I don't think so. You can't say, "you can't have lifetime maximums" and that's that. You are going to have to spell out in hundreds of pages the specifics of what that means and how it will be applied. I mean, most people can look at their home owners insurance policy and think they understand their coverage and they don't. they are just reading their declarations page. if most people ever got into their T&Cs they would have no idea what was actually covered and what wasn't. but, you can't just ditch them. just like that policy, you can summarize what the main points are ie. no lifetime maximums, can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, required to have coverage, etc.
This is why pretty much any contract is ridiculously large.
-
No, like this entire thread, if I evaluated each statement's veracity, my answer in each case would be, "No, not really.". For exaple, the idea that there is now more access to healthcare is false because deductibles are rising so fast that more and more people cannot afford them - especially those who couldn't afford heath insurance before Obamacare. As a result, people don't go to the doctor even when they have insurance.
I could be wrong, but the intent isn't necessarily to get people to go to the doctor. It's so that if you get cancer or have an emergency situation, you won't go bankrupt with a bill you can't pay. Part of this thing working is assuming a bunch of healthy people required to purchase the mandate wouldn't actually go to the doctor. It's how we pay for someone with chronic disease to get insured.
Some commercial insurance (I know mine does) creates an incentive for folks to engage in preventative activities like having physicals, health screenings, vaccinations, etc. My insurance pays 100% of all wellness visits for my family. Vaccinations are completely covered. Premium deductions are leveraged for unhealthy activities like obesity and smoking. Stuff like this is starting to gain more steam.
Honestly, a lot of people should go to the doctor less and take less prescription drugs. So, if you're only going to the doctor for truly preventative activities and when you're really sick, we're all probably better off anyway.
-
I think the fact that the insurance companies aren't fighting it's implementation tooth and nail is an extremely bad sign. System is currently effed, now more people will participate in the effed system. If they really hated it I would feel good about it.
-
I think the fact that the insurance companies aren't fighting it's implementation tooth and nail is an extremely bad sign. System is currently effed, now more people will participate in the effed system. If they really hated it I would feel good about it.
The insurance companies were only against it when there was going to be a single payer option. Now, they love the government mandating everyone buy their product. There are only a few real players left in the health insurance game.
-
if I evaluated each statement's veracity, my answer in each case would be, "No, not really".
evaluate mine. i was pretty vague, so i don't think i'm running too much of a risk, but i want to see.
agree more than i can possibly express on how stupid everyone else sounds when they opine on something you know a shitton about.
-
The Bull Snake is the toughest of all snakes
EDIT: this deserves it's own thread
-
I am one of those people that want doctors people to be rich as shazbot!.
Why? I mean, I'd like everyone to be rich as shazbot!, as long as I don't have to pay for it.
Oh, I don't know. I just like to think if you pay and go to school for 15 yrs and do something like save lives/arms, you deserve to make more than someone selling shoes.
-
Oh, I don't know. I just like to think if you pay and go to school for 15 yrs and do something like save lives/arms, you deserve to make more than someone selling shoes.
lmao. everyone wants to blame insurance companies, lawyers, etc. which is fine. but our society's fetishization of doctors is a huge contributor to our ridiculous health care costs.
they don't go to school that long (and wgaf if they do, i've been in school my entire life, that makes me less employable, not more), they aren't particularly smart, they aren't particularly selfless and it isn't a particularly difficult job.
-
Oh, I don't know. I just like to think if you pay and go to school for 15 yrs and do something like save lives/arms, you deserve to make more than someone selling shoes.
lmao. everyone wants to blame insurance companies, lawyers, etc. which is fine. but our society's fetishization of doctors is a huge contributor to our ridiculous health care costs.
they don't go to school that long (and wgaf if they do, i've been in school my entire life, that makes me less employable, not more), they aren't particularly smart, they aren't particularly selfless and it isn't a particularly difficult job.
:thumbs: :thumbs:
-
yeah, the AMA makes likes to control the number of available med students so they can keep their costs up. (keep in mind I am very uninformed and mostly speaking anecdotally).
-
Oh, I don't know. I just like to think if you pay and go to school for 15 yrs and do something like save lives/arms, you deserve to make more than someone selling shoes.
lmao. everyone wants to blame insurance companies, lawyers, etc. which is fine. but our society's fetishization of doctors is a huge contributor to our ridiculous health care costs.
they don't go to school that long (and wgaf if they do, i've been in school my entire life, that makes me less employable, not more), they aren't particularly smart, they aren't particularly selfless and it isn't a particularly difficult job.
sys is very right about all of these things.
-
yeah, the AMA makes likes to control the number of available med students so they can keep their costs up. (keep in mind I am very uninformed and mostly speaking anecdotally).
I have heard this, but I'm not sure if I believe it. Regardless, we need to increase the number of med students. There is absolutely no shortage of people who want to be doctors, which is why it is so laughable that people think we are going to have a doctor shortage because all of the doctors will just quit due to Obamacare lowering their profits.
-
Oh, I don't know. I just like to think if you pay and go to school for 15 yrs and do something like save lives/arms, you deserve to make more than someone selling shoes.
lmao. everyone wants to blame insurance companies, lawyers, etc. which is fine. but our society's fetishization of doctors is a huge contributor to our ridiculous health care costs.
they don't go to school that long (and wgaf if they do, i've been in school my entire life, that makes me less employable, not more), they aren't particularly smart, they aren't particularly selfless and it isn't a particularly difficult job.
sys is very right about all of these things.
sounds like we have two guys who should've went to med school but didn't. oh well.
-
Oh, I don't know. I just like to think if you pay and go to school for 15 yrs and do something like save lives/arms, you deserve to make more than someone selling shoes.
lmao. everyone wants to blame insurance companies, lawyers, etc. which is fine. but our society's fetishization of doctors is a huge contributor to our ridiculous health care costs.
they don't go to school that long (and wgaf if they do, i've been in school my entire life, that makes me less employable, not more), they aren't particularly smart, they aren't particularly selfless and it isn't a particularly difficult job.
sys is very right about all of these things.
sounds like we have two guys who should've went to med school but didn't. oh well.
Nope. Pretty soon Obama will make being a doctor too unprofitable. :lol:
-
sounds like we have two guys who should've went to med school but didn't. oh well.
you're worth every penny, daris. i mean the other doctors.
-
Oh, I don't know. I just like to think if you pay and go to school for 15 yrs and do something like save lives/arms, you deserve to make more than someone selling shoes.
lmao. everyone wants to blame insurance companies, lawyers, etc. which is fine. but our society's fetishization of doctors is a huge contributor to our ridiculous health care costs.
they don't go to school that long (and wgaf if they do, i've been in school my entire life, that makes me less employable, not more), they aren't particularly smart, they aren't particularly selfless and it isn't a particularly difficult job.
sys is very right about all of these things.
sounds like we have two guys who should've went to med school but didn't. oh well.
:thumbs:
There are good ones, Daris. There are good ones.
-
You guys are right. Screw those life savers. Minimum wage it is.
-
You guys are right. Screw those life savers. Minimum wage it is.
Why do libs assume that everything is all or nothing?
-
You guys are right. Screw those life savers. Minimum wage it is.
Why do libs assume that everything is all or nothing?
:thumbs:
-
I now feel bad for saying mean things about Daris (and not knowing about it).
:frown:
-
wikipedia is my most trusted doctor
-
Daris went to med school?! You think you know a guy....
-
Also, is there anyway to hide this thread from Trim before he sees it? Last time we talked about this was the angriest I have seen Trim without him choking someone out. This time he may not be able to restrain himself.
Yeah, we did this already. Also, courtPAK Monday morning very close to where you live. Already have 1, maybe 2 goEMAW'rs going with me.
-
Also, is there anyway to hide this thread from Trim before he sees it? Last time we talked about this was the angriest I have seen Trim without him choking someone out. This time he may not be able to restrain himself.
Yeah, we did this already. Also, courtPAK Monday morning very close to where you live. Already have 1, maybe 2 goEMAW'rs going with me.
trim isn't objective on health care, because health care saved his life. just ignore everything he has to say on the subject.
-
Also, is there anyway to hide this thread from Trim before he sees it? Last time we talked about this was the angriest I have seen Trim without him choking someone out. This time he may not be able to restrain himself.
Yeah, we did this already. Also, courtPAK Monday morning very close to where you live. Already have 1, maybe 2 goEMAW'rs going with me.
trim isn't objective on health care, because health care saved his life. just ignore everything he has to say on the subject.
I appreciated it so much that I even paid for it.
-
Also, is there anyway to hide this thread from Trim before he sees it? Last time we talked about this was the angriest I have seen Trim without him choking someone out. This time he may not be able to restrain himself.
Yeah, we did this already. Also, courtPAK Monday morning very close to where you live. Already have 1, maybe 2 goEMAW'rs going with me.
:sdeek:
-
positives - previously uncovered people covered, some cost controlling measures instituted.
negatives - no serious reform of the systemic problems in the american health care model, insurance middleman profits institutionalized, possible market control of runaway cost growth (e.g. significant % of population could not, or soon would not, be able to afford health care) sidestepped, permitting future growth to continue unchecked.
I was off the grid this weekend, but here are some thoughts. The previously uncovered people are going to ("choose to") have some shitty health plans. Suppose you're a waitress, are supporting two kids by yourself, and have some plan with a $12,000 deductible because it costs you the least out of your paycheck. (These plans do exist, are more prevalent each year, and are absolutely the direction that things are headed.) In what sense are you "covered?" Do you rest easy at night due to the peace of mind of knowing that if someone in your family is hospitalized, you're only going to be seriously mumped financially rather than the alternative of being seriously mumped financially?
Cost control measures, of course, are negligible. Anyone could surmise that much. The only thing I could add is that premiums are projected to continue rising.
I'm not sure about your second negative. There may be some presuppositions about the role of government that extend beyond healthcare. I'm also not sure about the third negative. People who will receive aid from Obamacare (and would otherwise have no healthcare coverage) are a significant percentage of the population? I don't know. The first negative I definitely agree with. It's totally fair game, too, because of how the plan was presented to the public. I'd add that Obamacare actually fits right in with the current model, not making it any better or worse, but just adding more of the same types of crap we've already got. For example, we've got Medicaid now and Obamacare creates more Medicaid, we've got commercial insurance now and Obamacare creates more commercial insurance, and so on.
-
MIR, Jakesie and Trim headed to court shortly. :excited:
-
I think there should be free healthcare as far as the eye can see.
-
I think there should be free healthcare as far as the eye can see.
That would be pretty great.
-
It seems a bit discriminatory against blind people.
-
The clarity of the bill seems to be the biggest problem for all. Asking any of my friends, even pre-med folk and sis who's at ku med, no one knows what all it entails.
For me, i know it means that i can stay on my parents plan longer, which as i'll be studying a while longer, is huge. my humira that is normally $2500 a month is about $70 with insurance. So, for a couple more years, that's amazing.
I know that the AHA also provides incentives of some sort to prescription manufacturers to provide relief on medication. Abbott (Mfr of Humira) is providing a supplement to my insurance so that now, instead of 2500 or 70 a month, its $5 dollars a month for me to stay healthy. pretty sure there's either pressure, or incentive, for all manufacturers (AZP, Pfizer, GSK, etc) to provide these supplements.
-
MIR, Jakesie and Trim headed to court shortly. :excited:
Jakesie overslept. :lol:
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Of our 3 presidential candidates Gary Johnson is the only one that will actually follow the rules for the presidency. But FOX CNN MSNBC ETC..... refuse to acknowledge the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO CUT THE BUDGET AND END THE WAR MACHINE END THE CRONY WAR ON DRUGS WHEN THE US IS THE BIGGEST DRUG DEALER IN THE WORLD.. I MEAN WE HAVE CONTROL OF 90% OF THE HERIOIN SUPPLY AND YET WE STILL HAVE A HEROIN CRISIS.
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Of our 3 presidential candidates Gary Johnson is the only one that will actually follow the rules for the presidency. But FOX CNN MSNBC ETC..... refuse to acknowledge the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO CUT THE BUDGET AND END THE WAR MACHINE END THE CRONY WAR ON DRUGS WHEN THE US IS THE BIGGEST DRUG DEALER IN THE WORLD.. I MEAN WE HAVE CONTROL OF 90% OF THE HERIOIN SUPPLY AND YET WE STILL HAVE A HEROIN CRISIS.
Don't pin "America" as the biggest drug dealer in the world, although we do protect a lot of opium in Central Asia though. The FDA and it's crony companies are the biggest drug dealers in the world.
-
MIR, Jakesie and Trim headed to court shortly. :excited:
Jakesie overslept. :lol:
Just didn't feel like helping myself.
-
MIR, Jakesie and Trim headed to court shortly. :excited:
Jakesie overslept. :lol:
Just didn't feel like helping myself.
You weren't the only one.
-
I think there should be free healthcare as far as the eye can see.
The most christian guy on this board is Jewish. A post previously held by a Muslim, but he passed before his time.
-
I think there should be free healthcare as far as the eye can see.
The most christian guy on this board is Jewish. A post previously held by a Muslim, but he passed before his time.
I'm proud of Saul. He keeps just enough of his salary to sustain his family, and give the rest to the government to provide healthcare for the poor. He is a good man that puts his money where his mouth is. The Joe Biden of the board.
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Of our 3 presidential candidates Gary Johnson is the only one that will actually follow the rules for the presidency. But FOX CNN MSNBC ETC..... refuse to acknowledge the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO CUT THE BUDGET AND END THE WAR MACHINE END THE CRONY WAR ON DRUGS WHEN THE US IS THE BIGGEST DRUG DEALER IN THE WORLD.. I MEAN WE HAVE CONTROL OF 90% OF THE HERIOIN SUPPLY AND YET WE STILL HAVE A HEROIN CRISIS.
Don't pin "America" as the biggest drug dealer in the world, although we do protect a lot of opium in Central Asia though. The FDA and it's crony companies are the biggest drug dealers in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk3EBmiURgw - Graham
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boe34JZaTZo - Joe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkOzuiFZ6g-Joe ( Yes we do sell drugs Pike)
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Of our 3 presidential candidates Gary Johnson is the only one that will actually follow the rules for the presidency. But FOX CNN MSNBC ETC..... refuse to acknowledge the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO CUT THE BUDGET AND END THE WAR MACHINE END THE CRONY WAR ON DRUGS WHEN THE US IS THE BIGGEST DRUG DEALER IN THE WORLD.. I MEAN WE HAVE CONTROL OF 90% OF THE HERIOIN SUPPLY AND YET WE STILL HAVE A HEROIN CRISIS.
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this?
Or am I just dreaming?
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Of our 3 presidential candidates Gary Johnson is the only one that will actually follow the rules for the presidency. But FOX CNN MSNBC ETC..... refuse to acknowledge the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO CUT THE BUDGET AND END THE WAR MACHINE END THE CRONY WAR ON DRUGS WHEN THE US IS THE BIGGEST DRUG DEALER IN THE WORLD.. I MEAN WE HAVE CONTROL OF 90% OF THE HERIOIN SUPPLY AND YET WE STILL HAVE A HEROIN CRISIS.
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this?
Or am I just dreaming?
Yes, it's constitutional.
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Of our 3 presidential candidates Gary Johnson is the only one that will actually follow the rules for the presidency. But FOX CNN MSNBC ETC..... refuse to acknowledge the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO CUT THE BUDGET AND END THE WAR MACHINE END THE CRONY WAR ON DRUGS WHEN THE US IS THE BIGGEST DRUG DEALER IN THE WORLD.. I MEAN WE HAVE CONTROL OF 90% OF THE HERIOIN SUPPLY AND YET WE STILL HAVE A HEROIN CRISIS.
Don't pin "America" as the biggest drug dealer in the world, although we do protect a lot of opium in Central Asia though. The FDA and it's crony companies are the biggest drug dealers in the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk3EBmiURgw - Graham
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boe34JZaTZo - Joe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkOzuiFZ6g-Joe ( Yes we do sell drugs Pike)
lol at all the inaccuracies in those videos. crazy shepards of men tending their flock :lol:
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Of our 3 presidential candidates Gary Johnson is the only one that will actually follow the rules for the presidency. But FOX CNN MSNBC ETC..... refuse to acknowledge the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO CUT THE BUDGET AND END THE WAR MACHINE END THE CRONY WAR ON DRUGS WHEN THE US IS THE BIGGEST DRUG DEALER IN THE WORLD.. I MEAN WE HAVE CONTROL OF 90% OF THE HERIOIN SUPPLY AND YET WE STILL HAVE A HEROIN CRISIS.
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this?
Or am I just dreaming?
Yes, they said it is simply the largest tax increase in US history, which is constitutional.
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Of our 3 presidential candidates Gary Johnson is the only one that will actually follow the rules for the presidency. But FOX CNN MSNBC ETC..... refuse to acknowledge the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO CUT THE BUDGET AND END THE WAR MACHINE END THE CRONY WAR ON DRUGS WHEN THE US IS THE BIGGEST DRUG DEALER IN THE WORLD.. I MEAN WE HAVE CONTROL OF 90% OF THE HERIOIN SUPPLY AND YET WE STILL HAVE A HEROIN CRISIS.
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this?
Or am I just dreaming?
Yes, they said it is simply the largest tax increase in US history, which is constitutional.
Actually, it's only a tax on those who choose not to have insurance, so the extent of the tax increase remains to be seen. I'm betting it ends up being pretty small.
-
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Of our 3 presidential candidates Gary Johnson is the only one that will actually follow the rules for the presidency. But FOX CNN MSNBC ETC..... refuse to acknowledge the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO CUT THE BUDGET AND END THE WAR MACHINE END THE CRONY WAR ON DRUGS WHEN THE US IS THE BIGGEST DRUG DEALER IN THE WORLD.. I MEAN WE HAVE CONTROL OF 90% OF THE HERIOIN SUPPLY AND YET WE STILL HAVE A HEROIN CRISIS.
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule on this?
Or am I just dreaming?
Yes, they said it is simply the largest tax increase in US history, which is constitutional.
Actually, it's only a tax on those who choose not to have insurance, so the extent of the tax increase remains to be seen. I'm betting it ends up being pretty small.
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.
-
Why do young, healthy people not need insurance?
-
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.
Gonna be great when that young, healthy person gets in a car wreck, gets paralyzed and can't pay his $500,000 medical bills. Guess we'll all just pay for that.
-
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.
Gonna be great when that young, healthy person gets in a car wreck, gets paralyzed and can't pay his $500,000 medical bills. Guess we'll all just pay for that.
Insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates. Now we just have an incredibly large bureaucracy to go along with the higher premiums and taxes. The only winner in this mess is the federal government.
-
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.
Gonna be great when that young, healthy person gets in a car wreck, gets paralyzed and can't pay his $500,000 medical bills. Guess we'll all just pay for that.
Insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates. Now we just have an incredibly large bureaucracy to go along with the higher premiums and taxes. The only winner in this mess is the federal government.
I agree. We should just eliminated insurance companies altogether and let the government handle hospitals just like they do fire and police.
-
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.
Gonna be great when that young, healthy person gets in a car wreck, gets paralyzed and can't pay his $500,000 medical bills. Guess we'll all just pay for that.
Insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates. Now we just have an incredibly large bureaucracy to go along with the higher premiums and taxes. The only winner in this mess is the federal government.
I agree. We should just eliminated insurance companies altogether and let the government handle hospitals just like they do fire and police.
Fire and police are handled at the local and state level. That I might agree with. Federal level? :flush:
-
Things really started going downhill when most of the BCBS's were allowed to switch from non-profit organizations to publicly traded for-profit corporations.
-
There are more than a dozen new taxes in the bill. You also need to consider that the young, healthy people that didn't really need or want insurance, are now forced to pay either insurance premiums or the penalty. That's a huge amount of money out of the economy and into the insurance company and IRS pockets.
Gonna be great when that young, healthy person gets in a car wreck, gets paralyzed and can't pay his $500,000 medical bills. Guess we'll all just pay for that.
Insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates. Now we just have an incredibly large bureaucracy to go along with the higher premiums and taxes. The only winner in this mess is the federal government.
I agree. We should just eliminated insurance companies altogether and let the government handle hospitals just like they do fire and police.
Fire and police are handled at the local and state level. That I might agree with. Federal level? :flush:
I think the ACA is great, I just wish it were being handled on a local, or even moreso, state level.
-
Why do young, healthy people not need insurance?
It's like gambling at that point.
-
I've kind of been avoiding this thread as I don't really know a ton about it; but as I see it, it's not really providing anything to anyone that they don't already have. Anyone can go to a emergency room & get care - which increases cost - but ACA at it's heart is just distributing the burden of cost onto everyone. I could be wrong; I don't care.
I do have to ask though, if general health is the catalyst in this debate, why is diet & exercise not brought up? We're still subsidizing corn to the point synthesizing it into a sweetener is cheaper than any other sweetener - and it's in everything. Wouldn't there be more benefit in promoting organic/non-gmo foods that are clearly healthier? What about school lunches? Jesus Christ, is there any wonder kids are obese?
-
I've kind of been avoiding this thread as I don't really know a ton about it; but as I see it, it's not really providing anything to anyone that they don't already have. Anyone can go to a emergency room & get care - which increases cost - but ACA at it's heart is just distributing the burden of cost onto everyone. I could be wrong; I don't care.
I do have to ask though, if general health is the catalyst in this debate, why is diet & exercise not brought up? We're still subsidizing corn to the point synthesizing it into a sweetener is cheaper than any other sweetener - and it's in everything. Wouldn't there be more benefit in promoting organic/non-gmo foods that are clearly healthier? What about school lunches? Jesus Christ, is there any wonder kids are obese?
It comes down to cost. Food in America is dirt cheap because of corn subsidies and shifting those subsidies to organic farming would greatly increase the price of all non-organic meats, processed foods, and sweetened products. We would have to put more people on food stamps and increase the amount of food stamps received for current recipients to maintain status quo.
-
I've kind of been avoiding this thread as I don't really know a ton about it; but as I see it, it's not really providing anything to anyone that they don't already have. Anyone can go to a emergency room & get care - which increases cost - but ACA at it's heart is just distributing the burden of cost onto everyone. I could be wrong; I don't care.
I do have to ask though, if general health is the catalyst in this debate, why is diet & exercise not brought up? We're still subsidizing corn to the point synthesizing it into a sweetener is cheaper than any other sweetener - and it's in everything. Wouldn't there be more benefit in promoting organic/non-gmo foods that are clearly healthier? What about school lunches? Jesus Christ, is there any wonder kids are obese?
It comes down to cost. Food in America is dirt cheap because of corn subsidies and shifting those subsidies to organic farming would greatly increase the price of all non-organic meats, processed foods, and sweetened products. We would have to put more people on food stamps and increase the amount of food stamps received for current recipients to maintain status quo.
But if your concern is for health, wouldn't it make sense to make healthier foods cheaper than processed foods & sweetened foods? Would we have to increase food stamps if welfare recipients bought more healthy food than processed food & GMO meats/etc.? Does it make sense that our nations impoverished are poor financially AND have poor health because of the welfare and agricultural structure? Not to mention organic could encourage smaller local food suppliers, creating more local demand & local agricultural job growth. The only con I see is the impact you monsantos and other companies such as them would take large impacts. Seems win/win to me. Seems like if people's overall health was better it would have a larger impact on making health care more affordable for everyone. Just spit balling here.
-
dont forget about the sugar tariff, although thats aside the point.
organic/nom-gmo products will always cost more. The yields are significantly lower than their biotech counter parts (although Monsanto round up ready crops have been in the news lately for giving way to super weeds and insects, but Monsanto will respond). Its not just the growth of these foods but also the storage, transportation, processing, labeling, etc has to comply with NOP regulations. That all takes a lot of time, and therefore costs a lot of money. I know from experience processing organic food is a HUGE pain in the ass.
-
NOP regulations?
-
NOP regulations?
National Organic Program - 7 CFR part 205 i think
-
dont forget about the sugar tariff, although thats aside the point.
organic/nom-gmo products will always cost more. The yields are significantly lower than their biotech counter parts (although Monsanto round up ready crops have been in the news lately for giving way to super weeds and insects, but Monsanto will respond). Its not just the growth of these foods but also the storage, transportation, processing, labeling, etc has to comply with NOP regulations. That all takes a lot of time, and therefore costs a lot of money. I know from experience processing organic food is a HUGE pain in the ass.
Yes, and it's not really any healthier. I don't like the idea of the government subsidizing inefficient organic foods. If we want to improve the health of poor people, we should put limits on what food stamps can purchase (no soda or heavily processed foods). There really is no need to require an organic label.
-
dont forget about the sugar tariff, although thats aside the point.
organic/nom-gmo products will always cost more. The yields are significantly lower than their biotech counter parts (although Monsanto round up ready crops have been in the news lately for giving way to super weeds and insects, but Monsanto will respond). Its not just the growth of these foods but also the storage, transportation, processing, labeling, etc has to comply with NOP regulations. That all takes a lot of time, and therefore costs a lot of money. I know from experience processing organic food is a HUGE pain in the ass.
Yes, and it's not really any healthier. I don't like the idea of the government subsidizing inefficient organic foods. If we want to improve the health of poor people, we should put limits on what food stamps can purchase (no soda or heavily processed foods). There really is no need to require an organic label.
Nutritionally this is true, although the jury is out on GMO affect on health.
-
Nutritionally, the main consensus is yes - but only for fruits & vegitables and studies are ongoing; there isn't much solid info I've ever been able to find on organic free range/grass fed meats; It seems logical to conclude that the diet of the animal would affect the nutrition of the meat produced; a free range cow that is grass fed over a pen raised cow eating vitamins with corn filler. There have been some studies that suggest Omega fatty acid levels are increased in grass fed beef. I'd like to see more study before it's thrown out as not beneficial.
Back to fruits & vegetables though, pesticide contamination seem to be of some concern, especially in children. With cancer seeming more rampant than ever - seems like it could be a problem.
-
honestly though - I'd rather nothing be subsidized.
-
I'm getting too far off topic here though; and to bring it back - this:
...... If we want to improve the health of poor people, we should put limits on what food stamps can purchase (no soda or heavily processed foods). There really is no need to require an organic label.
I can get fully behind and I agree totally.
-
honestly though - I'd rather nothing be subsidized.
Agreed, but once you start subsidizing anything, it's almost impossible to stop due to the unintended consequences, like dependency.
-
Yep, Until complete economical and financial collapse that is. Maybe we'll be able to do some of these things within the next five years.
-
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/irs-obamacare-cost-family/2013/02/01/id/488519?promo_code=1160B-1&utm_source=1160BReason&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1 (http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/irs-obamacare-cost-family/2013/02/01/id/488519?promo_code=1160B-1&utm_source=1160BReason&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1)
My word how do people still defend this cluster.
-
Obamacare is going to be great. Obama is so smart.
-
Barry will fix everything. He can do no wrong
-
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/irs-obamacare-cost-family/2013/02/01/id/488519?promo_code=1160B-1&utm_source=1160BReason&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1 (http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/irs-obamacare-cost-family/2013/02/01/id/488519?promo_code=1160B-1&utm_source=1160BReason&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1)
My word how do people still defend this cluster.
I'm going to question the validity of this source.
-
http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/irs-obamacare-cost-family/2013/02/01/id/488519?promo_code=1160B-1&utm_source=1160BReason&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1 (http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/irs-obamacare-cost-family/2013/02/01/id/488519?promo_code=1160B-1&utm_source=1160BReason&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1)
My word how do people still defend this cluster.
I'm going to question the validity of this source.
The IRS?
-
Here is where it came from. I don't think it's actually claiming that is what the premium will be, rather a random example number used to calculate penalties if you don't have coverage. Very confusing to be sure.
Page 70 here: http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf (http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf)
Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage. (i) In 2016, Taxpayers
H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L,
age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for
any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable
filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a
family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.
(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this
section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2
children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the
lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of
$173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).
(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of
the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12).
Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment
imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).
-
Weird how expensive stuff can get when you monopolize it and eliminate competition.
-
Yes, the previous system was working so well.
-
Yes, the previous system was working so well.
shut up you obamabot
-
Yes, the previous system was working so well.
shut up you obamabot
I don't know if Obamacare is the answer. Haven't studied it in depth or anything, but I've learned enough about the old system to know it was pretty mumped. Is Obamacare better? :dunno: I think that will take time to see.
-
Yes, the previous system was working so well.
Those are the only 2 options?
-
No. What I would disagree with was that your statement seemed to come from the belief that the previous marketplace was both open and competitive.
-
No. What I would disagree with was that your statement seemed to come from the belief that the previous marketplace was both open and competitive.
This was the answer to affordable healthcare, and they mumped it up forever. No going back now.
-
No. What I would disagree with was that your statement seemed to come from the belief that the previous marketplace was both open and competitive.
Oh I don't believe it was at all. But what little competition was in health care has now been squashed.
-
How was competition in the healthcare business different than competition in other typical businesses?
Of all major reasons I've heard cited for rising healthcare costs, I'm not sure I've ever heard lack of competition.
-
How was competition in the healthcare business different than competition in other typical businesses?
Of all major reasons I've heard cited for rising healthcare costs, I'm not sure I've ever heard lack of competition.
Our diet drives health care costs. Anything else is really secondary.
-
The competition flaws I am referring to are with how they compete and at what level (usually locally), as well as strict limits to consumer choice within each plan.
-
How was competition in the healthcare business different than competition in other typical businesses?
Of all major reasons I've heard cited for rising healthcare costs, I'm not sure I've ever heard lack of competition.
There is no such thing as interstate medical insurance sales. If you wanted to sell medical insurance in all fifty states, you have to open fifty separate businesses. This may be too simplistic, so anyone in the medical insurance business feel free to chime in.
I do know many states have one insurance company that holds more than 75% of all policies.
-
How was competition in the healthcare business different than competition in other typical businesses?
Of all major reasons I've heard cited for rising healthcare costs, I'm not sure I've ever heard lack of competition.
There is no such thing as interstate medical insurance sales. If you wanted to sell medical insurance in all fifty states, you have to open fifty separate businesses. This may be too simplistic, so anyone in the medical insurance business feel free to chime in.
I do know many states have one insurance company that holds more than 75% of all policies.
I've worked in the health insurance business for a long time. Everything you said is false.
-
The competition flaws I am referring to are with how they compete and at what level (usually locally), as well as strict limits to consumer choice within each plan.
Okay, so how is how they compete different from how typical businesses compete? How are the limits to consumer choice in health insurance different from limits to consumer choice in typical businesses?
-
Our diet drives health care costs. Anything else is really secondary.
hugely, ridiculously false.
-
Our diet drives health care costs. Anything else is really secondary.
hugely, ridiculously false.
i'd love to hear why
-
Our diet drives health care costs. Anything else is really secondary.
hugely, ridiculously false.
i'd love to hear why
you're the one who threw out a completely unsupported, completely illogical statement. try to google up some evidence to support it. then i'll refute anything you find that you think supports your position.
-
Our diet drives health care costs. Anything else is really secondary.
hugely, ridiculously false.
i'd love to hear why
you're the one who threw out a completely unsupported, completely illogical statement. try to google up some evidence to support it. then i'll refute anything you find that you think supports your position.
google came up with some guy from berkeley offering a similar position, I think it hates me.
-
google came up with some guy from berkeley offering a similar position, I think it hates me.
link it, please? i'd like to read it while i wait for my kstate wildcats to play bball today.
-
google came up with some guy from berkeley offering a similar position, I think it hates me.
link it, please? i'd like to read it while i wait for my kstate wildcats to play bball today.
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/10/27/whats-the-biggest-driver-of-health-care-costs-our-personal-behaviors/ (http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/10/27/whats-the-biggest-driver-of-health-care-costs-our-personal-behaviors/)
-
google came up with some guy from berkeley offering a similar position, I think it hates me.
link it, please? i'd like to read it while i wait for my kstate wildcats to play bball today.
Well this is an interesting change in events.
-
http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/10/27/whats-the-biggest-driver-of-health-care-costs-our-personal-behaviors/ (http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/10/27/whats-the-biggest-driver-of-health-care-costs-our-personal-behaviors/)
thanks. doesn't really address the relative impact of dietary factors on us health care costs. i'll see if i can find something with concrete numbers, either before or after the game.
-
Well this is an interesting change in events.
they've always been mine, jakesie. i'd scarcely get angry about some guy working for kstate running off the coach of somebody else's team.
-
Yes, the previous system was working so well.
shut up you obamabot
I don't know if Obamacare is the answer. Haven't studied it in depth or anything, but I've learned enough about the old system to know it was pretty mumped. Is Obamacare better? :dunno: I think that will take time to see.
That seems to be the thoughts of all the people that: ...Haven't studied it in depth or anything...
:peek:
-
I think the medical system needs to be #burnedtotheground an reimagined. Passing a law so many hate that slightly shakes up the status quo may increase the chance that happens.
-
If you take away the financial issues, the medical system is pretty amazing. My fiancé is a medical student. The other day, they replaced a guy's urethra with the skin from his cheek, routine procedure.
-
What happened to his urethra?
Not complaining about the technical wonder or capabilities of our modern medicine.
-
Also it's hilarious to think that in real life you are tolerable enough to have a fiancé.
-
What happened to his urethra?
Not complaining about the technical wonder or capabilities of our modern medicine.
long story short, he couldn't urinate
-
How was competition in the healthcare business different than competition in other typical businesses?
Of all major reasons I've heard cited for rising healthcare costs, I'm not sure I've ever heard lack of competition.
There is no such thing as interstate medical insurance sales. If you wanted to sell medical insurance in all fifty states, you have to open fifty separate businesses. This may be too simplistic, so anyone in the medical insurance business feel free to chime in.
I do know many states have one insurance company that holds more than 75% of all policies.
no troll
do you want a small fed with state centered orientation or do you want a fed that can regulate healthcare nationally? Seems like you would be the former from your other posts, but what you ask for in your competition point smacks of a stronger more regulating fed.
-
Yes, the previous system was working so well.
shut up you obamabot
I don't know if Obamacare is the answer. Haven't studied it in depth or anything, but I've learned enough about the old system to know it was pretty mumped. Is Obamacare better? :dunno: I think that will take time to see.
That seems to be the thoughts of all the people that: ...Haven't studied it in depth or anything...
:peek:
You would assume that but there are a number of people who haven't studied it or at least haven't studied it outside of their own political rhetoric who have already chalked it up to success/failure. I just think that putting a system this large into a marketplace will make the results tough to predict.
-
I was just being cantankerous. Sheesh.
-
I was just being cantankerous. Sheesh.
Yea, I figured.
-
How was competition in the healthcare business different than competition in other typical businesses?
Of all major reasons I've heard cited for rising healthcare costs, I'm not sure I've ever heard lack of competition.
There is no such thing as interstate medical insurance sales. If you wanted to sell medical insurance in all fifty states, you have to open fifty separate businesses. This may be too simplistic, so anyone in the medical insurance business feel free to chime in.
I do know many states have one insurance company that holds more than 75% of all policies.
no troll
do you want a small fed with state centered orientation or do you want a fed that can regulate healthcare nationally? Seems like you would be the former from your other posts, but what you ask for in your competition point smacks of a stronger more regulating fed.
Are you rough ridin' kidding? JFC :facepalm:
-
How was competition in the healthcare business different than competition in other typical businesses?
Of all major reasons I've heard cited for rising healthcare costs, I'm not sure I've ever heard lack of competition.
There is no such thing as interstate medical insurance sales. If you wanted to sell medical insurance in all fifty states, you have to open fifty separate businesses. This may be too simplistic, so anyone in the medical insurance business feel free to chime in.
I do know many states have one insurance company that holds more than 75% of all policies.
no troll
do you want a small fed with state centered orientation or do you want a fed that can regulate healthcare nationally? Seems like you would be the former from your other posts, but what you ask for in your competition point smacks of a stronger more regulating fed.
Are you rough ridin' kidding? JFC :facepalm:
I didn't think you were this awful.
-
It's like you don't realize everything you type is memorialized on the Internet. Just plain idiocy
-
It's like you don't realize everything you type is memorialized on the Internet. Just plain idiocy
you're right, I thought you had the mental capacity to enter into this conversation, I was very wrong.
-
It's like you don't realize everything you type is memorialized on the Internet. Just plain idiocy
you're right, I thought you had the mental capacity to enter into this conversation, I was very wrong.
I think the problem is your inability to put into words whatever the eff it is you're thinking.
Here's some unsolicited advice, head over to the local community college and enroll in a remedial writing class. If that doesn't work seek professional help for your learning disability.
-
It's like you don't realize everything you type is memorialized on the Internet. Just plain idiocy
you're right, I thought you had the mental capacity to enter into this conversation, I was very wrong.
I think the problem is your inability to put into words whatever the eff it is you're thinking.
Here's some unsolicited advice, head over to the local community college and enroll in a remedial writing class. If that doesn't work seek professional help for your learning disability.
:lol:
never mind I'll just look at foxnews' webpage for your opinion in all future matters.
-
It's like you don't realize everything you type is memorialized on the Internet. Just plain idiocy
you're right, I thought you had the mental capacity to enter into this conversation, I was very wrong.
I think the problem is your inability to put into words whatever the eff it is you're thinking.
Here's some unsolicited advice, head over to the local community college and enroll in a remedial writing class. If that doesn't work seek professional help for your learning disability.
i laughed
-
It's like you don't realize everything you type is memorialized on the Internet. Just plain idiocy
you're right, I thought you had the mental capacity to enter into this conversation, I was very wrong.
I think the problem is your inability to put into words whatever the eff it is you're thinking.
Here's some unsolicited advice, head over to the local community college and enroll in a remedial writing class. If that doesn't work seek professional help for your learning disability.
i laughed
:lol:
-
#pwn3d
-
:bwpopcorn:
-
Oh no, Obamacare was a bad idea!
-
http://www.money.cnn.com/2013/05/21/smallbusiness/obamacare/index.html
-
As I recall, Obamacare was supposed to reduce the deficit, cut premiums, and increase access to healthcare for millions of Americans. Starting to get worried about articles like these:
GAO: Obamacare to add $6.2 trillion to long term deficit (http://global.nationalreview.com/pdf/gao_022613.pdf)
WSJ: Premiums going up (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170.html)
NYT: Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen With Health Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/health/policy/too-few-doctors-in-many-us-communities.html?_r=2&hp&)
I just can't understand why this is happening. :dunno: So we're going to spend trillions on insurance subsidies for the poor and middle class, and that's going to increase the deficit?! And crowding millions of additional people onto the insurance rolls is actually going to reduce access to quality healthcare?! And requiring insurance to cover a crap load of new procedures and people who are already sick is going to raise premiums?! What is this, bizzaro world?!?!?! Why didn't anyone warn us about this?????
-
Who will pay more under Obamacare? Young men (http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html?iid=EL)
-
Who will pay more under Obamacare? Young men (http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/14/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html?iid=EL)
Shot right at goEMAW. :horrorsurprise:
-
wait a minute. you're telling me that the cost of health insurance is going to increase in the future? i mean this just can't be happening can it? what in the world you guys?
-
Oh man, bend over young, wealthy cats.
Here's what could affect your coverage cost. This breakdown is only for those who buy plans on the individual market through the exchanges, and doesn't apply to those with employer-sponsored plans.
Income: One of the top factors determining how much you'll pay next year is your income. That's because subsidies are available to those with incomes of up to 400% of the poverty line -- roughly $45,000 for an individual or $92,000 for a family of four. Some 57% of enrollees will receive subsidies, and those subsidies will cover nearly two-thirds of the premium, on average, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates.
-
Oh man, bend over young, wealthy cats.
Here's what could affect your coverage cost. This breakdown is only for those who buy plans on the individual market through the exchanges, and doesn't apply to those with employer-sponsored plans.
Income: One of the top factors determining how much you'll pay next year is your income. That's because subsidies are available to those with incomes of up to 400% of the poverty line -- roughly $45,000 for an individual or $92,000 for a family of four. Some 57% of enrollees will receive subsidies, and those subsidies will cover nearly two-thirds of the premium, on average, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates.
The young wealthy cats all have employer sponsored High Deductible plans with HSA's
-
All I know is that I get paid something like $0.92 a paycheck for having my health insurance. That doesn't include the $500 my employer puts into my HSA for me.
-
i am going to be outraged if the cost of healcare rises in the future. this is unprecedented and i won't stand for it.
-
i am going to be outraged if the cost of healcare rises in the future. this is unprecedented and i won't stand for it.
We are all used to the cost going up, but, we aren't used to the level of coverage going down at the same time.
-
i am going to be outraged if the cost of healcare rises in the future. this is unprecedented and i won't stand for it.
If you don't think guaranteed issue is going to increase premiums more than they already are, you need a shrink. Fortunately, Obamacare will cover that.
-
Oh man, bend over young, wealthy cats.
Here's what could affect your coverage cost. This breakdown is only for those who buy plans on the individual market through the exchanges, and doesn't apply to those with employer-sponsored plans.
Income: One of the top factors determining how much you'll pay next year is your income. That's because subsidies are available to those with incomes of up to 400% of the poverty line -- roughly $45,000 for an individual or $92,000 for a family of four. Some 57% of enrollees will receive subsidies, and those subsidies will cover nearly two-thirds of the premium, on average, according to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates.
The young wealthy cats all have employer sponsored High Deductible plans with HSA's
Obamacare may wipe out some high deductible plans. Depends on whether they will meet the mandated, lowest level "bronze" coverage. The weird thing about Obamacare is that, it seems like just about everyone can agree that gold-plated policies that aren't really "insurance" distort the market and drive price up, and HDHP/HSA's encourage price shopping and drive price down, but Obamacare mandates that more people get on the bloated insurance plans.
It's almost like Obamacare was designed to ultimately destroy the private health insurance system....
-
It's almost like Obamacare was designed to ultimately destroy the private health insurance system....
That wouldn't be a bad thing. The worst thing to ever happen to healthcare is when all the Blues decided to switch from non-profits to publicly traded companies. It then became all about the shareholders instead of the policyholders.
-
Man, what in the eff are you guys talking about? It's like this stuff is coming from outer space.
-
It's almost like Obamacare was designed to ultimately destroy the private health insurance system....
That wouldn't be a bad thing. The worst thing to ever happen to healthcare is when all the Blues decided to switch from non-profits to publicly traded companies. It then became all about the shareholders instead of the policyholders.
Nope. The worst thing that ever happened was when employers started offering health insurance as a benefit to skirt WWII era wage and price controls. These policies became more and more bloated, to the extent that they no longer resemble insurance at all, but are rather "prepaid healthcare."
Because somebody else is paying the bill now (the insurers) for virtually all services, it has distorted the market. Consumers lack incentive to price shop. "Single payer healthcare" - where the government pays the bills - is not going to help this. The government can artificially keep prices low, but it will ultimately lead to substandard care and shortage of care (see Canada).
If we used car insurance or home insurance to pay for routine repairs, he same as we do for health insurance, the price of those policies would go through the roof too.
He additional problem of tying insurance to employers is that it locks employees into jobs, which is again, very inefficient.
Naturally, ObamaCare mandates that large employers 50+ provide health insurance, and that policies cover every conceivable routine procedure under the sun. Exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.
-
Well, you're wrong but that's ok, you're entitled to a wrong opinion or two.
I was working in the health insurance industry in the 90s when most of the Blues converted to public corporations and I can tell you that premiums began to skyrocket and benefits/coverage began to decline immediately. But it wasn't just coverage to the policyholders that declined, but payments to the providers of service began to decrease dramatically as well. Doctors and hospitals didn't have a choice but to accept these lower payments because they had become completely dependent on the insurance industry. So, they made up the difference by overcharging the uninsured. So, now, the uninsured can't afford to go the hospital or the doctor because they're being overcharged to compensate for the low ball payments the insurance companies are making.
If you don't have your oil changed in your car and the engine blows... well, your car doesn't run. You buy a new car or engine, or a bike or walk wearing you're going but at least you're not dead. If you can't afford to go to a doctor and you get cancer or heart disease and you die.... I personally don't put auto and home repairs on the same level as health.
-
He additional problem of tying insurance to employers is that it locks employees into jobs, which is again, very inefficient.
Before HIPAA? Sure. Now? Not so much.
-
I was working in the health insurance industry in the 90s when most of the Blues converted to public corporations and I can tell you that premiums began to skyrocket and benefits/coverage began to decline immediately.
That's interesting. Do you have anything to back that up? I looked, but couldn't find anything in support. I did find, however, that insurance companies average a measly 3% average margin, well near the bottom of industries. See, e.g., http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by.html (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-insurance-companies-rank-88-by.html) Take away all that profit, and it would only nominally reduce the price of premiums.
Doctors and hospitals didn't have a choice but to accept these lower payments because they had become completely dependent on the insurance industry. So, they made up the difference by overcharging the uninsured. So, now, the uninsured can't afford to go the hospital or the doctor because they're being overcharged to compensate for the low ball payments the insurance companies are making.
Now, I know this isn't true, because my wife works in the healthcare industry. For the uninsured and paying cash out of pocket, they charge a lower price than if you're insured.
If you don't have your oil changed in your car and the engine blows... well, your car doesn't run. You buy a new car or engine, or a bike or walk wearing you're going but at least you're not dead. If you can't afford to go to a doctor and you get cancer or heart disease and you die.... I personally don't put auto and home repairs on the same level as health.
The same economic principles apply. And from a policy standpoint, the evidence is mixed how effective preventive care is, or whether it will save any money. In fact, recent studies indicate that wider access to preventive care will actually cost quite a bit more.
-
Now, I know this isn't true, because my wife works in the healthcare industry. For the uninsured and paying cash out of pocket, they charge a lower price than if you're insured.
you aren't the least bit curious why your wife won't tell you where she really goes during the week?
-
Hospitals and doctors might give a discount from their overpriced charge to an uninsured patient but, I promise, it is still higher than the amount they are accepting from insurance companies. And it will be much higher than the amount they will accept from Medicare.
The Bloomberg report surveys the recent earnings of five of the country's largest insurers -- WellPoint, UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, Humana and Cigna -- and finds that their profit margins have climbed to an average of 8.24 percent in the year and a half since the health care reform package was signed into law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/insurer-profits-health-care-reform_n_1190344.html
If they were a non-profit they wouldn't probably need to spend billions on lobbyists.
-
1. Of course premiums went up in the last 20 years. Healthcare costs went up in the last 20 years. Insurance companies view themselves as mere middlemen between the consumer and the service providers. If the cost for the service goes up, the cost of the premium goes up. They are in the unique position of determining their profits because, in short, they know how to project how many people are going to get sick. But their profits are neither high or low relative to the healthcare insustry. They target the middle. That's where they are. It's by design. It's so they don't get in trouble.
2. I don't know how healthcare providers could increase their profits by charging higher rates to people who can't afford insurance in the first place. They don't get any payment at all in many of those cases. They get a tax write off.
3. Preventive care is a pretty small part of the complex issue of rising healthcare costs. The amount of coverage added for new preventive services under typical health plans in the past 15 years is negligible compared to how much overall healthcare costs have increased in that time.
4. Price shopping really has nothing to do with anything. Rising healthcare costs, again, is a complex issue. Costs increased a crap ton for all healthcare providers for many reasons. They all had to respond by charging more. The bigger issue on the consumer end of things is that they could often go to the doctor as much as they wanted with little to no costs to themselves. They didn't have to think about the bill. Their employers who were paying it did. And that's why dedutibles are now increasingly being applied to covered services. It's to force people to think about whether or not they really need to go to the doctor because they have a cough.
-
1. Of course premiums went up in the last 20 years. Healthcare costs went up in the last 20 years. Insurance companies view themselves as mere middlemen between the consumer and the service providers. If the cost for the service goes up, the cost of the premium goes up. They are in the unique position of determining their profits because, in short, they know how to project how many people are going to get sick. But their profits are neither high or low relative to the healthcare insustry. They target the middle. That's where they are. It's by design. It's so they don't get in trouble.
2. I don't know how healthcare providers could increase their profits by charging higher rates to people who can't afford insurance in the first place. They don't get any payment at all in many of those cases. They get a tax write off.
3. Preventive care is a pretty small part of the complex issue of rising healthcare costs. The amount of coverage added for new preventive services under typical health plans in the past 15 years is negligible compared to how much overall healthcare costs have increased in that time.
4. Price shopping really has nothing to do with anything. Rising healthcare costs, again, is a complex issue. Costs increased a crap ton for all healthcare providers for many reasons. They all had to respond by charging more. The bigger issue on the consumer end of things is that they could often go to the doctor as much as they wanted with little to no costs to themselves. They didn't have to think about the bill. Their employers who were paying it did. And that's why dedutibles are now increasingly being applied to covered services. It's to force people to think about whether or not they really need to go to the doctor because they have a cough.
It's because the FDA creates a monopoly for big pharma. End the FDA and other government agencies and costs will go down
-
1. Of course premiums went up in the last 20 years. Healthcare costs went up in the last 20 years. Insurance companies view themselves as mere middlemen between the consumer and the service providers. If the cost for the service goes up, the cost of the premium goes up. They are in the unique position of determining their profits because, in short, they know how to project how many people are going to get sick. But their profits are neither high or low relative to the healthcare insustry. They target the middle. That's where they are. It's by design. It's so they don't get in trouble.
2. I don't know how healthcare providers could increase their profits by charging higher rates to people who can't afford insurance in the first place. They don't get any payment at all in many of those cases. They get a tax write off.
3. Preventive care is a pretty small part of the complex issue of rising healthcare costs. The amount of coverage added for new preventive services under typical health plans in the past 15 years is negligible compared to how much overall healthcare costs have increased in that time.
4. Price shopping really has nothing to do with anything. Rising healthcare costs, again, is a complex issue. Costs increased a crap ton for all healthcare providers for many reasons. They all had to respond by charging more. The bigger issue on the consumer end of things is that they could often go to the doctor as much as they wanted with little to no costs to themselves. They didn't have to think about the bill. Their employers who were paying it did. And that's why dedutibles are now increasingly being applied to covered services. It's to force people to think about whether or not they really need to go to the doctor because they have a cough.
It's because the FDA creates a monopoly for big pharma. End the FDA and other government agencies and costs will go down
Quoted for truth.
The FDA has made the approval process of drugs so expensive that only the largest of the large corporations can afford it. Like hundreds of millions of dollars. Then they grant that company rights to it for x years so they can recoup the costs.
Government is the problem, not the solution.
-
1. Of course premiums went up in the last 20 years. Healthcare costs went up in the last 20 years. Insurance companies view themselves as mere middlemen between the consumer and the service providers. If the cost for the service goes up, the cost of the premium goes up. They are in the unique position of determining their profits because, in short, they know how to project how many people are going to get sick. But their profits are neither high or low relative to the healthcare insustry. They target the middle. That's where they are. It's by design. It's so they don't get in trouble.
2. I don't know how healthcare providers could increase their profits by charging higher rates to people who can't afford insurance in the first place. They don't get any payment at all in many of those cases. They get a tax write off.
3. Preventive care is a pretty small part of the complex issue of rising healthcare costs. The amount of coverage added for new preventive services under typical health plans in the past 15 years is negligible compared to how much overall healthcare costs have increased in that time.
4. Price shopping really has nothing to do with anything. Rising healthcare costs, again, is a complex issue. Costs increased a crap ton for all healthcare providers for many reasons. They all had to respond by charging more. The bigger issue on the consumer end of things is that they could often go to the doctor as much as they wanted with little to no costs to themselves. They didn't have to think about the bill. Their employers who were paying it did. And that's why dedutibles are now increasingly being applied to covered services. It's to force people to think about whether or not they really need to go to the doctor because they have a cough.
It's because the FDA creates a monopoly for big pharma. End the FDA and other government agencies and costs will go down
Quoted for truth.
The FDA has made the approval process of drugs so expensive that only the largest of the large corporations can afford it. Like hundreds of millions of dollars. Then they grant that company rights to it for x years so they can recoup the costs.
Government is the problem, not the solution.
Agree. But of course it's much more complicated and corrupt than that
-
poor people love going to the doctor. we are so mumped.
-
1. Of course premiums went up in the last 20 years. Healthcare costs went up in the last 20 years. Insurance companies view themselves as mere middlemen between the consumer and the service providers. If the cost for the service goes up, the cost of the premium goes up. They are in the unique position of determining their profits because, in short, they know how to project how many people are going to get sick. But their profits are neither high or low relative to the healthcare insustry. They target the middle. That's where they are. It's by design. It's so they don't get in trouble.
2. I don't know how healthcare providers could increase their profits by charging higher rates to people who can't afford insurance in the first place. They don't get any payment at all in many of those cases. They get a tax write off.
3. Preventive care is a pretty small part of the complex issue of rising healthcare costs. The amount of coverage added for new preventive services under typical health plans in the past 15 years is negligible compared to how much overall healthcare costs have increased in that time.
4. Price shopping really has nothing to do with anything. Rising healthcare costs, again, is a complex issue. Costs increased a crap ton for all healthcare providers for many reasons. They all had to respond by charging more. The bigger issue on the consumer end of things is that they could often go to the doctor as much as they wanted with little to no costs to themselves. They didn't have to think about the bill. Their employers who were paying it did. And that's why dedutibles are now increasingly being applied to covered services. It's to force people to think about whether or not they really need to go to the doctor because they have a cough.
Well said.
-
poor people love going to the doctor. we are so mumped.
Hospitals will become the new libraries.
-
poor people love going to the doctor. we are so mumped.
Hospitals will become the new libraries.
yeah
-
Since we are talking about rising health care costs, I'm going to throw in the single talking point I always add in. I'm not saying it's a significant driver in rising costs, but it still bothers the hell out of me.
Part of the rising cost of health care is due to the number of machines/equipment/resources that exist and need to be paid for and the quantity of these capital resources vs the population base they serve. A lot of America is rural, like western Kansas. There are a lot of towns with populations from 8,000 to 25,000 all between 45-70 miles apart, and they all have the exact same equipment. You go to the hospitals in Garden City, Dodge City, Liberal, Great Bend, Hays, Emporia, Pittsburg, Newton, McPherson, Pratt, Colby, and probably Concordia & Norton. They all have the same very expensive MRI machines. Why? So that when someone has strange pain they don't have to drive two hours round trip to get scanned. Salina probably had 5 and Wichita probably has 20+ MRIs between the hospitals, cancer centers, and other "surgical arts" complexes. Those things need to be paid for. We have the ability to create amazing technology, but we can't afford it at the level that we can produce it. However, since its in the name of health, we do it anyway and need to create reasons/ways to pay for it.
Example: I live in a city of 30,000 people, 6 miles north of Tulsa. We have two competing hospitals that are one mile apart from each other. Both are full service, three story hospitals full of the same, expensive pieces of equipment. One night I woke up at 1:00 am with a pretty bad kidney stone. It was the throwing up from pain kind, so I knew my Loritabs weren't going to do it. I finally broke down and went to the hospital. I get to the hospital and they don't believe I have a kidney stone, even though I've had 15 before. I pee blood to show them I have a stone. Now they believe me, but they "want to be sure" it's not my appendix. They say screw it and send me for an MRI anyway. What do they care, the machine and tech are sitting idle at 2:00 AM, so it's an easy $2,000 they get to bill out. All I needed was a little morphine (so I could keep down the gallon of water I was trying to drink) and a couple bags of fluid. If they didn't regularly send people for unnecessary MRI's to charge the insurance companies, I'm sure they'd just raise the price on something else so they'd hit their budgeted revenue. However, the citizens of my town (and their insurance companies) have to pay for two MRI machines and two of everything else. Both need to hit their target revenue to pay for their redundant resources. It's insanely stupid overkill, and this is going on all over the country in towns like those I listed in the paragraph above. That's part of the reason health care costs are going up.
/hamburglar-health-care-cost-rant
-
Since we are talking about rising health care costs, I'm going to throw in the single talking point I always add in. I'm not saying it's a significant driver in rising costs, but it still bothers the hell out of me.
Part of the rising cost of health care is due to the number of machines/equipment/resources that exist and need to be paid for and the quantity of these capital resources vs the population base they serve. A lot of America is rural, like western Kansas. There are a lot of towns with populations from 8,000 to 25,000 all between 45-70 miles apart, and they all have the exact same equipment. You go to the hospitals in Garden City, Dodge City, Liberal, Great Bend, Hays, Emporia, Pittsburg, Newton, McPherson, Pratt, Colby, and probably Concordia & Norton. They all have the same very expensive MRI machines. Why? So that when someone has strange pain they don't have to drive two hours round trip to get scanned. Salina probably had 5 and Wichita probably has 20+ MRIs between the hospitals, cancer centers, and other "surgical arts" complexes. Those things need to be paid for. We have the ability to create amazing technology, but we can't afford it at the level that we can produce it. However, since its in the name of health, we do it anyway and need to create reasons/ways to pay for it.
Example: I live in a city of 30,000 people, 6 miles north of Tulsa. We have two competing hospitals that are one mile apart from each other. Both are full service, three story hospitals full of the same, expensive pieces of equipment. One night I woke up at 1:00 am with a pretty bad kidney stone. It was the throwing up from pain kind, so I knew my Loritabs weren't going to do it. I finally broke down and went to the hospital. I get to the hospital and they don't believe I have a kidney stone, even though I've had 15 before. I pee blood to show them I have a stone. Now they believe me, but they "want to be sure" it's not my appendix. They say screw it and send me for an MRI anyway. What do they care, the machine and tech are sitting idle at 2:00 AM, so it's an easy $2,000 they get to bill out. All I needed was a little morphine (so I could keep down the gallon of water I was trying to drink) and a couple bags of fluid. If they didn't regularly send people for unnecessary MRI's to charge the insurance companies, I'm sure they'd just raise the price on something else so they'd hit their budgeted revenue. However, the citizens of my town (and their insurance companies) have to pay for two MRI machines and two of everything else. Both need to hit their target revenue to pay for their redundant resources. It's insanely stupid overkill, and this is going on all over the country in towns like those I listed in the paragraph above. That's part of the reason health care costs are going up.
/hamburglar-health-care-cost-rant
If your appendix had ruptured and you died, your family may have sued the hospital for several million dollars. This is the reason poor people can't afford health insurance today.
-
FWIW modern MRI machines are not super expensive anymore.
My uncle sells them down in FL.
-
1. Of course premiums went up in the last 20 years. Healthcare costs went up in the last 20 years. Insurance companies view themselves as mere middlemen between the consumer and the service providers. If the cost for the service goes up, the cost of the premium goes up. They are in the unique position of determining their profits because, in short, they know how to project how many people are going to get sick. But their profits are neither high or low relative to the healthcare insustry. They target the middle. That's where they are. It's by design. It's so they don't get in trouble.
2. I don't know how healthcare providers could increase their profits by charging higher rates to people who can't afford insurance in the first place. They don't get any payment at all in many of those cases. They get a tax write off.
3. Preventive care is a pretty small part of the complex issue of rising healthcare costs. The amount of coverage added for new preventive services under typical health plans in the past 15 years is negligible compared to how much overall healthcare costs have increased in that time.
4. Price shopping really has nothing to do with anything. Rising healthcare costs, again, is a complex issue. Costs increased a crap ton for all healthcare providers for many reasons. They all had to respond by charging more. The bigger issue on the consumer end of things is that they could often go to the doctor as much as they wanted with little to no costs to themselves. They didn't have to think about the bill. Their employers who were paying it did. And that's why dedutibles are now increasingly being applied to covered services. It's to force people to think about whether or not they really need to go to the doctor because they have a cough.
I think I agree with all of the above. And again, it demonstrates how Obamacare is going make an already messed up system much, much worse. The reason health insurance premiums increase year after year significantly more than inflation is because the insurer "middle man" has distorted the efficient operation of a free market. If you want to make insurance more affordable, start by treating it as insurance. This is why HDHP/HSAs are so great. Obamacare works in exactly the opposite direction, compelling employers to offer bloated insurance policies to their employees. It then floods the market with millions of new taxpayer subsidized policies, which are in turn supposedly paid for by higher taxes, and strain our already short-staffed healthcare system. It requires insurers to insure those who are already sick (guaranteed issue), and supposedly compensates for this by forcing young people who don't need insurance to buy it anyway.
Obamacare is a trainwreck. It is potentially one of the most destructive pieces of legislation in history.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/)
Cohn is saying that, despite the political naysayers, the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California, Oregon and Washington—the first states to publish the expected health exchange prices for purchasing coverage. These are also states that are actually committed to seeing the program work as opposed to those states whose leaders have a vested political interest in seeing the Affordable Care Act fail.
Keep in mind that the entire idea of the exchanges is to require health insurance companies to compete openly with one another by offering identical coverage programs in the three created classes—each offering insurance coverage that actually delivers meaningful protection to customers—and then openly disclosing the price each insurance company will charge for that policy. Thus, shoppers can clearly see which company has the best price on an apples-to-apples basis.
For all the negative chatter about how including older and sicker Americans in the health insurance pools would drive up the price for younger participants in the pool less likely to be ill, what we are now seeing in states like California is that the desire on the part of the health insurance companies to increase market share—thanks to the large influx of customers as a result of Obamacare—is driving prices downward.
That is precisely what the President said would happen.
-
Any specifics on the actual coverage provided by these plans which now have lower premiums?
-
Any specifics on the actual coverage provided by these plans which now have lower premiums?
:rolleyes:
-
So, no specifics then?
I ask because I saw an article headline about "skinny plans".
-
So, no specifics then?
I ask because I saw an article headline about "skinny plans".
No specifics. I've heard that the more fluid exchange of health care information has led to better coverage, though. Hospitals/clinics are spending less time doing repetitive preliminary exams and whatnot, thanks to the accessibility of patient's health information. The investment in HIT from the 2009 stimulus has really improved coverage in places that have taken advantage of it.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/)
By Rick Ungar, Contributor
I write from the left on politics and policy
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/)
By Rick Ungar, Contributor
I write from the left on politics and policy
:confused:
-
I think transparent pricing is a pretty good idea.
-
here is an eye opening statement: people who can't afford to pay for health insurance can't afford to pay for health insurance
let that sink in for a moment
-
Since we are talking about rising health care costs, I'm going to throw in the single talking point I always add in. I'm not saying it's a significant driver in rising costs, but it still bothers the hell out of me.
Part of the rising cost of health care is due to the number of machines/equipment/resources that exist and need to be paid for and the quantity of these capital resources vs the population base they serve. A lot of America is rural, like western Kansas. There are a lot of towns with populations from 8,000 to 25,000 all between 45-70 miles apart, and they all have the exact same equipment. You go to the hospitals in Garden City, Dodge City, Liberal, Great Bend, Hays, Emporia, Pittsburg, Newton, McPherson, Pratt, Colby, and probably Concordia & Norton. They all have the same very expensive MRI machines. Why? So that when someone has strange pain they don't have to drive two hours round trip to get scanned. Salina probably had 5 and Wichita probably has 20+ MRIs between the hospitals, cancer centers, and other "surgical arts" complexes. Those things need to be paid for. We have the ability to create amazing technology, but we can't afford it at the level that we can produce it. However, since its in the name of health, we do it anyway and need to create reasons/ways to pay for it.
Example: I live in a city of 30,000 people, 6 miles north of Tulsa. We have two competing hospitals that are one mile apart from each other. Both are full service, three story hospitals full of the same, expensive pieces of equipment. One night I woke up at 1:00 am with a pretty bad kidney stone. It was the throwing up from pain kind, so I knew my Loritabs weren't going to do it. I finally broke down and went to the hospital. I get to the hospital and they don't believe I have a kidney stone, even though I've had 15 before. I pee blood to show them I have a stone. Now they believe me, but they "want to be sure" it's not my appendix. They say screw it and send me for an MRI anyway. What do they care, the machine and tech are sitting idle at 2:00 AM, so it's an easy $2,000 they get to bill out. All I needed was a little morphine (so I could keep down the gallon of water I was trying to drink) and a couple bags of fluid. If they didn't regularly send people for unnecessary MRI's to charge the insurance companies, I'm sure they'd just raise the price on something else so they'd hit their budgeted revenue. However, the citizens of my town (and their insurance companies) have to pay for two MRI machines and two of everything else. Both need to hit their target revenue to pay for their redundant resources. It's insanely stupid overkill, and this is going on all over the country in towns like those I listed in the paragraph above. That's part of the reason health care costs are going up.
/hamburglar-health-care-cost-rant
If your appendix had ruptured and you died, your family may have sued the hospital for several million dollars. This is the reason poor people can't afford health insurance today.
I'm pretty sure the hospital just wanted hamburglar's money here.
-
here is an eye opening statement: people who can't afford to pay for health insurance can't afford to pay for health insurance
let that sink in for a moment
Would they be able to afford it if the insurance were cheaper? What if they cut out the cable, smart phone, fast food, etc.? Below what level of income should taxpayers subsidize (pay for) somebodies health insurance?
-
I think we should just eliminate insurance completely. Health care costs would drop very quickly.
-
I think we should just eliminate insurance completely. Health care costs would drop very quickly.
But unemployment in the Philippines and India would skyrocket since that's where 90% of their claims are processed.
-
I think we should just eliminate insurance completely. Health care costs would drop very quickly.
But unemployment in the Philippines and India would skyrocket since that's where 90% of their claims are processed.
Those guys can get by. They just need to cut their cable and get rid of their smart phones. They are a resilient people. They will persevere.
-
I think we should just eliminate insurance completely. Health care costs would drop very quickly.
Agreed, then we eliminate mortgages and the price of houses gets cut in half.
-
I think we should just eliminate insurance completely. Health care costs would drop very quickly.
Agreed, then we eliminate mortgages and the price of houses gets cut in half.
That sounds amazing. Just think about how cheap rent would be.
-
I think we should just eliminate insurance completely. Health care costs would drop very quickly.
Agreed, then we eliminate mortgages and the price of houses gets cut in half.
Same with eliminating college grants and loans. Imagine how cheap tuition would be! Everybody would be able to afford it again.
-
I think we should just eliminate insurance completely. Health care costs would drop very quickly.
Agreed, then we eliminate mortgages and the price of houses gets cut in half.
Same with eliminating college grants and loans. Imagine how cheap tuition would be! Everybody would be able to afford it again.
I agree. It really is just doctors, bankers, and politicians standing between us and utopia.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/05/24/unexpected-health-insurance-rate-shock-california-obamacare-insurance-exchange-announces-premium-rates/)
By Rick Ungar, Contributor
I write from the left on politics and policy
:confused:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/)
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange.
But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.
Lee’s claims that there won’t be rate shock in California were repeated uncritically in some quarters. “Despite the political naysayers,” writes my Forbes colleague Rick Ungar [who writes "from the left on politics and policy"], “the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California.” A bit more analysis would have prevented Rick from falling for California’s sleight-of-hand.
Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange. “The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”
That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.
Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.
...
Read on...
-
The article is just too good not to post in its entirety.
One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. This problem will be especially acute when the law’s main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014, leading many to worry about health insurance “rate shock.”
Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange.
But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.
Lee’s claims that there won’t be rate shock in California were repeated uncritically in some quarters. “Despite the political naysayers,” writes my Forbes colleague Rick Ungar, “the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California.” A bit more analysis would have prevented Rick from falling for California’s sleight-of-hand.
Here’s what happened. Last week, Covered California—the name for the state’s Obamacare-compatible insurance exchange—released the rates that Californians will have to pay to enroll in the exchange. “The rates submitted to Covered California for the 2014 individual market,” the state said in a press release, “ranged from two percent above to 29 percent below the 2013 average premium for small employer plans in California’s most populous regions.”
That’s the sentence that led to all of the triumphant commentary from the left. “This is a home run for consumers in every region of California,” exulted Peter Lee.
Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.
Obamacare to double individual-market premiums
If you’re a 25 year old male non-smoker, buying insurance for yourself, the cheapest plan on Obamacare’s exchanges is the catastrophic plan, which costs an average of $184 a month. (That’s the median monthly premium across California’s 19 insurance rating regions.)
The next cheapest plan, the “bronze” comprehensive plan, costs $205 a month. But in 2013, on eHealthInsurance.com (NASDAQ:EHTH), the average cost of the five cheapest plans was only $92. In other words, for the average 25-year-old male non-smoking Californian, Obamacare will drive premiums up by between 100 and 123 percent.
Under Obamacare, only people under the age of 30 can participate in the slightly cheaper catastrophic plan. So if you’re 40, your cheapest option is the bronze plan. In California, the median price of a bronze plan for a 40-year-old male non-smoker will be $261. But on eHealthInsurance, the average cost of the five cheapest plans was $121. That is, Obamacare will increase individual-market premiums by an average of 116 percent.
For both 25-year-olds and 40-year-olds, then, Californians under Obamacare who buy insurance for themselves will see their insurance premiums double.
In the map below, I illustrate the regional variations in Obamacare’s rate hikes. For each of the state’s 19 insurance regions, I compared the median price of the bronze plans offered on the exchange to the median price of the five cheapest plans on eHealthInsurance.com for the most populous zip code in that region. (eHealth offers more than 50 plans in the typical California zip code; focusing on the five cheapest is the fairest comparator to the exchanges, which typically offered three to six plans in each insurance rating region.)
As you can see, Obamacare’s impact on 40-year-olds is steepest in the San Francisco Bay area, especially in the counties north of San Francisco, like Marin, Napa, and Sonoma. :lol: Also hard-hit are Orange and San Diego counties.
According to Covered California, 13 carriers are participating in the state’s exchange, including Anthem Blue Cross (NYSE:WLP), Health Net (NYSE:HNT), Molina (NYSE:MOH), and Kaiser Permanente. So far, UnitedHealthCare (NYSE:UNH) and Aetna (NYSE:AET) have stayed out.
It’s great that Covered California released this early the rates that insurers plan to charge on the exchange, as it gives us an early window into how the exchanges will work in a state that has an unusually competitive and inexpensive individual market for health insurance. But that’s the irony. The full rate report is subtitled “Making the Individual Market in California Affordable.” But Obamacare has actually doubled individual-market premiums in the Golden State.
How did Lee and his colleagues explain the sleight-of-hand they used to make it seem like they were bringing prices down, instead of up? “It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market,” Covered California explained in last week’s press release, “because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a polite way of saying that Obamacare’s mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.
But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a “home run.” It’s more like hitting into a triple play.
That Obamacare more than doubles insurance premiums for many Californians is especially ironic, given the political posturing of the President and his administration in 2010. In February of that year, Anthem Blue Cross announced that some groups (but not the majority) would face premium increases of as much as 39 percent. The White House and its allies in the blogosphere, cynically, claimed that these increases were due to greedy profiteering by the insurers, instead of changes in the underlying costs of the insured population.
“These extraordinary increases are up to 15 times faster than inflation and threaten to make health care unaffordable for hundreds of thousands of Californians, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet in a difficult economy,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “[Anthem’s] strong financial position makes these rate increases even more difficult to understand.” The then-Democratic Congress called hearings. Even California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, a Republican running for governor, decided to launch an investigation.
Soon after, WellPoint announced that, in fact, because of lower revenues and higher spending on patient care, the company earned 11 percent less in 2010 than it did in 2009. So much for greedy profiteering.
So, to summarize: Supporters of Obamacare justified passage of the law because one insurer in California raised rates on some people by as much as 39 percent. But Obamacare itself more than doubles the cost of insurance on the individual market. I can understand why Democrats in California would want to mislead the public on this point. But journalists have a professional responsibility to check out the facts for themselves.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-m8je4tpdwME%2FUB5raZJtG8I%2FAAAAAAAAERI%2F3qJ5VyGRcH8%2Fs1600%2FObama%252Btrain%252Bwreck%252BConservative%252BHideout.jpg&hash=802068e366059dca4edbb47cf8db07352d30153e)
-
Obamacare: Marginally better healthcare for the poor and those with pre-existing conditions. And for everyone else, pony up, assholes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323469804578523623272958456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323469804578523623272958456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop)
Liberals have spent years claiming that "rate shock" under the Affordable Care Act—the 20% to 30% average spike in insurance premiums that every independent analyst projects—is merely the political imagination of Republicans and the insurance industry. So they immediately claimed victory when California reported last month that the plans that will be available on the state's new insurance exchange next year would be cheaper than they are today.
Except now it emerges that California goosed the data to make it appear as if ObamaCare won't send costs aloft as the law's regulations and mandates kick in. It will, by a lot. And now liberals have suddenly switched to arguing that, sure, insurance will be more expensive but the new costs are justified. Needless to say that was not how Democrats sold health-care reform.
California reported that the rates would range from 2% above to 29% below the current market. "This is a home run for consumers in every region of California," said Peter Lee, the director of the state exchange. "These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard."
But Mr. Lee and his fellow regulators were making a false comparison. They weren't looking at California's lightly regulated individual insurance market that functions surprisingly well. They were comparing ObamaCare insurance to the state's current small-business market where regulations similar to ObamaCare have already been imposed.
In other words, California wasn't comparing apples to apples. It wasn't even comparing apples to oranges. It was comparing apples to ostriches. The conservative analyst Avik Roy consulted current rates on the eHealthInsurance website and discovered that the cheapest ObamaCare plan for a typical 25-year-old man is roughly 64% to 117% more expensive than the five cheapest policies sold today. For a 40 year old, it's 73% to 146%. Stanford economist Dan Kessler adds his observations nearby.
We wouldn't be shocked if California deliberately abused statistics in the hopes that no one would notice that in some cases premiums would more than double. In any case, the turn among the liberals who touted the fake results has been educational.
They now concede that individual costs will rise but claim that it is unfair to compare today's market to ObamaCare because ObamaCare mandates much richer benefits. Another liberal rationalization is that the cost-increasing regulations are meant to help people with pre-existing conditions, so they're worth it.
So they're finally admitting what some of us predicted from the start, but that's also the policy point. Americans are being forced to buy more expensive coverage than what they willingly buy today. Liberals also argue that some of the new costs will be offset by subsidies, which is great news unless you happen to be a taxpayer or aren't eligible for ObamaCare dollars and wake up to find your current coverage is illegal.
The Affordable Care Act was sold as a tool to lower health costs. In case you missed it, the claim is right there in the law's title. The new Democratic position is that the entitlement will do the opposite but never mind, which is at least more honest.
But we wonder how long this new candor will last. If the public reacts badly to these higher premiums, the authors of ObamaCare will soon be back to blaming insurance companies and Republicans.
-
Costs are soaring and will only continue. It has pushed insurance rates up, and will get worse, and will lead to most leaving private insurance companies which will cease to exist (current estimate is 2/3 will fall into the federal system now as businesses drop insurance plans due to soaring rates as a result of new/adjusted mandates).
Now, that news may make some happy. However, the lower middle class will be hammered. The system admits that there will be a significant group out there who won't receive any subsidies, but won't make enough to afford the plans. Plus, it will leave it in the hands of the government what will and won't be covered. If you think there will be mercy in this regard, all you have to do is consider Sebellius's response to the kid who is too young to get a lung transplant in the Philly area today. She says there is nothing she can do to intervene over the rule. However, the rule was based under a past medical reality, and not current reality. Also, the regulation allows the person in Sebellius's job to intervene and/or change the rule.
Just remember, dealing with an uncaring, bureaucratic health insurance company sucks. Dealing with a large federal department will make dealing with your insurance company look like child's play.
-
The sky is falling!
-
If nobody had insurance, we wouldn't have to deal with the bureaucratic insurance company or the government, Big Sam.
-
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/06/18/medical-costs-register-first-decline-since-1970s/
Thanks, Obama.
-
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/06/18/medical-costs-register-first-decline-since-1970s/
Thanks, Obama.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article.
-
I'm guessing you didn't read the article.
i'm guessing he did.
-
I'm guessing you didn't read the article.
i'm guessing he did.
He may have, but the decrease had little, or nothing, to do with Obamacare.
-
the decrease had little, or nothing, to do with Obamacare.
not according to the article.
-
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/06/18/medical-costs-register-first-decline-since-1970s/
Thanks, Obama.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article.
The effects of the federal health care overhaul — the Affordable Care Act that passed in 2010 —and constrained government payments to doctors and hospitals seems to be trickling down to consumers, both those directly purchasing insurance plans and those buying drugs and treatments.
:ck:
-
In the coming year, the next phase of the health care overhaul will expand coverage and increase subsidy payments and could, in turn, push medical costs back up, Mr. Phillips said.
A number of other factors are aiding the slowdown.
Prescription prices are now down slightly from a year earlier, reflecting the latest stage in the industry cycle. Many patents are expiring and cheaper generic drugs are coming to market. Analysts expect that trend to reverse in coming years.
Meanwhile, employers are shifting the burden of health-care costs to workers. With consumers paying a greater share of costs out of their own pockets, they’re encouraged to shop for more affordable options, which puts pressure on providers to lower their costs.
I only see increases tied to obamacare. Other factors pertain to the decrease in costs.
-
In the coming year, the next phase of the health care overhaul will expand coverage and increase subsidy payments and could, in turn, push medical costs back up, Mr. Phillips said.
A number of other factors are aiding the slowdown.
Prescription prices are now down slightly from a year earlier, reflecting the latest stage in the industry cycle. Many patents are expiring and cheaper generic drugs are coming to market. Analysts expect that trend to reverse in coming years.
Meanwhile, employers are shifting the burden of health-care costs to workers. With consumers paying a greater share of costs out of their own pockets, they’re encouraged to shop for more affordable options, which puts pressure on providers to lower their costs.
I only see increases tied to obamacare. Other factors pertain to the decrease in costs.
That does not look like an apology for accusing me of not reading the article.
-
In the coming year, the next phase of the health care overhaul will expand coverage and increase subsidy payments and could, in turn, push medical costs back up, Mr. Phillips said.
A number of other factors are aiding the slowdown.
Prescription prices are now down slightly from a year earlier, reflecting the latest stage in the industry cycle. Many patents are expiring and cheaper generic drugs are coming to market. Analysts expect that trend to reverse in coming years.
Meanwhile, employers are shifting the burden of health-care costs to workers. With consumers paying a greater share of costs out of their own pockets, they’re encouraged to shop for more affordable options, which puts pressure on providers to lower their costs.
I only see increases tied to obamacare. Other factors pertain to the decrease in costs.
That does not look like an apology for accusing me of not reading the article.
I'm sorry you didn't understand the article. :cheers:
-
In the coming year, the next phase of the health care overhaul will expand coverage and increase subsidy payments and could, in turn, push medical costs back up, Mr. Phillips said.
A number of other factors are aiding the slowdown.
Prescription prices are now down slightly from a year earlier, reflecting the latest stage in the industry cycle. Many patents are expiring and cheaper generic drugs are coming to market. Analysts expect that trend to reverse in coming years.
Meanwhile, employers are shifting the burden of health-care costs to workers. With consumers paying a greater share of costs out of their own pockets, they’re encouraged to shop for more affordable options, which puts pressure on providers to lower their costs.
I only see increases tied to obamacare. Other factors pertain to the decrease in costs.
That does not look like an apology for accusing me of not reading the article.
I'm sorry you didn't understand the article. :cheers:
I'll take it. :shakesfist:
-
obamacare seems to be, like, whipping ass
-
obamacare seems to be, like, whipping ass
Slow down there partner. http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu)
-
obamacare seems to be, like, whipping ass
Slow down there partner. http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu)
If that's the price of cheaper healthcare, then I'm willing to pay it. The market would have weeded out those crappy below average businesses eventually, anyway.
-
obamacare seems to be, like, whipping ass
Slow down there partner. http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu)
If that's the price of cheaper healthcare, then I'm willing to pay it. The market would have weeded out those crappy below average businesses eventually, anyway.
yeah. 41% of small businesses is just a drop in the bucket.
-
obamacare seems to be, like, whipping ass
Slow down there partner. http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu)
If that's the price of cheaper healthcare, then I'm willing to pay it. The market would have weeded out those crappy below average businesses eventually, anyway.
yeah. 41% of small businesses is just a drop in the bucket.
When you consider 61% of small businesses have fewer than 4 employees, it is.
-
obamacare seems to be, like, whipping ass
Slow down there partner. http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/21/survey-finds-that-41-percent-of-small-bu)
If that's the price of cheaper healthcare, then I'm willing to pay it. The market would have weeded out those crappy below average businesses eventually, anyway.
yeah. 41% of small businesses is just a drop in the bucket.
50% of businesses are below average, fwiw, and average isn't that great.
-
My survey says 41% of small businesses need to get off their lazy asses and work harder
-
My survey says 41% of small businesses need to get off their lazy asses and work harder
More like 60%, but yeah, 41% would be a nice start.
-
Well 60% of the time I think 41% is a small number.
-
My survey says 41% of small businesses need to get off their lazy asses and work harder
More like 60%, but yeah, 41% would be a nice start.
how dare you question my survey
-
My survey says 41% of small businesses need to get off their lazy asses and work harder
More like 60%, but yeah, 41% would be a nice start.
how dare you question my survey
No survey, needed, mich. Just take a look at a bell curve.
-
Considering that companies with 50 or fewer employees are exempt from offering health insurance, the 41% must be companies with more than 50 employees.
-
the per worker penalty is really relatively small. if the employees those businesses say they won't hire wouldn't have produced a crap ton more profit per head than that, then they're better off having not hired them.
or the small business owners are stupid or lying. i mean i can understand that they'd be pissed about forgoing some profit per worker. but to not hire based on that - shitty business, stupid or lying.
-
I think there's still a lot of wait and see attitude since no one is sure what the final total cost will be. The taxes are yet to arrive.
-
I think there's still a lot of wait and see attitude since no one is sure what the final total cost will be. The taxes are yet to arrive.
for sure. the dumbass reporter should be talking to experts instead of polling people that don't know what they're talking about.
-
should be talking to experts instead of polling people that don't know what they're talking about.
Stud friend of Steve Dave wishes dumbasses wouldn't be so dumbassy
-
I heard an actuary speak about health care reform and all the stuff he was doing to prepare for it. Pretty interesting stuff! His conclusion thus far was that young and middle aged people will pay more and older people will get a break, but he had a wait until October and see approach.
-
eff THAT!
-
I heard an actuary speak about health care reform and all the stuff he was doing to prepare for it. Pretty interesting stuff! His conclusion thus far was that young and middle aged people will pay more and older people will get a break, but he had a wait until October and see approach.
It's really funny that there are still people who are just figuring this out.
-
Translation: We're scared as crap about how we'd do in the 2014 elections. :lol:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/white-house-delays-employer-mandate-requirement-until-2015/?print=1
-
Translation: We're scared as crap about how we'd do in the 2014 elections. :lol:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/white-house-delays-employer-mandate-requirement-until-2015/?print=1
What a mess.
-
The Obamacare enforcers (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irs-chief-i-want-keep-my-health-care-plan-not-switch-obamacare_742429.html) want nothing to do with using it.
-
The Obamacare enforcers (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/irs-chief-i-want-keep-my-health-care-plan-not-switch-obamacare_742429.html) want nothing to do with using it.
LOL
-
rough ridin' rats. Congress exempts themselves from ObamaCare. (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/capitol-hill-obamacare-crisis-solved-95100.html?hp=t1)
Lawmakers and staff can breathe easy — their health care tab is not going to soar next year.
The Office of Personnel Management, under heavy pressure from Capitol Hill, will issue a ruling that says the government can continue to make a contribution to the health care premiums of members of Congress and their aides, according to several Hill sources. A White House official confirmed the deal and said the proposed regulations will be issued next week.
Just Wednesday, POLITICO reported that President Barack Obama told Democratic senators that he was personally involved in finding a solution. The problem was rooted in the original text of the Affordable Care Act. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) inserted a provision which said members of Congress and their aides must be covered by plans “created” by the law or “offered through an exchange.” Until now, OPM had not said if the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program could contribute premium payments toward plans on the exchange. If payments stopped, lawmakers and aides would have faced thousands of dollars in additional premium payments each year. Under the old system, the government contributed nearly 75 percent of premium payments.
-
I thought the only way this was going to work was if EVERYONE participated. Looks like the young, healthy, and wealthy will be paying most of the premiums and taxes to support the rest. Hey, that's us!
-
I thought the only way this was going to work was if EVERYONE participated. Looks like the young, healthy, and wealthy will be paying most of the premiums and taxes to support the rest. Hey, that's us!
I don't think you or your moderate friend K-S-U-Wildcats! understand what is going on here.
-
I thought the only way this was going to work was if EVERYONE participated. Looks like the young, healthy, and wealthy will be paying most of the premiums and taxes to support the rest. Hey, that's us!
I don't think you or your moderate friend K-S-U-Wildcats! understand what is going on here.
Unions and gov workers with "Cadillac" policies don't want to pay extra or downgrade their services. Pretty simple.
-
I thought the only way this was going to work was if EVERYONE participated. Looks like the young, healthy, and wealthy will be paying most of the premiums and taxes to support the rest. Hey, that's us!
I don't think you or your moderate friend K-S-U-Wildcats! understand what is going on here.
Unions and gov workers with "Cadillac" policies don't want to pay extra or downgrade their services. Pretty simple.
confirmed
-
I thought the only way this was going to work was if EVERYONE participated. Looks like the young, healthy, and wealthy will be paying most of the premiums and taxes to support the rest. Hey, that's us!
I don't think you or your moderate friend K-S-U-Wildcats! understand what is going on here.
Unions and gov workers with "Cadillac" policies don't want to pay extra or downgrade their services. Pretty simple.
confirmed
You have the ultimate BBS style.
-
Millions of people (moms, dads, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers, friends, coworkers, wives, husbands, etc) will have access to healthcare because of the new law. Potentially paying a little more each month is worth it to a lot of people who care about other human beings. Some early indications are that the new market-based exchange system will actually lower costs, so hey, let's wait and see how this all plays out before we get all pissed about it and act like a bunch of dickheads. K?
-
I think the bill sucks and we need single payer.
-
Millions of people (moms, dads, sisters, brothers, uncles, aunts, grandmothers, grandfathers, friends, coworkers, wives, husbands, etc) will have access to healthcare because of the new law. Potentially paying a little more each month is worth it to a lot of people who care about other human beings. Some early indications are that the new market-based exchange system will actually lower costs, so hey, let's wait and see how this all plays out before we get all pissed about it and act like a bunch of dickheads. K?
You should be protesting against any union, company, or government agency getting any kind of exemption. Any person that receives a penny from tax dollars should be in an exchange.
-
god dammit congress
-
I think the bill sucks and we need single payer.
I want single payer as well, but Republicans would never have accepted that, and you know it. This new law is the "compromise" that was accepted, and now here I sit defending what's essentially the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan (while butthurt Republicans throw their post-election temper tantrum).
-
Lets all dish out more in taxes so we can pay for illegal immigrants healthcare while they steal our jobs. :shakesfist: You rough ridin' hippies!!!
-
Lets all dish out more in taxes so we can pay for illegal immigrants healthcare while they steal our jobs. :shakesfist: You rough ridin' hippies!!!
agreed
-
Lets all dish out more in taxes so we can pay for illegal immigrants healthcare while they steal our jobs. :shakesfist: You rough ridin' hippies!!!
wut
-
Lets all dish out more in taxes so we can pay for illegal immigrants healthcare while they steal our jobs. :shakesfist: You rough ridin' hippies!!!
:lol:
Did fanning's old radio station go full Spanish or something?
-
I think the bill sucks and we need single payer.
I want single payer as well, but Republicans would never have accepted that, and you know it. This new law is the "compromise" that was accepted, and now here I sit defending what's essentially the Heritage Foundation's healthcare plan (while butthurt Republicans throw their post-election temper tantrum).
The existing plan was a compromise among democrats you nitwit. Remember Obama "the great bipartisan" told republicans they were "going it alone" and instituted the "nuclear option".
The law is a total rough ridin' abortion, which is probably why leftist retards love it so much.
-
Daily Kos: I'm about to pay $8665 a year for crappy high deductible insurance in NYS (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/05/1228977/--I-m-very-lucky-I-m-about-to-pay-8665-a-year-for-crappy-high-deductible-insurance-in-NYS#)
:lol: Oh boy, some real gems here. Nothing more enjoyable than seeing the dumbfuck Obamabots react as the bill comes due...
I am a fierce champion of single payer. I am on the board of California OneCare, one of the most active single payer organizations in California. But right now, we are several heartbeats away from the opening of the health insurance exchanges. So let's take a real world look at what we might expect.
Take a deep breath and continue reading.
Hee hee. Yeah, take a deep breath. Then just bend over and try to relax...
And I love that this is now the best the libtards have: "if only we had gotten single payer like the NHS and put the government totally in charge!" :lol:
The task facing the administration is Herculean, quite literally changing the psyche of the American people.
Wait, you mean that's hard to do? I thought that was what progressivism was all about.
We've segued from each man/woman for herself, to we're all in this together.
'Cause, you know, it takes a village and all that horseshit.
The biggest and most critical hurdle is to sell the young 18-34 year old cohort on the need for them to enroll. Without this group of Americans, which the Administration estimates is around 2.7 million strong, the exchanges will implode due to a phenomenon called adverse selection.
Seriously? Are you rough ridin' serious? You ARE JUST NOW FIGURING THIS OUT?
Despite my grave reservations and deep concern about the implementation of Obamacare, I would urge anyone who can lend a hand, to go to the web site of Enroll America and do whatever you can, to help get young people happily enrolled. Without their participation, We. Are. Toast.
As Robert Pear wrote yesterday in the New York Times,"For Obamacare to Work, Everyone Must Be In". And the sine qua non of the ACA are the young invincibles who must be persuaded to enroll.
:lol:
The situation in New York State is instructive, and helps explain what it means to be insured, but in reality to be dangerously underinsured.
A few weeks ago, headlines trumpeted that New York would see premiums drop by up to 50%. This was misleading. New York had among the highest premiums in the nation because we are a pure community rating, guaranteed issue state--one of six or seven community rating states in the country.
This meant that insurers had to sell insurance to anyone who could pay for it. Pre-existing conditions did not taint New York State. Young and old, all paid the same. So, guess what happened? Young people dropped out, and the pool shrunk to just people who really needed to be insured--the sick, those with chronic conditions. New York could brag about offering health insurance to everyone--with one caveat, if you could pay among the highest rates in the country! I would be dead or would have filed for medical bankruptcy, if I weren't a resident of NY State.
Paging Beems... paging Beems.
What we're really seeing play out is an overhaul of the insurance model codified by the Affordable Care Act. It will be all but impossible (except for the mega rich), to buy insurance offering what is called first dollar coverage. This means we will all be required to pay steep premiums and deductibles but may not have the financial resources to actually access healthcare.
As I like to say, you don't have to believe me, but you should trust theJournal of General Internal Medicinewhich made exactly this point.
“Obamacare is making underinsurance the new normal,” said Woolhandler. “It will reduce the number of uninsured from 50 million to 30 million, but the new coverage is full of holes. Americans deserve the kind of first-dollar, comprehensive coverage that Canadians already have. But that’s only affordable under a single-payer system that cuts out the private insurance middlemen.”
Yes, thanks to the ACA, there are a couple of preventative screenings included in these huge costs, but overall, what we have going on here is a huge shifting of costs onto the backs of the insured.
Again, ARE YOU rough ridin' KIDDING ME? How is this news? Oh wait, you're a rough ridin' libtard moron.
I am reminded on days like today, that President Obama campaigned on the idea that people like me would see something like a $2500 reduction in health insurance costs.
What was I thinking?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstream1.gifsoup.com%2Fview3%2F1494409%2Fcartman-tears-o-s.gif&hash=52eba5db8e86b5478315bb9b2eaa6e10ab4b5782)
-
You sound like an angry moron.
-
You sound like an angry moron.
Well, he quoted a single-payer proponent ("libtard") and the NYT, so yeah.
-
You sound like an angry moron.
The best part - well, there's so many good parts, but this is up there - is that the young people who overwhelmingly supported Obama these last two elections are the ones who are getting most mumped by his policies. ObamaCare? eff you, young healthy people. Pony up to help the sick. Social Security and Medicare? eff you, young people, we'll run the programs into the ground protecting the benefits of others. Jobs? eff you and your increasingly worthless college degree. Enjoy your part time job, and hey, you won't count as unemployed!
But hey, there's way more important things at stake, like whether gays can marry of women can have abortions on demand.
-
Obamacare does sound kind of shitty.
-
he is doing the best he can
-
Being old and racist seems to turn you into an angry moron. Thanks Obama.
-
I'm about to learn a whole bunch about this stuff and make my Republican employer gobs of money.
-
I'm about to learn a whole bunch about this stuff and make my Republican employer gobs of money.
you should start a chum1 does obamacare thread. it would be like felix rex goes to cairo but with you and obamacare.
-
subscribed
-
So how, exactly, is Congress exempt from Obamacare?
See, while Obamacare was being debated, an amendment was added by Sen. Grassley requiring that all members of Congress and their staff must participate in the healthcare exchanges. The logic being, if this pile of bullshit is so good for the American people, it ought be good enough for Congress. So that became law.
But apparently last week Obama said "meh, eff the law. The law will be whatever I want it to be." So he directed the Office of Personnel Management to exempt Congress from that provision of the law. Except that's not the way our government works, according to the Constitution. We have a legislative branch that passes laws, and an executive branch that enforces them. So once again, Obama has decided that the Constitution is more useful for wiping his ass than, say, serving as our single most important governing document.
-
Grassley should have come up with cheaper, better, and more comprehensive plans
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/congress-exempt-from-obamacare-or-something.html
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/congress-exempt-from-obamacare-or-something.html
:lol:
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/congress-exempt-from-obamacare-or-something.html
:lol:
dnr'ed the crap out of that, what did it say?
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/congress-exempt-from-obamacare-or-something.html
:lol:
dnr'ed the crap out of that, what did it say?
Basically explains why neocons jerking off to the Grassley amendment are so silly, but then there was this:
Obama’s solution to the dilemma was to administratively decide that those congressional employees would get their health care through the exchanges but that the federal government would keep up its same level of premium contributions. The law didn’t say the government could keep contributing to their health care, but it didn’t say it couldn’t either.
:lol:
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/congress-exempt-from-obamacare-or-something.html
:lol:
dnr'ed the crap out of that, what did it say?
Basically explains why neocons jerking off to the Grassley amendment are so silly, but then there was this:
Obama’s solution to the dilemma was to administratively decide that those congressional employees would get their health care through the exchanges but that the federal government would keep up its same level of premium contributions. The law didn’t say the government could keep contributing to their health care, but it didn’t say it couldn’t either.
:lol:
:dunno: The article confirms what I've been saying. A bunch of excuses from liberal blogs about how Our Dear Leader just wanted to make sure members of Congress and their staff continue to enjoy better benefits than the exchanges would provide just affirms my point. The point of the Grassley amendment was that, if democrats insisted that the exchange plans were so great, they should be forced to participate in them. Obama just decided to ignore this provision of the law. Just like he decided to ignore provisions requiring that certain aspects of the law take effect on certain dates. He is ignoring pieces of his own rough ridin' law that he crammed down our throats.
-
Look ma! I can quote article too!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578644202946287548.html)
This latest White House night at the improv is also illegal. OPM has no authority to pay for insurance plans that lack FEHBP contracts, nor does the Affordable Care Act permit either exchange contributions or a unilateral bump in congressional pay in return for less overall compensation. Those things require appropriations bills passed by Congress and signed by the President.
But the White House rejected a legislative fix because Republicans might insist on other changes, and Mr. Obama feared that Democrats would go along because they're looking out for number one. So the White House is once again rewriting the law unilaterally, much as it did by suspending ObamaCare's employer mandate for a year. For this White House, the law it wrote is a mere suggestion.
-
:lol:
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/congress-exempt-from-obamacare-or-something.html
:lol:
OMG :lol:
-
Wait, Michigancat, we're you laughing AT the article or laughing because you think it raises some valid point?
:confused:
If its the latter, omfg :lol: @ michigancat
-
holy crap! :lol:
-
:lol: :lol:
-
Libtards being inadvertantly trolled by libtard journo-lists trying to troll conservatards is fantastic entertainment.
:thumbs:
-
:lol:
-
I bet michigancat's email contacts get a lot of emails that read at the end, "if you agree, share this important message"
:lol:
-
:lol: :thumbs: :party: :lol:
-
:lol:
-
:facepalm:
At first it was funny, now its just sad. T&P
-
Libtards gonna 'tard I guess
-
It is a fact of life.
-
:lol:
ok
-
Can somebody explain to me how exactly my healthcare is going to be changed by this Obamacare bill? I honestly still have no idea.
-
Can somebody explain to me how exactly my healthcare is going to be changed by this Obamacare bill? I honestly still have no idea.
I have no idea but my companies insurance went up 21% from last year to this year for the same coverage. I don't participate in the plan but it was a huge deal to those that do, compounded by a dumb decision by the boss man.
-
Can somebody explain to me how exactly my healthcare is going to be changed by this Obamacare bill? I honestly still have no idea.
I have no idea but my companies insurance went up 21% from last year to this year for the same coverage. I don't participate in the plan but it was a huge deal to those that do, compounded by a dumb decision by the boss man.
How much did it go up the year before? What did your boss do to make it worse?
-
Can somebody explain to me how exactly my healthcare is going to be changed by this Obamacare bill? I honestly still have no idea.
I have no idea but my companies insurance went up 21% from last year to this year for the same coverage. I don't participate in the plan but it was a huge deal to those that do, compounded by a dumb decision by the boss man.
How much did it go up the year before? What did your boss do to make it worse?
It did not increase any the previous year. My company has OK insurance but about half of our employees have wives w/ jobs that have better insurance and do not participate. Boss man wants to control health insurance costs and takes total company contribution from last year and divides it across all employees, even though half do not participate, resulting in huge out of pocket increases for those in the plan. Not sure what the rationale for the change was but might have been that since other plans might change too our plan might become more attractive and everyone would come onto it and there would be no money to pay for it. But we talked boss man down and everything worked out ok.
-
we need to have a quote function work shop or something
-
we need to have a quote function work shop or something
Whatever do you mean?
-
Can somebody explain to me how exactly my healthcare is going to be changed by this Obamacare bill? I honestly still have no idea.
That depends upon a great many factors, and whether you are talking about your health insurance or healthcare, which are two different things. Currently insured? Current coverage? Uninsured with preexisting conditions? Do you buy from your employer (hint, you're buying it whether it is a "free" benefit or not) or on the individual market? Kansas? Income matter, too. If your income is a certain level (up to 400% of the poverty line) you'll also be eligible for at least a partial taxpayer handout to help pay for the much more expensive individual market insurance.
Most people who get their insurance through their employer will likely not see much change in the short run. Premiums will continue to rise, but that's not exactly new. If you've got one of those wonderful HDHP/HSAs, it's still unknown exactly how Obamacare's minimum coverage mandates may eff with them, so keep your fingers crossed.
As for healthcare in general, the whole Obamacare program can basically be analogized to a massive expansion of Medicaid. Doctors already don't like Medicaid because (1) Medicaid patients generally suck, and (2) Medicaid usually lower reimbursement rates. We already have a growing doctor shortage in this country, and Obamacare is going to make this worse. Couple that with the massive influx of new taxpayer subsidized patients, and yeah, healthcare is going to get worse unless you're one of those taxpayer subsidized patients, for which it may get marginally better.
Good luck!
-
So basically, rates will go up but everything else stays exactly the same?
Do you think we would have more doctors if they were compensated better than they currently are? I have a hard time believing that would be the case. I do think we would have more doctors if we would invest in additional med schools, though. It seems like creating additional opportunities would lower the cost of becoming a doctor, and the increased number of doctors would lead to more choices and lower prices for patients, too.
-
Won't healthcare in the US just evolve into the same as most other countries with nationalized healthcare: an expensive private system with good doctors and facilities for those that can afford it; and a free system that's crappy for everyone else?
Basically the same as education, right?
-
we need to have a quote function work shop or something
Whatever do you mean?
« Last Edit: Today at 09:38:27 AM by Fedor »
:chainsaw:
-
Won't healthcare in the US just evolve into the same as most other countries with nationalized healthcare: an expensive private system with good doctors and facilities for those that can afford it; and a free system that's crappy for everyone else?
Basically the same as education, right?
Hopefully
-
we need to have a quote function work shop or something
Whatever do you mean?
« Last Edit: Today at 09:38:27 AM by Fedor »
:chainsaw:
:gocho:
-
Wrong, obamacare is not real, it is a carefully placed straw man fabricated by the gop, foxnews and talk radio in connection with a vast right wing conspiracy all just to make Obama look bad. It has no effect on insurance whatsoever, nor will it impact your life.
Jeez, don't you guys read the "real" news
-
Wrong, obamacare is not real, it is a carefully placed straw man fabricated by the gop, foxnews and talk radio in connection with a vast right wing conspiracy all just to make Obama look bad. It has no effect on insurance whatsoever, nor will it impact your life.
Jeez, don't you guys read the "real" news
It's like an ultra conservative version of The Onion
:D
-
Won't healthcare in the US just evolve into the same as most other countries with nationalized healthcare: an expensive private system with good doctors and facilities for those that can afford it; and a free system that's crappy for everyone else?
Basically the same as education, right?
probably. and what you just described sounds very american/awesome.
-
Won't healthcare in the US just evolve into the same as most other countries with nationalized healthcare: an expensive private system with good doctors and facilities for those that can afford it; and a free system that's crappy for everyone else?
Basically the same as education, right?
probably. and what you just described sounds very american/awesome.
Except it won't be "free" - not by a long shot.
-
Millions of people will have access to healthcare who otherwise might not have been able to afford it, and millions of those people will be able to live healthy, productive lives because of it. The butthurt crew is just going to have to learn to accept it.
-
Millions of people will have access to healthcare who otherwise might not have been able to afford it, and millions of those people will be able to live healthy, productive lives because of it. The butthurt crew is just going to have to learn to accept it.
You be the judge if this is affordable.
http://www.healthedeals.com/health-care-reform-calculator
-
I think it will push most single people between 20 and 40 out of the insurance market and just pay the penalty. Now that there are no pre-existing conditions, you can just sign up when you need it.
-
Millions of people will have access to healthcare who otherwise might not have been able to afford it, and millions of those people will be able to live healthy, productive lives because of it. The butthurt crew is just going to have to learn to accept it.
You be the judge if this is affordable.
http://www.healthedeals.com/health-care-reform-calculator
Looks affordable to me, especially if I had a pre-existing condition and would have been denied coverage under the previous system. You do realize you're supposed to divide the forecast rate by 12 to get the monthly premium amount, right? California, Oregon, Nevada, Connecticut, Maryland, and New York are actually foreseeing lower premiums due to the new law. The addition of healthy individuals into the insurance pool is lowering the risk for insurance companies and thus lowering premiums. The open market exchange system is going to drive costs down as well.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/obamacare-premiums-are-lower-expected (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/obamacare-premiums-are-lower-expected)
-
I think it will push most single people between 20 and 40 out of the insurance market and just pay the penalty. Now that there are no pre-existing conditions, you can just sign up when you need it.
Except individuals 20-26 will be under their parents' health plans, so they won't need to opt out.
-
I think it will push most single people between 20 and 40 out of the insurance market and just pay the penalty. Now that there are no pre-existing conditions, you can just sign up when you need it.
Except individuals 20-26 will be under their parents' health plans, so they won't need to opt out.
Unless they kick your lazy ass off when you turn 18. Prices are at least doubling for your young healthy people trying to get ahead. They'll just pay the fine.
-
I think it will push most single people between 20 and 40 out of the insurance market and just pay the penalty. Now that there are no pre-existing conditions, you can just sign up when you need it.
Except individuals 20-26 will be under their parents' health plans, so they won't need to opt out.
Unless they kick your lazy ass off when you turn 18. Prices are at least doubling for your young healthy people trying to get ahead. They'll just pay the fine.
That sounds unfortunate for anyone whose parents do that to them.
-
I think it will push most single people between 20 and 40 out of the insurance market and just pay the penalty. Now that there are no pre-existing conditions, you can just sign up when you need it.
Except individuals 20-26 will be under their parents' health plans, so they won't need to opt out.
Unless they kick your lazy ass off when you turn 18. Prices are at least doubling for your young healthy people trying to get ahead. They'll just pay the fine.
they can still be covered even if they don't live w/ their parents.
https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-keep-my-child-on-my-insurance-until-age-26/
While I don't think its will push anyone out of the insurance market, I agree that not nearly enough young people will enroll to make this work.
-
I think it will push most single people between 20 and 40 out of the insurance market and just pay the penalty. Now that there are no pre-existing conditions, you can just sign up when you need it.
Except individuals 20-26 will be under their parents' health plans, so they won't need to opt out.
Unless they kick your lazy ass off when you turn 18. Prices are at least doubling for your young healthy people trying to get ahead. They'll just pay the fine.
they can still be covered even if they don't live w/ their parents.
https://www.healthcare.gov/can-i-keep-my-child-on-my-insurance-until-age-26/
While I don't think its will push anyone out of the insurance market, I agree that not nearly enough young people will enroll to make this work.
Once you reach 21, it looks like the cheapest plan is $200 per month. Right now there are plans for around $100. If you are making $30k, your penalty is $300, but your insurance went up $1200. It might push some out.
-
The fact that you are speculating as to how many people will many people will make a calculated financial decision NOT to buy health insurance is demonstrative of how terrible and irrational this legislation is.
Beyond that, the notion that millions of people didn't have "access" to healthcare, and now will, is one of the most disingenuous talking points of all time.
-
The fact that you want to repeal a law that would give affordable health care access to millions of Americans is why you and your party are an absolute joke right now. The next presidential election won't even be close.
-
The fact that you want to repeal a law that would give affordable health care access to millions of Americans is why you and your party are an absolute joke right now. The next presidential election won't even be close.
You're an absolute joke right now. Boom goes the dynamite.
-
Sure thing, Kimberly.
-
The fact that you want to repeal a law that would give affordable health care access to millions of Americans is why you and your party are an absolute joke right now. The next presidential election won't even be close.
Oooooooooohhhhh. :ohno:
They all had access healthcare you dolt. Now they're just supposed to buy insurance for way more than it used to cost or face a deminimis fine (read get a smaller income tax refund). The law has actually made healthcare worse for everyone, which is probably why Americans are actually opposed to it by about 2:1.
-
The fact that you want to repeal a law that would give affordable health care access to millions of Americans is why you and your party are an absolute joke right now. The next presidential election won't even be close.
Oooooooooohhhhh. :ohno:
They all had access healthcare you dolt. Now they're just supposed to buy insurance for way more than it used to cost or face a deminimis fine (read get a smaller income tax refund). The law has actually made healthcare worse for everyone, which is probably why Americans are actually opposed to it by about 2:1.
wut
:confused:
This is why it's impossible to argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience. This moron can't even formulate a grammatically correct sentence, and yet, he sits behind his keyboard and pretends like he knows what he's talking about in regards to Obamacare.
What I said, FSD, is that millions of Americans now have access to affordable healthcare. Before Obamacare, people with pre-existing conditions had to pay healthcare costs out the ass, because they couldn't get health insurance. Now, up to 32 million people will be able to buy health insurance, and therefore have access to affordable healthcare. Yes, insurance premiums will likely increase for young people (especially those in states where they don't want Obamacare to work). That doesn't change the reality that before the new law, millions of people were unable to afford healthcare. Up to 26,000 Americans a year die prematurely due to not having health insurance.
I'm sure you're also aware that taxpayers currently pay for up to $60 billion a year in un-reimbursed medical care. If you have an alternative to kicking people with pre-existing conditions off of insurance, continuing to pay billions in charity care, kicking college students off of their parents insurance, and not covering up to 40 million Americans, I'd love to hear it.
-
DNR: past "wut"
I can't help that you don't understand the difference between "access to healthcare" and "own health insurance" anymore than I can help Obama understand the difference between "income"and "wealth". You're both insufferable tools, and I can't help that either.
-
The fact that you want to repeal a law that would give affordable health care access to millions of Americans is why you and your party are an absolute joke right now. The next presidential election won't even be close.
Oooooooooohhhhh. :ohno:
They all had access healthcare you dolt. Now they're just supposed to buy insurance for way more than it used to cost or face a deminimis fine (read get a smaller income tax refund). The law has actually made healthcare worse for everyone, which is probably why Americans are actually opposed to it by about 2:1.
wut
:confused:
This is why it's impossible to argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience. This moron can't even formulate a grammatically correct sentence, and yet, he sits behind his keyboard and pretends like he knows what he's talking about in regards to Obamacare.
What I said, FSD, is that millions of Americans now have access to affordable healthcare. Before Obamacare, people with pre-existing conditions had to pay healthcare costs out the ass, because they couldn't get health insurance. Now, up to 32 million people will be able to buy health insurance, and therefore have access to affordable healthcare. Yes, insurance premiums will likely increase for young people (especially those in states where they don't want Obamacare to work). That doesn't change the reality that before the new law, millions of people were unable to afford healthcare. Up to 26,000 Americans a year die prematurely due to not having health insurance.
I'm sure you're also aware that taxpayers currently pay for up to $60 billion a year in un-reimbursed medical care. If you have an alternative to kicking people with pre-existing conditions off of insurance, continuing to pay billions in charity care, kicking college students off of their parents insurance, and not covering up to 40 million Americans, I'd love to hear it.
What is the CBOs latest 10 year estimate for the cost of Obamacare? $1.4 trillion to insure 13 million more people.
-
ladies and gentleman, welcome to the ¡toolbox!
-
Love the talking points about affordability. Also love how they say the premiums are going to be lower in places where they have jacked up their healthcare so bad previously that they currently pay way more than they should. But this will reduce premiums just below the point of ridiculous!!!! Thanks Obama
My only other question is that if the coverage for people with pre existing conditions is what the libs hold on to so dearly (I think it is a fine idea), why not just make a law that says you can't deny coverage to those people anymore and not have the rest of this disaster in place?
-
maybe they should have fixed the big pharma monopoly instead of passing some garbage that will increase premiums on young people. Oh well, monopoly on.
-
My only other question is that if the coverage for people with pre existing conditions is what the libs hold on to so dearly (I think it is a fine idea), why not just make a law that says you can't deny coverage to those people anymore and not have the rest of this disaster in place?
Because then nobody would buy insurance until they needed it, and price of insurance would therefore skyrocket. I believe NY already had some form of "guaranteed issue" at least to an extent, and their dates are the highest in the country. You can't call up the insurance company after you've wrecked your car and say "I'd like some insurance please!" That's not how insurance works.
But ObamaCare was never about getting more people truly "insured," or reducing premiums. It was just another massive handout, this time to people with income up to 400% of the poverty line. Remember, we already had Medicaid - this was essentially just a massive expansion of Medicaid. And it is what Democrats do: they spend tax dollars to buy votes and perpetuate their power. They are parasites.
-
And it is what Democrats do: they spend tax dollars to buy votes and perpetuate their power. They are parasites.
all the while making the middle class poorer
-
maybe they should have fixed the big pharma monopoly instead of passing some garbage that will increase premiums on young people. Oh well, monopoly on.
I think it's terribly unfair to hose all young people. This should only apply to the 75% or so that voted for Hope and Change in 2008, and then just Hope in 2012. Sadly, that's not how Democracy works.
-
My only other question is that if the coverage for people with pre existing conditions is what the libs hold on to so dearly (I think it is a fine idea), why not just make a law that says you can't deny coverage to those people anymore and not have the rest of this disaster in place?
Because then nobody would buy insurance until they needed it, and price of insurance would therefore skyrocket. I believe NY already had some form of "guaranteed issue" at least to an extent, and their dates are the highest in the country. You can't call up the insurance company after you've wrecked your car and say "I'd like some insurance please!" That's not how insurance works.
But ObamaCare was never about getting more people truly "insured," or reducing premiums. It was just another massive handout, this time to people with income up to 400% of the poverty line. Remember, we already had Medicaid - this was essentially just a massive expansion of Medicaid. And it is what Democrats do: they spend tax dollars to buy votes and perpetuate their power. They are parasites.
Yeah. Basically I would like a law that says you can't be denied insurance because of a preexisting condition that was diagnosed before the age of 30. People younger than 30 should have a way to treat life-threatening ailments, period. People over the age of 30 should know better than to go without insurance, unless they are fine with the reality that they are going to have to pay through the teeth for medical care.
Our health care system is a disaster, and it is good to see that the problem is at least being acknowledged. I don't think Obamacare goes far enough to actually address any of the root causes of our problems, though. It only addresses the symptoms.
-
Yeah. Basically I would like a law that says you can't be denied insurance because of a preexisting condition that was diagnosed before the age of 30. People younger than 30 should have a way to treat life-threatening ailments, period. People over the age of 30 should know better than to go without insurance, unless they are fine with the reality that they are going to have to pay through the teeth for medical care.
Our health care system is a disaster, and it is good to see that the problem is at least being acknowledged. I don't think Obamacare goes far enough to actually address any of the root causes of our problems, though. It only addresses the symptoms.
I agree. Obamacare must be dismantled, and we generally need to return to a free market system that treats health insurance as actual insurance in order to make it more affordable, but something should be done for the current uninsured with preexisting conditions, particularly young people through no fault of their own. My bar napkin plan:
1. Repeal Obamacare.
2. Permit the purchase of health insurance from anywhere you want, which would effectively nullify the ridiculous minimum coverage mandates of certain states and promote a free market in shopping for insurance products that people actually want and can afford.
3. Dramatically curtail medical malpractice liability, particularly for medicaid and other "free" healthcare situations, which will reduce "defensive medicine" and the associated costs.
4. Encourage growth of HDHCP/HSAs with greater tax incentives.
5. Subsidize temporary high risk pools, phasing out eligibility over the next 4-5 years, for those with preexisting conditions. I'm betting we could subsidize these pools for a mere fraction of what it would cost to fund this current turd of a law.
-
More like the UNaffordable healthcare act. ROFL
Basically a bailout for people who chose not to buy health insurance then got sick. Great. What's next, property insurance for people who let their house burn down and then wish they had insurance? How about mandatory free oil changes as a part of every auto insurance policy, ya know, its preventative.
LOLZ
-
jfc this is the biggest collection of one track mindset mouth breathers on the internet outside the hannity forum. Beems is constantly clownsuiting you people with actual facts about how this law works and you only combat him with insular thought talking points which leave out 90% of the facts to construct a world where Obamacare can only fail. People are missing everything from costs, to availability, to access in this 'discussion' because they are only reciting talking points instead of actually understanding how this set of laws work. But why should any of you care about what is actually going to happen when you have talking points to consume like a fat person at Mcdonalds. I'll await the next set of posts which in one breath demand things original Obamacare wanted which were decried as socialism and in another bitch about any attempt to fix this pos healthcare system with bullshit talking points about the 'free market'. y
-
There are no "actual facts" in this thread.
-
jfc this is the biggest collection of one track mindset mouth breathers on the internet outside the hannity forum. Beems is constantly clownsuiting you people with actual facts about how this law works and you only combat him with insular thought talking points which leave out 90% of the facts to construct a world where Obamacare can only fail. People are missing everything from costs, to availability, to access in this 'discussion' because they are only reciting talking points instead of actually understanding how this set of laws work. But why should any of you care about what is actually going to happen when you have talking points to consume like a fat person at Mcdonalds. I'll await the next set of posts which in one breath demand things original Obamacare wanted which were decried as socialism and in another bitch about any attempt to fix this pos healthcare system with bullshit talking points about the 'free market'. y
Pretty sure you're joking, right? Anyway, there have been plenty of facts posted in this thread about (1) how premiums have increased dramatically in certain states due to Obamacare, and (2) how the Obama Administration has unilaterally decided to not enforce and/or delay enforcement of certain provisions of the law.
-
Hey look, more facts! Obama delays yet another provision of his super awesome healthcare law!!! I really detest that Obama keeps obstructing this law from "providing healthcare to millions of people."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)
WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.
The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.
The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 “frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation” — department officials confirmed the policy.
-
jfc this is the biggest collection of one track mindset mouth breathers on the internet outside the hannity forum. Beems is constantly clownsuiting you people with actual facts about how this law works and you only combat him with insular thought talking points which leave out 90% of the facts to construct a world where Obamacare can only fail. People are missing everything from costs, to availability, to access in this 'discussion' because they are only reciting talking points instead of actually understanding how this set of laws work. But why should any of you care about what is actually going to happen when you have talking points to consume like a fat person at Mcdonalds. I'll await the next set of posts which in one breath demand things original Obamacare wanted which were decried as socialism and in another bitch about any attempt to fix this pos healthcare system with bullshit talking points about the 'free market'. y
Top notch parody post, Edna.
Folks, this is how you bbs in THE TOOLBOX
-
Hey look, more facts! Obama delays yet another provision of his super awesome healthcare law!!! I really detest that Obama keeps obstructing this law from "providing healthcare to millions of people."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)
WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.
The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.
The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 “frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation” — department officials confirmed the policy.
I bet all those projects in Louisiana and Nebraska are right on track though!!!!
-
jfc this is the biggest collection of one track mindset mouth breathers on the internet outside the hannity forum. Beems is constantly clownsuiting you people with actual facts about how this law works and you only combat him with insular thought talking points which leave out 90% of the facts to construct a world where Obamacare can only fail. People are missing everything from costs, to availability, to access in this 'discussion' because they are only reciting talking points instead of actually understanding how this set of laws work. But why should any of you care about what is actually going to happen when you have talking points to consume like a fat person at Mcdonalds. I'll await the next set of posts which in one breath demand things original Obamacare wanted which were decried as socialism and in another bitch about any attempt to fix this pos healthcare system with bullshit talking points about the 'free market'. y
Pretty sure you're joking, right? Anyway, there have been plenty of facts posted in this thread about (1) how premiums have increased dramatically in certain states due to Obamacare, and (2) how the Obama Administration has unilaterally decided to not enforce and/or delay enforcement of certain provisions of the law.
See the issue is that you take a fragment of truth and then smear a huge mound of bullshit rhetoric on top of it to warp it into a talking point. That is no longer a factual statement.
-
Plant a fact seed and some day you'll have a talking point tree.
-
jfc this is the biggest collection of one track mindset mouth breathers on the internet outside the hannity forum. Beems is constantly clownsuiting you people with actual facts about how this law works and you only combat him with insular thought talking points which leave out 90% of the facts to construct a world where Obamacare can only fail. People are missing everything from costs, to availability, to access in this 'discussion' because they are only reciting talking points instead of actually understanding how this set of laws work. But why should any of you care about what is actually going to happen when you have talking points to consume like a fat person at Mcdonalds. I'll await the next set of posts which in one breath demand things original Obamacare wanted which were decried as socialism and in another bitch about any attempt to fix this pos healthcare system with bullshit talking points about the 'free market'. y
Pretty sure you're joking, right? Anyway, there have been plenty of facts posted in this thread about (1) how premiums have increased dramatically in certain states due to Obamacare, and (2) how the Obama Administration has unilaterally decided to not enforce and/or delay enforcement of certain provisions of the law.
See the issue is that you take a fragment of truth and then smear a huge mound of bullshit rhetoric on top of it to warp it into a talking point. That is no longer a factual statement.
you're going to love it here in the The Toolbox
-
Part Time Nation, from NBC (:surprised:): http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/13/20010062-businesses-claim-obamacare-has-forced-them-to-cut-employee-hours?lite (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/13/20010062-businesses-claim-obamacare-has-forced-them-to-cut-employee-hours?lite)
Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”
Goodridge said he’s cutting the hours of 50 workers to no more than 29 a week so he won’t trigger the provision in the new health care law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 hours or more per week. The provision takes effect in 16 months.
Luke Perfect, who has worked at Goodridge’s Kennebunk Subway for more than a decade, said it was “horrible” to learn he was among the employees whose hours would be limited, and that it would be a financial hardship. “I’m barely scraping by with overtime,” he said.
The White House dismisses such examples as "anecdotal." Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, said, “We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having an adverse impact on job growth or the number of hours employees are working. … Since the ACA became law, nearly 90 percent of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions.”
But the president of an influential union that [still] supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong. "It IS happening," insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members. "Wait a year. You'll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time."
In a letter to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, Hansen joined other labor chieftains in warning that the ACA as presently written could “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the middle class.”
NBC News spoke with almost 20 small businesses and other entities from Maine to California, and almost all said that because of the new law they’d be cutting back hours for some employees – an unintended consequence of the new law.
...
-
Time for more exceptions.
-
I would certainly hope we don't start making exceptions for awful employers like fast food businesses.
-
if the government just paid for everyone's basic health care this wouldn't be a problem. sheesh
-
if the government just paid for everyone's basic health care this wouldn't be a problem. sheesh
Subway could also just pay for this by charging $5.25 for a foot long sub instead of $5. Those workers should just find a different job, though. Maybe unionize or something.
-
if the government just paid for everyone's basic health care this wouldn't be a problem. sheesh
Subway could also just pay for this by charging $5.25 for a foot long sub instead of $5. Those workers should just find a different job, though. Maybe unionize or something.
That sounds like bullshit
-
if the government just paid for everyone's basic health care this wouldn't be a problem. sheesh
Would be better if the government just made it illegal to get sick
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-pass-immigration-bill-boost-obamacare-enrollment (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-pass-immigration-bill-boost-obamacare-enrollment)
Well, too bad nobody saw that coming.
"Hey guys! I have this awesome idea. Let's just promise people that illegal immigrants won't be eligible for Obamacare. Then after we pass it, we'll pass immigration reform making all the formerly illegal immigrants eligible for our brand new entitlement. It's like 15 million new guaranteed votes!
Wait, can we afford to subsidize 15 million new entrants to the health insurance roles?
Who the eff invited this guy? Who gives a crap if we can afford it? We can win, stupid."
-
I'm about to learn a whole bunch about this stuff and make my Republican employer gobs of money.
you should start a chum1 does obamacare thread. it would be like felix rex goes to cairo but with you and obamacare.
Just found out that one of the partners in a New York HIX account of ours is Ivanka Trump's husband. Saw a memo from him today, but didn't know who it was until someone told me.
-
Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/)
A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.
See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.
Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? :lol:
-
Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/)
A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.
See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.
Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? :lol:
I agree that this is extremely unfair and single payer would be much better.
-
Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/)
A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.
See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.
Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? :lol:
I agree that this is extremely unfair and single payer would be much better.
How is a single payer system in any way fair?
-
Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/)
A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.
See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.
Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? :lol:
I agree that this is extremely unfair and single payer would be much better.
How is a single payer system in any way fair?
well for starters being in a union wouldn't give you preferential treatment within the system
-
Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/)
A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.
See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.
Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? :lol:
I agree that this is extremely unfair and single payer would be much better.
How is a single payer system in any way fair?
well for starters being in a union wouldn't give you preferential treatment within the system
That's a choice of the current administration as a favor for monetary campaign support. It wasn't part the law.
-
well obamacare sucks either way
-
well obamacare sucks either way
Yeah.
-
Another casualty (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/trader-joes-obamacare_n_3902341.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular) of the Affordable Care Act.
A current Trader Joe's worker described the coverage she'll likely lose as "one of the best parts about the job." (The employee requested anonymity since she isn't authorized to speak to the media.) She said she pays only $35 per paycheck, or $70 per month, for a plan that generally covers 80 percent of her medical costs, carries a reasonable $500 deductible and includes prescription drug coverage.
"There are several folks I work with who are there for the insurance as much as anything, mostly folks with young families," she said. "I can say that when I opened and read the letter yesterday my reaction was pure panic, followed quickly by anger."
-
Another casualty (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/trader-joes-obamacare_n_3902341.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular) of the Affordable Care Act.
A current Trader Joe's worker described the coverage she'll likely lose as "one of the best parts about the job." (The employee requested anonymity since she isn't authorized to speak to the media.) She said she pays only $35 per paycheck, or $70 per month, for a plan that generally covers 80 percent of her medical costs, carries a reasonable $500 deductible and includes prescription drug coverage.
"There are several folks I work with who are there for the insurance as much as anything, mostly folks with young families," she said. "I can say that when I opened and read the letter yesterday my reaction was pure panic, followed quickly by anger."
These interviews are incomplete without asking who they voted for.
-
"Low income" people are going to get absolutely screwed.
-
"Low income" people are going to get absolutely screwed.
The poor get poorer and so does the middle class!
-
"Low income" people are going to get absolutely screwed.
The poor get poorer and so does the middle class!
Nah, middle class people still have coverage through their employers. If it's too expensive, it's not because of Obamacare.
-
"Low income" people are going to get absolutely screwed.
The poor get poorer and so does the middle class!
Nah, middle class people still have coverage through their employers. If it's too expensive, it's not because of Obamacare.
but now the unions don't even want part of it.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-11/and-now-unions-are-angry-obamacare-afl-cio-press-healthcare-law-changes
-
"Low income" people are going to get absolutely screwed.
The poor get poorer and so does the middle class!
Nah, middle class people still have coverage through their employers. If it's too expensive, it's not because of Obamacare.
Its pretty well documented that obamacare is causing employers to drop health coverage, where have you been?
-
"Low income" people are going to get absolutely screwed.
The poor get poorer and so does the middle class!
Nah, middle class people still have coverage through their employers. If it's too expensive, it's not because of Obamacare.
Its pretty well documented that obamacare is causing employers to drop health coverage, where have you been?
No, not really.
-
Welcoke to Facepalm City, population Chum
-
Welcoke to Facepalm City, population Chum
So, Facepalm City is a place for people that make other people facepalm? And I'm the only person that makes other people facepalm? Or are there multiple cities for people that make other people faceplam? If that's the case, why am I the only one in my city? This is all so confusing.
-
Welcoke to Facepalm City, population Chum
So, Facepalm City is a place for people that make other people facepalm? And I'm the only person that makes other people facepalm? Or are there multiple cities for people that make other people faceplam? If that's the case, why am I the only one in my city? This is all so confusing.
my guess is that facepalm city is just a city in facepalm and that you are the only person that lives in it but there are a bunch of other towns in facepalm that have multiple residents that make other people facepalm. think oklahoma and oklahoma city. now is it kind of ironic that facepalm city is the smallest city in facepalm? yeah i suppose. maybe it's a city within a city though. like maybe facepalm city is the address for the governor of facepalm or something and you just live there because you are the governor. that probably makes the most sense when you stop to think about it.
-
Sometimes, when you get it, you just get it.
:thumbs:
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/health/obamacare-open-enrollment/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Stud.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/health/obamacare-open-enrollment/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Stud.
Huge out of pocket expense compared to what most people have now. I also like how the poor can afford to have better health plans than the middle class. good for them.
-
Just wait until people see what all they have to divulge to the government through enrollment. This alone will turn a lot or people away because they will believe it is a major invasion of privacy.
-
Just wait until people see what all they have to divulge to the government through enrollment. This alone will turn a lot or people away because they will believe it is a major invasion of privacy.
This is probably the most laughable talking point yet. Well done.
-
Just wait until people see what all they have to divulge to the government through enrollment. This alone will turn a lot or people away because they will believe it is a major invasion of privacy.
This is probably the most laughable talking point yet. Well done.
I am in the industry beems, I know how the enrollment process works and what it entails. I'm just saying you will be surprised by how many people look at it and go, well eff that noise when they see what all they have to put into the app process.
-
Just wait until people see what all they have to divulge to the government through enrollment. This alone will turn a lot or people away because they will believe it is a major invasion of privacy.
This is probably the most laughable talking point yet. Well done.
I am in the industry beems, I know how the enrollment process works and what it entails. I'm just saying you will be surprised by how many people look at it and go, well eff that noise when they see what all they have to put into the app process.
What will people have to divulge now that they didn't already have to with their current healthcare provider? The only thing I could think of would be income tax returns, which would provide proof of income to the insurance companies for people who qualify for subsidies.
-
Just wait until people see what all they have to divulge to the government through enrollment. This alone will turn a lot or people away because they will believe it is a major invasion of privacy.
This is probably the most laughable talking point yet. Well done.
I am in the industry beems, I know how the enrollment process works and what it entails. I'm just saying you will be surprised by how many people look at it and go, well eff that noise when they see what all they have to put into the app process.
What will people have to divulge now that they didn't already have to with their current healthcare provider? The only thing I could think of would be income tax returns, which would provide proof of income to the insurance companies for people who qualify for subsidies.
Some patient applications TODAY ask if he/she owns or has access to firearms. They're already pretty invasive. But maybe they'll get better?
-
Just wait until people see what all they have to divulge to the government through enrollment. This alone will turn a lot or people away because they will believe it is a major invasion of privacy.
This is probably the most laughable talking point yet. Well done.
I am in the industry beems, I know how the enrollment process works and what it entails. I'm just saying you will be surprised by how many people look at it and go, well eff that noise when they see what all they have to put into the app process.
What will people have to divulge now that they didn't already have to with their current healthcare provider? The only thing I could think of would be income tax returns, which would provide proof of income to the insurance companies for people who qualify for subsidies.
Some patient applications TODAY ask if he/she owns or has access to firearms. They're already pretty invasive. But maybe they'll get better?
How is that any more invasive than asking if you've ever had an STD or HIV? Access to firearms leads to an increased risk of death statistically. Seems like something a life insurance company might want to know about before insuring someone.
:dunno:
-
Just wait until people see what all they have to divulge to the government through enrollment. This alone will turn a lot or people away because they will believe it is a major invasion of privacy.
This is probably the most laughable talking point yet. Well done.
I am in the industry beems, I know how the enrollment process works and what it entails. I'm just saying you will be surprised by how many people look at it and go, well eff that noise when they see what all they have to put into the app process.
What will people have to divulge now that they didn't already have to with their current healthcare provider? The only thing I could think of would be income tax returns, which would provide proof of income to the insurance companies for people who qualify for subsidies.
Some patient applications TODAY ask if he/she owns or has access to firearms. They're already pretty invasive. But maybe they'll get better?
How is that any more invasive than asking if you've ever had an STD or HIV? Access to firearms leads to an increased risk of death statistically. Seems like something a life insurance company might want to know about before insuring someone.
:dunno:
Seems pretty invasive. I wouldn't answer it; a lot of people don't.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/26/health/obamacare-open-enrollment/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Stud.
Huge out of pocket expense compared to what most people have now. I also like how the poor can afford to have better health plans than the middle class. good for them.
Yeah but at least he's a K-State fan.
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
Yeah, I think that starts up in a year or two. We're all going to have much shittier plans. Thankfully some groups have been exempted from the taxes, so only regular people are going to be paying extra for good healthcare.
-
I've become bombarded with pointless mail from my employer covering their ass with new disclosures and forms from this. Thanks Obama.
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
you act like that's a negative. it's not. there's no earthly reason that the public should subsidize the overconsumption of health care by high-salaried workers.
-
What qualifies as a "cadillac plan"? Is it just a low deductible and copay or is there more to it?
-
What qualifies as a "cadillac plan"? Is it just a low deductible and copay or is there more to it?
Little more to it than that, but the exchange plans are going to be known as Mettalic Plans. Bronze(60/40) Silver(70/30) Gold(80/20) Platinum(90/10). Bronze being the cheapest one but also has the lowest coinsurance, Platinum being the most expensive but having the highest coinsurance. So Platinum would be a "cadillac plan".
Coinsurance is the percentage the plan will pay after a deductible is hit.
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
you act like that's a negative. it's not. there's no earthly reason that the public should subsidize the overconsumption of health care by high-salaried workers.
I agree that "Cadillac" health plans may promote greater use of health care services, but why does this mean that the public is subsidizing them?
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
you act like that's a negative. it's not. there's no earthly reason that the public should subsidize the overconsumption of health care by high-salaried workers.
I agree that "Cadillac" health plans may promote greater use of health care services, but why does this mean that the public is subsidizing them?
not a taxable benefit.
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
Yeah, I think that starts up in a year or two. We're all going to have much shittier plans. Thankfully some groups have been exempted from the taxes, so only regular people are going to be paying extra for good healthcare.
Yes, many people who already had insurance will be get shittier insurance, and we'll all get shittier healthcare to an extent as a result of crowding another 15-30 million people into doctor's offices and further cutting reimbursement rates, but the purpose of the ACA was never to help the majority of Americans. The purpose of the ACA, like so many liberal-socialist programs, is to redistribute the wealth. "Social justice" and all that. And the Dems have now successfully purchased a large enough voting bloc that I only see it accelerating at this point.
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
you act like that's a negative. it's not. there's no earthly reason that the public should subsidize the overconsumption of health care by high-salaried workers.
I agree that "Cadillac" health plans may promote greater use of health care services, but why does this mean that the public is subsidizing them?
not a taxable benefit.
Right, thanks. Maybe we should strip the tax exemption from all employer-provided healthcare?
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
you act like that's a negative. it's not. there's no earthly reason that the public should subsidize the overconsumption of health care by high-salaried workers.
I agree that "Cadillac" health plans may promote greater use of health care services, but why does this mean that the public is subsidizing them?
not a taxable benefit.
Right, thanks. Maybe we should strip the tax exemption from all employer-provided healthcare?
You asked a question and I answered it. I didn't propose anything, I just accurately described the status quo. Take this up with sys.
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
you act like that's a negative. it's not. there's no earthly reason that the public should subsidize the overconsumption of health care by high-salaried workers.
I agree that "Cadillac" health plans may promote greater use of health care services, but why does this mean that the public is subsidizing them?
I think the argument is that these people use health care services they don't really need, driving up demand and greatly increasing the cost of basic health care for everybody else.
-
Obamacare/Romneycare is working incredibly well in Massachusetts. 99% of the state is insured and premiums are no higher than in any other state.
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
Yeah, I think that starts up in a year or two. We're all going to have much shittier plans. Thankfully some groups have been exempted from the taxes, so only regular people are going to be paying extra for good healthcare.
Yes, many people who already had insurance will be get shittier insurance, and we'll all get shittier healthcare to an extent as a result of crowding another 15-30 million people into doctor's offices and further cutting reimbursement rates, but the purpose of the ACA was never to help the majority of Americans. The purpose of the ACA, like so many liberal-socialist programs, is to redistribute the wealth. "Social justice" and all that. And the Dems have now successfully purchased a large enough voting bloc that I only see it accelerating at this point.
Woof!!
The "eff others" mindset of the right.
KSU, did you know middle class people got screwed by the old insurance rules?
Rescission, pre-existing denials, canceling on children etc. Do you like these things?
-
Still think it sucks for a company to be penalized for offering a bitchin plan.
-
Still think it sucks for a company to be penalized for offering a bitchin plan.
Who pays the tax? The company or the employees?
-
Still think it sucks for a company to be penalized for offering a bitchin plan.
Who pays the tax? The company or the employees?
Why should it be taxed?
-
Still think it sucks for a company to be penalized for offering a bitchin plan.
Who pays the tax? The company or the employees?
Why should it be taxed?
Who said it should?
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
you act like that's a negative. it's not. there's no earthly reason that the public should subsidize the overconsumption of health care by high-salaried workers.
What? The public isn't subsidizing it. It's a private plan
-
Still think it sucks for a company to be penalized for offering a bitchin plan.
Who pays the tax? The company or the employees?
Company
Another awesome story, no idea why peeps keep telling Obamercare stories. Dude had BC/BS and is getting divorced. They won't let him make any changes to his current plan until Obamercare kicks in so they can price it. He tried calling other places and most won't even give him a quote currently.
-
More union sheep (http://washingtonexaminer.com/seiu-unionists-strike-over-obamacare-related-cuts/article/2536458) upset with Obamacare.
Members of the Chicago-based Service Employees International Union Local 1 have gone on strike over recent job cuts by a janitorial company called Professional Maintenance.
The reason for the cuts? The employer says it is because of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. This is ironic since SEIU is a major supporter of the law.
Tyler French, Local 1's organizing director, told Mediatrackers Ohio the company claimed it had to cut its employees' hours due to Obamacare mandates.
French did not believe the explanation, though, calling it the “latest excuse in a long line of many that we’ve seen from corporate America.”
But others throughout the organized labor movement have warned that such actions will be a direct consequence of the President Obama's health care law.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
At the AFL-CIO's convention in Los Angeles earlier this month, Loretta Johnson, secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Teachers, said it was already happening in her union.
"We are seeing employer after employer cut hours so as to avoid the 30-hour definition of a full-time job," Johnson said. The AFL-CIO passed a resolution demanding either Congress or Obama fix the law to stop it from hurting union members.
Under Obamacare, once a person works more than 30 hours a week, that person counts toward the requirement that companies provide insurance if they have more than 50 employees.
SEIU enthusiastically backed Obamacare when it passed and remains a booster of the law today. Earlier this month, it announced that it was sending nurses, doctors and other health care professionals out to promote the law in 30 cities over the coming months.
-
Right, thanks. Maybe we should strip the tax exemption from all employer-provided healthcare?
that would be a better solution. since it isn't going to happen, the cadillac thing is better than nothing.
-
More union sheep (http://washingtonexaminer.com/seiu-unionists-strike-over-obamacare-related-cuts/article/2536458) upset with Obamacare.
Members of the Chicago-based Service Employees International Union Local 1 have gone on strike over recent job cuts by a janitorial company called Professional Maintenance.
The reason for the cuts? The employer says it is because of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. This is ironic since SEIU is a major supporter of the law.
Tyler French, Local 1's organizing director, told Mediatrackers Ohio the company claimed it had to cut its employees' hours due to Obamacare mandates.
French did not believe the explanation, though, calling it the “latest excuse in a long line of many that we’ve seen from corporate America.”
But others throughout the organized labor movement have warned that such actions will be a direct consequence of the President Obama's health care law.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
At the AFL-CIO's convention in Los Angeles earlier this month, Loretta Johnson, secretary-treasurer of the American Federation of Teachers, said it was already happening in her union.
"We are seeing employer after employer cut hours so as to avoid the 30-hour definition of a full-time job," Johnson said. The AFL-CIO passed a resolution demanding either Congress or Obama fix the law to stop it from hurting union members.
Under Obamacare, once a person works more than 30 hours a week, that person counts toward the requirement that companies provide insurance if they have more than 50 employees.
SEIU enthusiastically backed Obamacare when it passed and remains a booster of the law today. Earlier this month, it announced that it was sending nurses, doctors and other health care professionals out to promote the law in 30 cities over the coming months.
Yeah eff those workers for getting their hours cut because a company is filled with cheap asses who don't want to take care of their employees.
-
The dialogue and policy crafting would work a lot better if the demotards would just accept that people prefer to keep their money.
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
you act like that's a negative. it's not. there's no earthly reason that the public should subsidize the overconsumption of health care by high-salaried workers.
I agree that "Cadillac" health plans may promote greater use of health care services, but why does this mean that the public is subsidizing them?
not a taxable benefit.
Right, thanks. Maybe we should strip the tax exemption from all employer-provided healthcare?
You asked a question and I answered it. I didn't propose anything, I just accurately described the status quo. Take this up with sys.
Sorry, I wasn't being sarcastic (kinda hard to tell sometimes). I think it would be a great thing to separate health insurance from employment, and removing tax incentives would be a good start, not to mention negating any argument about "why is the public subsidizing your bloated insurance plan?" etc.
-
The dialogue and policy crafting would work a lot better if the demotards would just accept that people prefer to keep their money.
How about we help the average American keep their money instead of letting the medical industrial complex rape every American they are sick?
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
Yeah, I think that starts up in a year or two. We're all going to have much shittier plans. Thankfully some groups have been exempted from the taxes, so only regular people are going to be paying extra for good healthcare.
Yes, many people who already had insurance will be get shittier insurance, and we'll all get shittier healthcare to an extent as a result of crowding another 15-30 million people into doctor's offices and further cutting reimbursement rates, but the purpose of the ACA was never to help the majority of Americans. The purpose of the ACA, like so many liberal-socialist programs, is to redistribute the wealth. "Social justice" and all that. And the Dems have now successfully purchased a large enough voting bloc that I only see it accelerating at this point.
Woof!!
The "eff others" mindset of the right.
KSU, did you know middle class people got screwed by the old insurance rules?
Rescission, pre-existing denials, canceling on children etc. Do you like these things?
Yeah, it's a real "eff others" mentality to want to keep what I've earned. But I don't expect that to make sense to those of a more liberal/socialist persuasion. Carry on.
-
The dialogue and policy crafting would work a lot better if the demotards would just accept that people prefer to keep their money.
How about we help the average American keep their money instead of letting the medical industrial complex rape every American they are sick?
Buy insurance before you get sick and this problem is averted. Otherwise,enjoy your life living on SS disability because you made a disastrous personal decision. Why do we continually have to absorb other people's terrible decisions?
-
The dialogue and policy crafting would work a lot better if the demotards would just accept that people prefer to keep their money.
How about we help the average American keep their money instead of letting the medical industrial complex rape every American they are sick?
Buy insurance before you get sick and this problem is averted. Otherwise,enjoy your life living on SS disability because you made a disastrous personal decision. Why do we continually have to absorb other people's terrible decisions?
And this is why we shouldn't let people like you have any input on healthcare.
So what do I do when I have insurance but get sick, and I'm kicked off? Or equally as bad, what happens if I work for a small company who has to dump me because my condition tanks the company policy? What do I do now that I don't qualify for new insurance coverage because its a 'preexisting' condition and excluded? Maybe my white blood cells should have just pulled up their bootstraps and fought off my cancer, or diabetes, or any kind of sports injury to a join, or anything you had in your childhood when you were on your parents insurance.
So SS disability....what if I still want to/can work?
-
The dialogue and policy crafting would work a lot better if the demotards would just accept that people prefer to keep their money.
How about we help the average American keep their money instead of letting the medical industrial complex rape every American they are sick?
Buy insurance before you get sick and this problem is averted. Otherwise,enjoy your life living on SS disability because you made a disastrous personal decision. Why do we continually have to absorb other people's terrible decisions?
And this is why we shouldn't let people like you have any input on healthcare.
So what do I do when I have insurance but get sick, and I'm kicked off?
(Note: this would be illegal, get a good lawyer, you just won the lotto)
Or equally as bad, what happens if I work for a small company who has to dump me because my condition tanks the company policy? What do I do now that I don't qualify for new insurance coverage because its a 'preexisting' condition and excluded? Maybe my white blood cells should have just pulled up their bootstraps and fought off my cancer, or diabetes, or any kind of sports injury to a join, or anything you had in your childhood when you were on your parents insurance.
(Note: Most people might theoretically be better off getting their own health insurance rather than getting it through their employer, just like car insurance etc.)
So SS disability....what if I still want to/can work?
-
Bro of mine works for a company that has bitchin benefits. They were just informed that they have to reduce the awesomeness of said benefits or they will get nailed by the "cadillac plan tax". Never heard of this and if true :flush:
Yeah, I think that starts up in a year or two. We're all going to have much shittier plans. Thankfully some groups have been exempted from the taxes, so only regular people are going to be paying extra for good healthcare.
Yes, many people who already had insurance will be get shittier insurance, and we'll all get shittier healthcare to an extent as a result of crowding another 15-30 million people into doctor's offices and further cutting reimbursement rates, but the purpose of the ACA was never to help the majority of Americans. The purpose of the ACA, like so many liberal-socialist programs, is to redistribute the wealth. "Social justice" and all that. And the Dems have now successfully purchased a large enough voting bloc that I only see it accelerating at this point.
Woof!!
The "eff others" mindset of the right.
KSU, did you know middle class people got screwed by the old insurance rules?
Rescission, pre-existing denials, canceling on children etc. Do you like these things?
Yeah, it's a real "eff others" mentality to want to keep what I've earned. But I don't expect that to make sense to those of a more liberal/socialist persuasion. Carry on.
Well if you're all about 'keeping what you've earned" don't you think you'd want some consumer protections for when you have an aneurism and you're left to the mercy of the for profit insurance board?
They would love to not pay for your care, and leave you and Mrs. KSU bankrupt and without your house.
Can't really understand the mindset that gets pissed off because people might go to the doctor.
-
The dialogue and policy crafting would work a lot better if the demotards would just accept that people prefer to keep their money.
How about we help the average American keep their money instead of letting the medical industrial complex rape every American they are sick?
Buy insurance before you get sick and this problem is averted. Otherwise,enjoy your life living on SS disability because you made a disastrous personal decision. Why do we continually have to absorb other people's terrible decisions?
And this is why we shouldn't let people like you have any input on healthcare.
So what do I do when I have insurance but get sick, and I'm kicked off?
(Note: this would be illegal, get a good lawyer, you just won the lotto)
Or equally as bad, what happens if I work for a small company who has to dump me because my condition tanks the company policy? What do I do now that I don't qualify for new insurance coverage because its a 'preexisting' condition and excluded? Maybe my white blood cells should have just pulled up their bootstraps and fought off my cancer, or diabetes, or any kind of sports injury to a join, or anything you had in your childhood when you were on your parents insurance.
(Note: Most people might theoretically be better off getting their own health insurance rather than getting it through their employer, just like car insurance etc.)
So SS disability....what if I still want to/can work?
please look up life time limits on coverage and rescission
Also note that in no way does car insurance equate to medical insurance. Its a stupid comparison based on a rudimentary understanding of the insurance industry. And actually these exchanges, enforcements, and requirements make it more like car insurance for the better.
-
News flash for the libtards: health insurance is like any other sort of insurance - there are coverage limits. Health insurance does not, and cannot, guarantee that it will pay for whatever treatment you want, for as long as you want, just as it cannot guarantee that you will live forever. Please don't pretend Obamacare will "fix" this.
Obamacare will simply bankrupt the private insurers, eventually foisting everyone into shitty single-payer coverage. How's that working out for the Canadians? How about the British? Last I checked, treatment is denied all the time in those systems, hospitals are overcrowded and filthy, and you've got to wait 6 months or more for routine surgeries. Yeah, that's a great solution.
But enough talk, Obamacare is finally here!!! :drool: Beginning tomorrow, millions of people with pre-existing conditions - i.e., sick people - will enroll for insurance, and many of these policies will be heavily subsidized by tax dollars, too. By contrast, millions of young, healthy people will do the math and realize they're much better off paying a paltry tax (they won't even directly fork it over, it'll just reduce their tax return a bit) than purchasing insurance (even if it is subsidized). Without these healthy young people "doing their public duty" by enrolling, insurance rates are going to go through the roof. The government will try to keep pace for a while with greater and greater subsidies (more tax dollars), but private insurance will ultimately crumble.
Gosh, a skeptic might say that the whole purpose of Obamacare was to drive a stake through the heart of private insurance once and for all...
-
This is pretty cool. Now if I lose my Big Corporate™ job, I can still get affordable health insurance even though I have pre-existing conditions. I could even start a business and still be able to get health coverage, so I'm not tied to my Big Corporate™ job. I could go and be an entrepreneur and be a real job creator. Thanks Obama!
-
News flash for the libtards: health insurance is like any other sort of insurance - there are coverage limits. Health insurance does not, and cannot, guarantee that it will pay for whatever treatment you want, for as long as you want, just as it cannot guarantee that you will live forever. Please don't pretend Obamacare will "fix" this.
Obamacare will simply bankrupt the private insurers, eventually foisting everyone into shitty single-payer coverage. How's that working out for the Canadians? How about the British? Last I checked, treatment is denied all the time in those systems, hospitals are overcrowded and filthy, and you've got to wait 6 months or more for routine surgeries. Yeah, that's a great solution.
But enough talk, Obamacare is finally here!!! :drool: Beginning tomorrow, millions of people with pre-existing conditions - i.e., sick people - will enroll for insurance, and many of these policies will be heavily subsidized by tax dollars, too. By contrast, millions of young, healthy people will do the math and realize they're much better off paying a paltry tax (they won't even directly fork it over, it'll just reduce their tax return a bit) than purchasing insurance (even if it is subsidized). Without these healthy young people "doing their public duty" by enrolling, insurance rates are going to go through the roof. The government will try to keep pace for a while with greater and greater subsidies (more tax dollars), but private insurance will ultimately crumble.
Gosh, a skeptic might say that the whole purpose of Obamacare was to drive a stake through the heart of private insurance once and for all...
that might be the most butthurt thing I've read in a month
-
that might be the most butthurt thing I've read in a month
do u even breaking bad thread bro?
-
Oops, I forgot we were bbs'ing about the phony healthcare crisis contrived by the obamabot libtards, not actual health insurance as it existed per obamacare.
What is the solution to "the man" abandoning its insured sick and leaving them to die, poor and alone? Give the man more power and institute a costly regulatory regime that appropriately rations healthcare to keep costs down (although premiums actually skyrocket). But a bunch of people without money can head to the local exchange and buy insurance for $400 a month. I'm sure they'll do that when they are already going to the emergency room for free, so probs solved.
At least after everyone's acknowledged that this law is a complete clusterfuck it can be used as the whipping boy/martyr for govt. shut down.
-
News flash for the libtards: health insurance is like any other sort of insurance - there are coverage limits. Health insurance does not, and cannot, guarantee that it will pay for whatever treatment you want, for as long as you want, just as it cannot guarantee that you will live forever. Please don't pretend Obamacare will "fix" this.
Obamacare will simply bankrupt the private insurers, eventually foisting everyone into shitty single-payer coverage. How's that working out for the Canadians? How about the British? Last I checked, treatment is denied all the time in those systems, hospitals are overcrowded and filthy, and you've got to wait 6 months or more for routine surgeries. Yeah, that's a great solution.
But enough talk, Obamacare is finally here!!! :drool: Beginning tomorrow, millions of people with pre-existing conditions - i.e., sick people - will enroll for insurance, and many of these policies will be heavily subsidized by tax dollars, too. By contrast, millions of young, healthy people will do the math and realize they're much better off paying a paltry tax (they won't even directly fork it over, it'll just reduce their tax return a bit) than purchasing insurance (even if it is subsidized). Without these healthy young people "doing their public duty" by enrolling, insurance rates are going to go through the roof. The government will try to keep pace for a while with greater and greater subsidies (more tax dollars), but private insurance will ultimately crumble.
Gosh, a skeptic might say that the whole purpose of Obamacare was to drive a stake through the heart of private insurance once and for all...
Yeah, those poor insurance companies. Just limping along. Probably go bankrupt any day now.
-
News flash for the libtards: health insurance is like any other sort of insurance - there are coverage limits. Health insurance does not, and cannot, guarantee that it will pay for whatever treatment you want, for as long as you want, just as it cannot guarantee that you will live forever. Please don't pretend Obamacare will "fix" this.
Obamacare will simply bankrupt the private insurers, eventually foisting everyone into shitty single-payer coverage. How's that working out for the Canadians? How about the British? Last I checked, treatment is denied all the time in those systems, hospitals are overcrowded and filthy, and you've got to wait 6 months or more for routine surgeries. Yeah, that's a great solution.
But enough talk, Obamacare is finally here!!! :drool: Beginning tomorrow, millions of people with pre-existing conditions - i.e., sick people - will enroll for insurance, and many of these policies will be heavily subsidized by tax dollars, too. By contrast, millions of young, healthy people will do the math and realize they're much better off paying a paltry tax (they won't even directly fork it over, it'll just reduce their tax return a bit) than purchasing insurance (even if it is subsidized). Without these healthy young people "doing their public duty" by enrolling, insurance rates are going to go through the roof. The government will try to keep pace for a while with greater and greater subsidies (more tax dollars), but private insurance will ultimately crumble.
Gosh, a skeptic might say that the whole purpose of Obamacare was to drive a stake through the heart of private insurance once and for all...
Yeah, those poor insurance companies. Just limping along. Probably go bankrupt any day now.
Even liberals seem to agree, if the young and healthy don't sign up up for insurance, the whole system collapses. Premiums would have to skyrocket to cover all the sick people who now will sign up and cannot be turned away.
For example: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/05/1228977/--I-m-very-lucky-I-m-about-to-pay-8665-a-year-for-crappy-high-deductible-insurance-in-NYS# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/05/1228977/--I-m-very-lucky-I-m-about-to-pay-8665-a-year-for-crappy-high-deductible-insurance-in-NYS#)
The biggest and most critical hurdle is to sell the young 18-34 year old cohort on the need for them to enroll. Without this group of Americans, which the Administration estimates is around 2.7 million strong, the exchanges will implode due to a phenomenon called adverse selection.
Despite my grave reservations and deep concern about the implementation of Obamacare, I would urge anyone who can lend a hand, to go to the web site of Enroll America and do whatever you can, to help get young people happily enrolled. Without their participation, We. Are. Toast.
There is a reason why, of the 10 insurance companies in Kansas that used to sell individual policies, 8 of them have decided to get out of that market rather than participate in these ridiculous exchanges. They understand that the math just doesn't add up. The sick will sign up - the young and healthy will not. Insurance can't work that way. This is known as "the death spiral." Interestingly, BCBS is one of the two that decided to stay in. If I owned stock in that company, I'd be selling pronto.
-
So how long until we join the rest of the civilized world and get universal healthcare?
-
So how long until we join the rest of the civilized world and get universal healthcare?
Probably not until the baby boomers are dead.
-
News flash for the libtards: health insurance is like any other sort of insurance - there are coverage limits. Health insurance does not, and cannot, guarantee that it will pay for whatever treatment you want, for as long as you want, just as it cannot guarantee that you will live forever. Please don't pretend Obamacare will "fix" this.
Obamacare will simply bankrupt the private insurers, eventually foisting everyone into shitty single-payer coverage. How's that working out for the Canadians? How about the British? Last I checked, treatment is denied all the time in those systems, hospitals are overcrowded and filthy, and you've got to wait 6 months or more for routine surgeries. Yeah, that's a great solution.
But enough talk, Obamacare is finally here!!! :drool: Beginning tomorrow, millions of people with pre-existing conditions - i.e., sick people - will enroll for insurance, and many of these policies will be heavily subsidized by tax dollars, too. By contrast, millions of young, healthy people will do the math and realize they're much better off paying a paltry tax (they won't even directly fork it over, it'll just reduce their tax return a bit) than purchasing insurance (even if it is subsidized). Without these healthy young people "doing their public duty" by enrolling, insurance rates are going to go through the roof. The government will try to keep pace for a while with greater and greater subsidies (more tax dollars), but private insurance will ultimately crumble.
Gosh, a skeptic might say that the whole purpose of Obamacare was to drive a stake through the heart of private insurance once and for all...
Yeah, those poor insurance companies. Just limping along. Probably go bankrupt any day now.
Even liberals seem to agree, if the young and healthy don't sign up up for insurance, the whole system collapses. Premiums would have to skyrocket to cover all the sick people who now will sign up and cannot be turned away.
For example: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/05/1228977/--I-m-very-lucky-I-m-about-to-pay-8665-a-year-for-crappy-high-deductible-insurance-in-NYS# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/05/1228977/--I-m-very-lucky-I-m-about-to-pay-8665-a-year-for-crappy-high-deductible-insurance-in-NYS#)
The biggest and most critical hurdle is to sell the young 18-34 year old cohort on the need for them to enroll. Without this group of Americans, which the Administration estimates is around 2.7 million strong, the exchanges will implode due to a phenomenon called adverse selection.
Despite my grave reservations and deep concern about the implementation of Obamacare, I would urge anyone who can lend a hand, to go to the web site of Enroll America and do whatever you can, to help get young people happily enrolled. Without their participation, We. Are. Toast.
There is a reason why, of the 10 insurance companies in Kansas that used to sell individual policies, 8 of them have decided to get out of that market rather than participate in these ridiculous exchanges. They understand that the math just doesn't add up. The sick will sign up - the young and healthy will not. Insurance can't work that way. This is known as "the death spiral." Interestingly, BCBS is one of the two that decided to stay in. If I owned stock in that company, I'd be selling pronto.
I am going to short the hell out of BCBS. How long until they file for reorg? I am assuming the death spiral will have killed them by Christmas. Maybe sooner?
-
How will BCBS ever survive with 80% of their competition leaving the market?
-
How will BCBS ever survive with 80% of their competition leaving the market?
I am counting on them folding soon. The "death spiral" as it is known is a fast acting reaper of fate.
-
So how long until we join the rest of the civilized world and get universal healthcare?
We already have it.
-
So how long until we join the rest of the civilized world and get universal healthcare?
We already have it.
Tell that to the 30+ million people who don't have health insurance.
-
How will BCBS ever survive with 80% of their competition leaving the market?
I'm trying to think of a way to explain this so even you can understand. Did you ever see that episode of The Office where Michael starts his own paper company, and the accountant eventually explains to him that the more paper he sells, the more money he loses? So yeah, congrats to BCBS on cornering the market on adding sick people to its books.
-
So how long until we join the rest of the civilized world and get universal healthcare?
We already have it.
Tell that to the 30+ million people who don't have health insurance.
The question was "universal healthcare" - not "health insurance" - but you also have some difficulty distinguishing between "debt" and "deficit" so I guess your confusion is understandable.
-
How will BCBS ever survive with 80% of their competition leaving the market?
I'm trying to think of a way to explain this so even you can understand. Did you ever see that episode of The Office where Michael starts his own paper company, and the accountant eventually explains to him that the more paper he sells, the more money he loses? So yeah, congrats to BCBS on cornering the market on adding sick people to its books.
This is known as the "death spiral" for you noobs.
-
How will BCBS ever survive with 80% of their competition leaving the market?
I'm trying to think of a way to explain this so even you can understand. Did you ever see that episode of The Office where Michael starts his own paper company, and the accountant eventually explains to him that the more paper he sells, the more money he loses? So yeah, congrats to BCBS on cornering the market on adding sick people to its books.
This is known as the "death spiral" for you noobs.
Thanks Limestone for your help. And everyone can read more about it here: http://nypost.com/2013/09/30/experts-fear-obamacare-rate-spiral/ (http://nypost.com/2013/09/30/experts-fear-obamacare-rate-spiral/)
-
All the insurance companies are not going to collapse. They helped to write AFA.
But if they do, it will be just that much easier to move to a single payer system.
-
So how long until we join the rest of the civilized world and get universal healthcare?
We already have it.
Tell that to the 30+ million people who don't have health insurance.
The question was "universal healthcare" - not "health insurance" - but you also have some difficulty distinguishing between "debt" and "deficit" so I guess your confusion is understandable.
Healthcare and health insurance are not mutually exclusive. Your second statement is simply false. I have pointed out the difference between debt and deficit multiple times. You and the rest of the right wing herd just refuse to accept that the budget deficit has been cut in half since President Obama's been in office.
-
Guys, obamacare is all about the man sticking it to the man, and together sticking it to the middle class. Its a giant gay rape orgy.
If OregonHawk wasn't so Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) this thread would be unbearable.
-
So how long until we join the rest of the civilized world and get universal healthcare?
We already have it.
Tell that to the 30+ million people who don't have health insurance.
The question was "universal healthcare" - not "health insurance" - but you also have some difficulty distinguishing between "debt" and "deficit" so I guess your confusion is understandable.
Healthcare and health insurance are not mutually exclusive. Your second statement is simply false. I have pointed out the difference between debt and deficit multiple times. You and the rest of the right wing herd just refuse to accept that the budget deficit has been cut in half since President Obama's been in office.
Even if the current budget deficit is half what his first budget was, it would still be the largest budget deficit in history previous to 2009. Quite an accomplishment. Que "he inherited a mess".
-
This talking point about Obama cutting the deficit in half, if I'm understanding it right, is about as stupid as someone who filed for chapter 13 bragging about cutting their car payment in half.
Also, per Obama, its the republicans job to pass a budget so why don't they get credit for this incredible achievement.
-
This talking point about Obama cutting the deficit in half, if I'm understanding it right, is about as stupid as someone who filed for chapter 13 bragging about cutting their car payment in half.
:lol: Or put another way, "Sure I added $10 tril to the debt, but it coulda been 12.5!"
-
http://gawker.com/kimmel-asks-americans-to-choose-obamacare-or-the-affor-1433866673?autoplay=1
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
But what if death spiral first?
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped but didn't Obama win the election and then the democrats won enough seats to pass it? Isn't that kind of how its supposed to work?
-
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped
Because of the death spiral, right?
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped but didn't Obama win the election and then the democrats won enough seats to pass it? Isn't that kind of how its supposed to work?
Couldn't those same elected people vote to defund it? How is it different?
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped but didn't Obama win the election and then the democrats won enough seats to pass it? Isn't that kind of how its supposed to work?
Sort of. Obama has to bribe the last 4 dems with millions for the votes late on Christmas Eve of 2009.
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped but didn't Obama win the election and then the democrats won enough seats to pass it? Isn't that kind of how its supposed to work?
Sort of. Obama has to bribe the last 4 dems with millions for the votes late on Christmas Eve of 2009.
Not to mention using budget reconciliation to ram it through with just 51 votes after the Dems lost Teddy "I drowned a girl" Kennedy's old seat to Scott Brown, who ran on being "the 41st vote against Obamacare" and won. Yes, the bribes and maneuvering was Democracy at its finest. Can anyone name the last major entitlement passed without any bipartisan support?
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped but didn't Obama win the election and then the democrats won enough seats to pass it? Isn't that kind of how its supposed to work?
Sort of. Obama has to bribe the last 4 dems with millions for the votes late on Christmas Eve of 2009.
Not to mention using budget reconciliation to ram it through with just 51 votes after the Dems lost Teddy "I drowned a girl" Kennedy's old seat to Scott Brown, who ran on being "the 41st vote against Obamacare" and won. Yes, the bribes and maneuvering was Democracy at its finest. Can anyone name the last major entitlement passed without any bipartisan support?
Not really a ringing endorsement for a bill nobody even read before voting.
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped but didn't Obama win the election and then the democrats won enough seats to pass it? Isn't that kind of how its supposed to work?
Sort of. Obama has to bribe the last 4 dems with millions for the votes late on Christmas Eve of 2009.
Not to mention using budget reconciliation to ram it through with just 51 votes after the Dems lost Teddy "I drowned a girl" Kennedy's old seat to Scott Brown, who ran on being "the 41st vote against Obamacare" and won. Yes, the bribes and maneuvering was Democracy at its finest. Can anyone name the last major entitlement passed without any bipartisan support?
Not really a ringing endorsement for a bill nobody even read before voting.
Well, to quote then Speaker San Fran Nan (the one who currently can't think of a single cut to federal spending), "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
-
Too many people love Obamacare, and the website keeps going down from all the traffic. :users:
-
Too many people love Obamacare, and the website keeps going down from all the traffic. :users:
Government shutdown, bruh
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped but didn't Obama win the election and then the democrats won enough seats to pass it? Isn't that kind of how its supposed to work?
Sort of. Obama has to bribe the last 4 dems with millions for the votes late on Christmas Eve of 2009.
Not to mention using budget reconciliation to ram it through with just 51 votes after the Dems lost Teddy "I drowned a girl" Kennedy's old seat to Scott Brown, who ran on being "the 41st vote against Obamacare" and won. Yes, the bribes and maneuvering was Democracy at its finest. Can anyone name the last major entitlement passed without any bipartisan support?
Not really a ringing endorsement for a bill nobody even read before voting.
Well, to quote then Speaker San Fran Nan (the one who currently can't think of a single cut to federal spending), "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
It's The City.
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped but didn't Obama win the election and then the democrats won enough seats to pass it? Isn't that kind of how its supposed to work?
Sort of. Obama has to bribe the last 4 dems with millions for the votes late on Christmas Eve of 2009.
Not to mention using budget reconciliation to ram it through with just 51 votes after the Dems lost Teddy "I drowned a girl" Kennedy's old seat to Scott Brown, who ran on being "the 41st vote against Obamacare" and won. Yes, the bribes and maneuvering was Democracy at its finest. Can anyone name the last major entitlement passed without any bipartisan support?
The Medicare prescription drug bill.
-
I don't like certain aspects of Obamacare, but damn, give it a rest already. If it's a complete disaster (which is a definite possibility), Republicans will benefit in the next election cycle. Laws can be reformed, and even repealed, if necessary.
eff the people! There are political points to score!
Obamacare sounds like it is mumped but didn't Obama win the election and then the democrats won enough seats to pass it? Isn't that kind of how its supposed to work?
Sort of. Obama has to bribe the last 4 dems with millions for the votes late on Christmas Eve of 2009.
Not to mention using budget reconciliation to ram it through with just 51 votes after the Dems lost Teddy "I drowned a girl" Kennedy's old seat to Scott Brown, who ran on being "the 41st vote against Obamacare" and won. Yes, the bribes and maneuvering was Democracy at its finest. Can anyone name the last major entitlement passed without any bipartisan support?
The Medicare prescription drug bill.
Another good example of a crap bill pushed through despite the lack of public support.
-
@hipsterrunoff: Do u evr think abt how much ur life sux bc the poors have healthcare?
-
Can anyone name the last major entitlement passed without any bipartisan support?
The Medicare prescription drug bill.
A number of Dems in the House and Senate voted for Medicare Part D. The same cannot be said for Obamacare. In fact, the only thing "bipartisan" about Obamacare was the House vote in opposition.
-
Can anyone name the last major entitlement passed without any bipartisan support?
The Medicare prescription drug bill.
A number of Dems in the House and Senate voted for Medicare Part D. The same cannot be said for Obamacare. In fact, the only thing "bipartisan" about Obamacare was the House vote in opposition.
Yeah a very small number.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/108-2003/h332
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.boingboing.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F10%2F1157cbCOMIC-school-time-rock-just-a-law.jpg&hash=3d0d26f86a2b7d35001ef8ea751db094c1e2c36f)
-
Breakdown of every plan being offered by Metallic Level, by county and state. Also gives premium examples for each selected sample group.
https://www.healthcare.gov/health-plan-information/
-
I missed the slide where the president arbitrarily decides whether or not to enforce then law. That's a critical element in today's "democracy"
-
I missed the slide where the president arbitrarily decides whether or not to enforce then law. That's a critical element in today's "democracy"
Yes, I assume the next president can just say I don't like this law and send the attorney general to file lawsuits against states that do try and keep it going.
-
"democracy"
oh rough ridin' spare me
-
I missed the slide where the president arbitrarily decides whether or not to enforce then law. That's a critical element in today's "democracy"
Also, where are the slides talking about the bribes, coercion, and procedural maneuvering required to pass the law in the first place on a pure party-line vote? Oh, that doesn't fit the "moderate" narrative. Carry on.
-
I don't like Obamacare. It's definitely a part of this admin trying to leave some legacy by sacrificing a system that has flaws but mostly works. But, win an election, repeal it. Is that so hard?
I dislike the "let them eat cake" shellshock theory. It's stupid, and isn't even realistic.
-
FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.
On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.
-
FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.
On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.
I couldn't agree more. It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.
The main reason I'm thinking obamacare has to go.
-
FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.
On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.
I couldn't agree more. It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.
The main reason I'm thinking obamacare has to go.
wait, labor unions are exempt?
-
FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.
On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.
I couldn't agree more. It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.
The main reason I'm thinking obamacare has to go.
wait, labor unions are exempt?
Talking point I read on here. If wrong, my bad. I didn't research it so mea culpa if I'm wrong.
-
Talking point I read on here. If wrong, my bad. I didn't research it so mea culpa if I'm wrong.
congress isn't exempt either.
-
Talking point I read on here. If wrong, my bad. I didn't research it so mea culpa if I'm wrong.
congress isn't exempt either.
Well crap. To the google!
-
FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.
On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and Congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an Amendment made by this Act).”
-
FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.
On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.
It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.
Yes. That is complete bullshit. I think that's what (reasonable) 'pubs are upset about. The Tea Partiers just don't want to pass anything President Darkface is connected to, and will ramble on using all of their patriotic buzzwords to explain why it is so bad.
-
isn't half of Nancy Pelosi's district exempt too? Must be nice.
-
FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.
On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.
It's shocking in its audacity that congress and the labor unions are exempt.
Yes. That is complete bullshit. I think that's what (reasonable) 'pubs are upset about. The Tea Partiers just don't want to pass anything President Darkface is connected to, and will ramble on using all of their patriotic buzzwords to explain why it is so bad.
Except that I was totally mistaken.
-
It takes a pretty big man to admit when he is wrong, and I'm just that big of a man.
-
It takes a pretty big man to admit when he is wrong, and I'm just that big of a man.
Touche. But my point about the tea party stands.
-
It takes a pretty big man to admit when he is wrong, and I'm just that big of a man.
Touche. But my point about the tea party stands.
All you said was that the tea party is racist, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
The other groups aren't "exempt", they just have their own set of rules or waivers from the law's requirements.
Which is bullshit.
-
FWIW, the let them eat cake analogy more closely aligns with the congress exempting themselves from the bullshit law. Shell shocks is more of the 'dog eat dog' method.
On the continuum of dog eat dog and no accountability spectrum, I'm leaning hard dog eat dog.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and Congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an Amendment made by this Act).”
No Limestone, you weren't wrong. The argument just comes down to the meaning of "exempt." There is no question that Obama threw Congress a lifeline, via a rule from his Office of Personnel Management, that allowed members of Congress and their staff to keep the generous subsidies they receive for healthcare, despite the fact that these subsidies are not available for anyone else enrolling in Obamacare, and despite the fact that the intent of the provision you cite above was to ensure that Congress put their money where their mouth was: if Obamacare was good enough for the rest of the country, it should be good enough for members of Congress. So absolutely the President gave Congress special protection from Obamacare, allowing them to keep their generous subsidies, whether you call that "exempt" or not. This USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/27/is-congress-exempt-from-obamacare/2883635/) provides a fairly balanced explanation of what happened.
-
It takes a pretty big man to admit when he is wrong, and I'm just that big of a man.
Touche. But my point about the tea party stands.
All you said was that the tea party is racist, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
The other groups aren't "exempt", they just have their own set of rules or waivers from the law's requirements.
Which is bullshit.
The Tea Party wants to prevent Obama from having any kind of legacy. They embarrass the right wing.
-
The whole "congress is exempt" thing is an insanely stupid game played by both sides. The democratic congresspeople that decided to embrace this nonsense deservedly look like complete turds, but the nimrods that made the amendment were equally stupid for not specifying how it would be paid.
Additionally stupidity is the fact that Republican argument is basically, "Obamacare should be providing EVEN BETTER AND MORE EXPENSIVE coverage, or provide the same coverage for cheaper".
-
No one is required to have an Obamacare plan. There are many other healthcare plans to choose from. And Congress is the only group whose employer's healthcare benefit options are limited to Obamacare plans. So, to say that Congress is exempt from Obamacare - especially with an implication that others are not - is more than a little misguided.
-
It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.
Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?
-
It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.
Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?
The problem with this criticism is that the rest of the country won't have Obamacare plans. Overall, not that many people will. And the people who will certainly won't have incomes similar to those in Congress. It is similar to saying, "If Congress thinks that Medicaid is good enough for the rest of the country, then Congress should have Medicaid."
-
It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.
Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?
They didn't give them any special subsidies. They gave them the employer contribution that they previously paid to help them cover the cost of a plan on the exchanges.
The conservasphere did a great job riling up,the base on that distortion.
-
It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.
Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?
Who are these people forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges?
-
oh eff, we've got a guy who understands how this stuff works. EVERYONE SCRAM!
-
It's really quite simple. Congress passed a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staff to buy their health insurance from the Obamacare exchanges. They do so, but due to a subsequent rule issued by the Obama Admin, they receive much more generous subsidies than anyone else forced to purchase insurance through the exchanges. Nobody else with equivalent income would ever be entitled to such subsidies, let alone any subsidies at all, when purchasing from the exchanges.
Thus, members of Congress and their staff are not required to purchase insurance from the exchanges on the same terms as everyone else, which was the whole intent of the provision in the first place. So to argue that members of Congress and their staff are not receiving special protection is rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If that were not the case, then why did the Obama Admin issue the rule in the first place?
The problem with this criticism is that the rest of the country won't have Obamacare plans. Overall, not that many people will. And the people who will certainly won't have incomes similar to those in Congress. It is similar to saying, "If Congress thinks that Medicaid is good enough for the rest of the country, then Congress should have Medicaid."
Exactly, the members of Congress are making far more money than most of the people who will be required to buy these new Obamacare-inflated insurance policies, and yet they receive much more generous subsidies paid for with tax dollars. And I never said that everyone, or even a majority of people, would have to buy their insurance through the exchanges. But if you ram through a bill effectively requiring that even some people sign up for new, inflated insurance policies or else pay a penalty, then you ought to do the same thing, under the same terms, which means the same subsidies. "If it's good enough for thee, it's good enough for me." If Congress wants to require that people buy insurance with coverage levels they don't really need, at prices they can't really afford, then Congress ought to buy the same insurance at the same prices, which means the same subsidies.
And in any event, you continue to dodge the question, if the members of Congress did not receive any special protection, then what was the purpose of the rule issued by the Obama Admin? Answer: it was to protect Congress's special subsidies (paid for by our tax dollars), which were threatened by the anti-hypocrisy provision that they so smugly inserted above.
-
i thought k-s-u was trying to carve out a role for himself as the rational superconservative poster. i guess i was wrong.
-
I'm not dodging a question. I agree that Congress wants better benefits than those offered by Obamacare. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with them wanting better pay than minimum wage.
-
So my employer subsidizes the crap out of whatever insurance I buy. They also subsidize the crap out of the insurance bought by the people in my company who make way more money than congressmen. Why, exactly, should the congressmen's employer not subsidize the cost of their insurance? Because it is taxpayer money?
-
I'm not dodging a question. I agree that Congress wants better benefits than those offered by Obamacare. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with them wanting better pay than minimum wage.
That analogy fails because you are once again ignoring the nature of Obamacare. Obamacare requires that people purchase insurance, an expensive product made more expensive by the fact that Obamacare mandates certain minimum levels of coverage. Yet the subsidies that Congress chose to dole out to these poor slobs, to help cover some of the cost of the policies, are far less than the generous subsidies members of Congress receive - subsidies that Congress lobbied the President to protect despite the anti-hypocrisy provision in the law which they inserted, and was intended to require that they participate in Obamacare, in the same manner, with the same subsidies, as all of the common folk they were foisting Obamacare on. If you can't understand this, I give up. :facepalm:
-
So my employer subsidizes the crap out of whatever insurance I buy. They also subsidize the crap out of the insurance bought by the people in my company who make way more money than congressmen. Why, exactly, should the congressmen's employer not subsidize the cost of their insurance? Because it is taxpayer money?
Did your employer craft Obamacare? You're missing the point.
-
I'm not dodging a question. I agree that Congress wants better benefits than those offered by Obamacare. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with them wanting better pay than minimum wage.
That analogy fails because you are once again ignoring the nature of Obamacare. Obamacare requires that people purchase insurance, an expensive product made more expensive by the fact that Obamacare mandates certain minimum levels of coverage. Yet the subsidies that Congress chose to dole out to these poor slobs, to help cover some of the cost of the policies, are far less than the generous subsidies members of Congress receive - subsidies that Congress lobbied the President to protect despite the anti-hypocrisy provision in the law which they inserted, and was intended to require that they participate in Obamacare, in the same manner, with the same subsidies, as all of the common folk they were foisting Obamacare on. If you can't understand this, I give up. :facepalm:
So you don't think we should employ insurance to congressmen? They should just be on the hook for that themselves?
-
In more hilarious news, here's a handy moniker to remember the Obamacare national hotline: 1-800-F1U-CKYO. :lol: Satan has a sense of humor.
-
I'm not dodging a question. I agree that Congress wants better benefits than those offered by Obamacare. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with them wanting better pay than minimum wage.
That analogy fails because you are once again ignoring the nature of Obamacare. Obamacare requires that people purchase insurance, an expensive product made more expensive by the fact that Obamacare mandates certain minimum levels of coverage. Yet the subsidies that Congress chose to dole out to these poor slobs, to help cover some of the cost of the policies, are far less than the generous subsidies members of Congress receive - subsidies that Congress lobbied the President to protect despite the anti-hypocrisy provision in the law which they inserted, and was intended to require that they participate in Obamacare, in the same manner, with the same subsidies, as all of the common folk they were foisting Obamacare on. If you can't understand this, I give up. :facepalm:
So you don't think we should employ insurance to congressmen? They should just be on the hook for that themselves?
No, they should receive the same subsidies for their over-inflated Obamacare plans as everyone else, which was the point of the anti-hypocrisy provision they themselves inserted in the bill, and then had to go running to the Obama Admin to craft a rule fixing their conundrum. I feel like I've explained this about 20 trillion times....
-
So my employer subsidizes the crap out of whatever insurance I buy. They also subsidize the crap out of the insurance bought by the people in my company who make way more money than congressmen. Why, exactly, should the congressmen's employer not subsidize the cost of their insurance? Because it is taxpayer money?
Did your employer craft Obamacare? You're missing the point.
So what? I don't think there is a point there. Do other federal government employees pay the full price of their insurance, or does their employer subsidize it somewhat? :don'tcare:
Whether said insurance is bought through a private insurer or an ACA exchange seems inconsequential.
-
Is the anti-hipocracy provision the thing that LSOC quoted a page or so ago? If so, there isn't anything there stipulating what part of that they need to pay themselves.
-
I'm not dodging a question. I agree that Congress wants better benefits than those offered by Obamacare. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with them wanting better pay than minimum wage.
That analogy fails because you are once again ignoring the nature of Obamacare. Obamacare requires that people purchase insurance, an expensive product made more expensive by the fact that Obamacare mandates certain minimum levels of coverage. Yet the subsidies that Congress chose to dole out to these poor slobs, to help cover some of the cost of the policies, are far less than the generous subsidies members of Congress receive - subsidies that Congress lobbied the President to protect despite the anti-hypocrisy provision in the law which they inserted, and was intended to require that they participate in Obamacare, in the same manner, with the same subsidies, as all of the common folk they were foisting Obamacare on. If you can't understand this, I give up. :facepalm:
So you don't think we should employ insurance to congressmen? They should just be on the hook for that themselves?
No, they should receive the same subsidies for their over-inflated Obamacare plans as everyone else, which was the point of the anti-hypocrisy provision they themselves inserted in the bill, and then had to go running to the Obama Admin to craft a rule fixing their conundrum. I feel like I've explained this about 20 trillion times....
Who are you referring to when you say "everyone else"? My employer pays for my insurance in its entirety.
-
I'm not dodging a question. I agree that Congress wants better benefits than those offered by Obamacare. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with them wanting better pay than minimum wage.
That analogy fails because you are once again ignoring the nature of Obamacare. Obamacare requires that people purchase insurance, an expensive product made more expensive by the fact that Obamacare mandates certain minimum levels of coverage. Yet the subsidies that Congress chose to dole out to these poor slobs, to help cover some of the cost of the policies, are far less than the generous subsidies members of Congress receive - subsidies that Congress lobbied the President to protect despite the anti-hypocrisy provision in the law which they inserted, and was intended to require that they participate in Obamacare, in the same manner, with the same subsidies, as all of the common folk they were foisting Obamacare on. If you can't understand this, I give up. :facepalm:
So you don't think we should employ insurance to congressmen? They should just be on the hook for that themselves?
No, they should receive the same subsidies for their over-inflated Obamacare plans as everyone else, which was the point of the anti-hypocrisy provision they themselves inserted in the bill, and then had to go running to the Obama Admin to craft a rule fixing their conundrum. I feel like I've explained this about 20 trillion times....
Who are you referring to when you say "everyone else"? My employer pays for my insurance in its entirety.
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
-
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
I agree with K-S-U, those people should receive larger subsidies.
-
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
I agree with K-S-U, those people should receive larger subsidies.
Exactly. That, or maybe subsidies wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't mandated minimum coverage levels and guaranteed issue, thereby raising premiums. Oh crap, that was the whole point of Obamacare! Never mind. Let's just go back to what we've got, and face that fact that members of Congress who crafted this turd just shouldn't have to pay nearly as much as the serfs, because they're special. Gotta avoid that "brain drain" and all....
-
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
I agree with K-S-U, those people should receive larger subsidies.
Exactly. That, or maybe subsidies wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't mandated minimum coverage levels and guaranteed issue, thereby raising premiums. Oh crap, that was the whole point of Obamacare! Never mind. Let's just go back to what we've got, and face that fact that members of Congress who crafted this turd just shouldn't have to pay nearly as much as the serfs, because they 're special have jobs of a level that should reasonably expect to have insurance paid as part of the benefits package. Gotta avoid that "brain drain" and all....
-
i thought k-s-u was trying to carve out a role for himself as the rational superconservative poster. i guess i was wrong.
Where did you ever get that idea?
-
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
I agree with K-S-U, those people should receive larger subsidies.
Agreed. K-S-U hit it.
-
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
I agree with K-S-U, those people should receive larger subsidies.
Exactly. That, or maybe subsidies wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't mandated minimum coverage levels and guaranteed issue, thereby raising premiums. Oh crap, that was the whole point of Obamacare! Never mind. Let's just go back to what we've got, and face that fact that members of Congress who crafted this turd just shouldn't have to pay nearly as much as the serfs, because they're special. Gotta avoid that "brain drain" and all....
If Obamacare is repealed we should make it mandatory Congress take the previous minimum insurance. (no insurance)
If it's good enough for the public, it should be good enough for Congress. We are going to fix America, K-S-U.
-
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
I agree with K-S-U, those people should receive larger subsidies.
Exactly. That, or maybe subsidies wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't mandated minimum coverage levels and guaranteed issue, thereby raising premiums. Oh crap, that was the whole point of Obamacare! Never mind. Let's just go back to what we've got, and face that fact that members of Congress who crafted this turd just shouldn't have to pay nearly as much as the serfs, because they're special. Gotta avoid that "brain drain" and all....
If Obamacare is repealed we should make it mandatory Congress take the previous minimum insurance. (no insurance)
If it's good enough for the public, it should be good enough for Congress. We are going to fix America, K-S-U.
Yeah. It would be less than a month before we had single payer healthcare under that scenario.
-
I'm not dodging a question. I agree that Congress wants better benefits than those offered by Obamacare. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with that. Just like there's nothing wrong with them wanting better pay than minimum wage.
That analogy fails because you are once again ignoring the nature of Obamacare. Obamacare requires that people purchase insurance, an expensive product made more expensive by the fact that Obamacare mandates certain minimum levels of coverage. Yet the subsidies that Congress chose to dole out to these poor slobs, to help cover some of the cost of the policies, are far less than the generous subsidies members of Congress receive - subsidies that Congress lobbied the President to protect despite the anti-hypocrisy provision in the law which they inserted, and was intended to require that they participate in Obamacare, in the same manner, with the same subsidies, as all of the common folk they were foisting Obamacare on. If you can't understand this, I give up. :facepalm:
please learn what the 27th Amendment is
-
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
I agree with K-S-U, those people should receive larger subsidies.
Exactly. That, or maybe subsidies wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't mandated minimum coverage levels and guaranteed issue, thereby raising premiums. Oh crap, that was the whole point of Obamacare! Never mind. Let's just go back to what we've got, and face that fact that members of Congress who crafted this turd just shouldn't have to pay nearly as much as the serfs, because they're special. Gotta avoid that "brain drain" and all....
If Obamacare is repealed we should make it mandatory Congress take the previous minimum insurance. (no insurance)
If it's good enough for the public, it should be good enough for Congress. We are going to fix America, K-S-U.
If Obamacare is repealed, how about members of Congress be permitted to purchase whatever insurance they want, at whatever price they can get, without subsidies? Fair compromise?
-
i thought k-s-u was trying to carve out a role for himself as the rational superconservative poster. i guess i was wrong.
Where did you ever get that idea?
Sheesh... I'm a moderate.
-
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
I agree with K-S-U, those people should receive larger subsidies.
Exactly. That, or maybe subsidies wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't mandated minimum coverage levels and guaranteed issue, thereby raising premiums. Oh crap, that was the whole point of Obamacare! Never mind. Let's just go back to what we've got, and face that fact that members of Congress who crafted this turd just shouldn't have to pay nearly as much as the serfs, because they're special. Gotta avoid that "brain drain" and all....
If Obamacare is repealed we should make it mandatory Congress take the previous minimum insurance. (no insurance)
If it's good enough for the public, it should be good enough for Congress. We are going to fix America, K-S-U.
I agree with this. Congress is supposed to be a voluntary service performed by people interested in public service for a short time. It's become a very lucrative self serving career and just the opposite of public service.
-
The people who don't get their insurance through their employer. As I've said before, not everyone has to purchase their healthcare on the individual market, and those who receive it through their employers aren't eligible for subsidies anyway.
I agree with K-S-U, those people should receive larger subsidies.
Exactly. That, or maybe subsidies wouldn't have been necessary if we hadn't mandated minimum coverage levels and guaranteed issue, thereby raising premiums. Oh crap, that was the whole point of Obamacare! Never mind. Let's just go back to what we've got, and face that fact that members of Congress who crafted this turd just shouldn't have to pay nearly as much as the serfs, because they're special. Gotta avoid that "brain drain" and all....
If Obamacare is repealed we should make it mandatory Congress take the previous minimum insurance. (no insurance)
If it's good enough for the public, it should be good enough for Congress. We are going to fix America, K-S-U.
If Obamacare is repealed, how about members of Congress be permitted to purchase whatever insurance they want, at whatever price they can get, without subsidies? Fair compromise?
You better not let their employer pay for it!
-
In more hilarious news, here's a handy moniker to remember the Obamacare national hotline: 1-800-F1U-CKYO. :lol: Satan has a sense of humor.
good grief dude
-
Hating President Obama is a religion for some people. No doubt.
-
In more hilarious news, here's a handy moniker to remember the Obamacare national hotline: 1-800-F1U-CKYO. :lol: Satan has a sense of humor.
good grief dude
Relax, it was a joke. The number is not.
-
good joke
-
good joke
It's not for moderates. Sorry.
-
good joke
It's not for moderates. Sorry.
I must be moderate then
-
i used to think steve dave and CFoD were the only true moderates on here, but i'm starting to get that feeling too lsoc
-
i used to think steve dave and CFoD were the only true moderates on here, but i'm starting to get that feeling too lsoc
pretty big "get" for #teamMOD
-
good joke
It's not for moderates. Sorry.
I must be moderate then
:emawkid:
-
i used to think steve dave and CFoD were the only true moderates on here, but i'm starting to get that feeling too lsoc
Team moderate had a pretty great signing day today. GRCOAT? If you can get Tobias and myself in one day, I'd say so
-
i used to think steve dave and CFoD were the only true moderates on here, but i'm starting to get that feeling too lsoc
Team moderate had a pretty great signing day today. GRCOAT? If you can get Tobias and myself in one day, I'd say so
our post game interviews are going to be rough ridin' adorable
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
Well if a boatload of sick people with preexisting condition aren't trying to buy subsidized insurance, they're dumbasses.
I'm more interested in this dude "Chad Henderson", who the media seem to be currently slobbering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/meet-chad-henderson-the-obamacare-enrollee-tons-of-reporters-are-calling/) as a great example of a young, healthy person who bought insurance on the Obamacare exchange because, you know, it's the socially responsible thing to do. I know this sounds cynical, but I almost wonder if he's an Obama volunteer? Has anyone in the media asked him that?
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
Well if a boatload of sick people with preexisting condition aren't trying to buy subsidized insurance, they're dumbasses.
I'm more interested in this dude "Chad Henderson", who the media seem to be currently slobbering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/meet-chad-henderson-the-obamacare-enrollee-tons-of-reporters-are-calling/) as a great example of a young, healthy person who bought insurance on the Obamacare exchange because, you know, it's the socially responsible thing to do. I know this sounds cynical, but I almost wonder if he's an Obama volunteer? Has anyone in the media asked him that?
Yeah, why would a healthy 21 year old ever need to buy health insurance? Something is definitely fishy here.
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
Well if a boatload of sick people with preexisting condition aren't trying to buy subsidized insurance, they're dumbasses.
I'm more interested in this dude "Chad Henderson", who the media seem to be currently slobbering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/meet-chad-henderson-the-obamacare-enrollee-tons-of-reporters-are-calling/) as a great example of a young, healthy person who bought insurance on the Obamacare exchange because, you know, it's the socially responsible thing to do. I know this sounds cynical, but I almost wonder if he's an Obama volunteer? Has anyone in the media asked him that?
Yeah, why would a healthy 21 year old ever need to buy health insurance? Something is definitely fishy here.
Because the basic premise of health insurance is to be able to covered for catastrophic injuries/illnesses and not for going to the Doc's for a sniffle?
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
Well if a boatload of sick people with preexisting condition aren't trying to buy subsidized insurance, they're dumbasses.
I'm more interested in this dude "Chad Henderson", who the media seem to be currently slobbering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/meet-chad-henderson-the-obamacare-enrollee-tons-of-reporters-are-calling/) as a great example of a young, healthy person who bought insurance on the Obamacare exchange because, you know, it's the socially responsible thing to do. I know this sounds cynical, but I almost wonder if he's an Obama volunteer? Has anyone in the media asked him that?
Yeah, why would a healthy 21 year old ever need to buy health insurance? Something is definitely fishy here.
Because the basic premise of health insurance is to be able to covered for catastrophic injuries/illnesses and not for going to the Doc's for a sniffle?
I don't know. How do we know Obama isn't putting this guy up to it? He's paying $175 per month, after all.
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
Well if a boatload of sick people with preexisting condition aren't trying to buy subsidized insurance, they're dumbasses.
I'm more interested in this dude "Chad Henderson", who the media seem to be currently slobbering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/meet-chad-henderson-the-obamacare-enrollee-tons-of-reporters-are-calling/) as a great example of a young, healthy person who bought insurance on the Obamacare exchange because, you know, it's the socially responsible thing to do. I know this sounds cynical, but I almost wonder if he's an Obama volunteer? Has anyone in the media asked him that?
Yeah, why would a healthy 21 year old ever need to buy health insurance? Something is definitely fishy here.
Because the basic premise of health insurance is to be able to covered for catastrophic injuries/illnesses and not for going to the Doc's for a sniffle?
I don't know. How do we know Obama isn't putting this guy up to it? He's paying $175 per month, after all.
Probably talked to him on his Obamaphone.
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
Well if a boatload of sick people with preexisting condition aren't trying to buy subsidized insurance, they're dumbasses.
I'm more interested in this dude "Chad Henderson", who the media seem to be currently slobbering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/meet-chad-henderson-the-obamacare-enrollee-tons-of-reporters-are-calling/) as a great example of a young, healthy person who bought insurance on the Obamacare exchange because, you know, it's the socially responsible thing to do. I know this sounds cynical, but I almost wonder if he's an Obama volunteer? Has anyone in the media asked him that?
Yeah, why would a healthy 21 year old ever need to buy health insurance? Something is definitely fishy here.
Nuts, when are you going to figure out that when I ask a question, I probably already know the answer? I do appreciate you setting up the punch line, however.
The answer is, no, the media does not appear to be interested in whether Mr. Henderson is an Obama volunteer, but it's right on his LinkedIn page (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chad-henderson/30/69/b70?_mSplash=1).
Chad Henderson, currently employed at Flinstone Child Care Center (the dude works at a daycare :lol:), and volunteer for Obama's Organizing for America. (Oops...)
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
Well if a boatload of sick people with preexisting condition aren't trying to buy subsidized insurance, they're dumbasses.
I'm more interested in this dude "Chad Henderson", who the media seem to be currently slobbering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/meet-chad-henderson-the-obamacare-enrollee-tons-of-reporters-are-calling/) as a great example of a young, healthy person who bought insurance on the Obamacare exchange because, you know, it's the socially responsible thing to do. I know this sounds cynical, but I almost wonder if he's an Obama volunteer? Has anyone in the media asked him that?
Yeah, why would a healthy 21 year old ever need to buy health insurance? Something is definitely fishy here.
Because the basic premise of health insurance is to be able to covered for catastrophic injuries/illnesses and not for going to the Doc's for a sniffle?
I don't know. How do we know Obama isn't putting this guy up to it? He's paying $175 per month, after all.
he's only paying a few dollars a month if he is under the poverty line, as the article states.
-
Has it been mentioned about not one Kansan signing up for Obamacare, and how it's Sebelius' fault or whatever?
http://youtu.be/wcK-qJBMzXI
-
he's only paying a few dollars a month if he is under the poverty line, as the article states.
Henderson purchased a health insurance plan with a $175 monthly premium. While that price does fit in his budget, he was also hoping for a better deal.
Now I just don't know who to believe.
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
Well if a boatload of sick people with preexisting condition aren't trying to buy subsidized insurance, they're dumbasses.
I'm more interested in this dude "Chad Henderson", who the media seem to be currently slobbering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/meet-chad-henderson-the-obamacare-enrollee-tons-of-reporters-are-calling/) as a great example of a young, healthy person who bought insurance on the Obamacare exchange because, you know, it's the socially responsible thing to do. I know this sounds cynical, but I almost wonder if he's an Obama volunteer? Has anyone in the media asked him that?
Yeah, why would a healthy 21 year old ever need to buy health insurance? Something is definitely fishy here.
Nuts, when are you going to figure out that when I ask a question, I probably already know the answer? I do appreciate you setting up the punch line, however.
The answer is, no, the media does not appear to be interested in whether Mr. Henderson is an Obama volunteer, but it's right on his LinkedIn page (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chad-henderson/30/69/b70?_mSplash=1).
Chad Henderson, currently employed at Flinstone Child Care Center (the dude works at a daycare :lol:), and volunteer for Obama's Organizing for America. (Oops...)
HA! We nailed this guy! He's just a lousy Obamateer signing up for health insurance because he wants to keep his Obamaphone and Obamafood. It has nothing to do with worrying about getting sick or injured at all.
-
I don't have kids and I haven't used my health insurance ever. I just get the cheapest health insurance possible, just in case. Are my premiums going to go up?
-
I don't have kids and I haven't used my health insurance ever. I just get the cheapest health insurance possible, just in case. Are my premiums going to go up?
Of course they will. Have they ever not gone up in the past?
-
I don't have kids and I haven't used my health insurance ever. I just get the cheapest health insurance possible, just in case. Are my premiums going to go up?
You can expect a $100+ per month increase.
-
I don't have kids and I haven't used my health insurance ever. I just get the cheapest health insurance possible, just in case. Are my premiums going to go up?
You can expect a $100+ per month increase.
id say at least $600, if not more.
-
I don't have kids and I haven't used my health insurance ever. I just get the cheapest health insurance possible, just in case. Are my premiums going to go up?
Of course they will. Have they ever not gone up in the past?
I meant noticeably.
I don't have kids and I haven't used my health insurance ever. I just get the cheapest health insurance possible, just in case. Are my premiums going to go up?
You can expect a $100+ per month increase.
I don't know if I believe that.
-
I'm sure everyone knows already, but yes, we are 4 days into open enrollment but plans don't start till Jan 1 anyways. People are going to sign up but currently there isn't a big rush, theres still loads of time.
-
I don't have kids and I haven't used my health insurance ever. I just get the cheapest health insurance possible, just in case. Are my premiums going to go up?
Of course they will. Have they ever not gone up in the past?
I meant noticeably.
I don't have kids and I haven't used my health insurance ever. I just get the cheapest health insurance possible, just in case. Are my premiums going to go up?
You can expect a $100+ per month increase.
I don't know if I believe that.
I'm assuming he's mid 20's, currently paying around $70 a month, and not poor.
-
I think it's like $80 a month, but yeah, those things are accurate. I don't think I'll be paying $180 a month after the affordable health care act kicks in. I also have no idea, but that wouldn't be neat.
-
I think it's like $80 a month, but yeah, those things are accurate. I don't think I'll be paying $180 a month after the affordable health care act kicks in. I also have no idea, but that wouldn't be neat.
Depends how long your carrier stays in that state. Also depends if you get a metallic plan or not. There are also non-reform compliant plans that will cover you about the same as a traditional major med. The difference is you would pay the fine plus your non-reform compliant plan premium and it would still be cheaper than a metallic plan.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/
-
So all this stuff about overwhelming traffic on the exchanges crashing the websites ended up being a huge lie and almost nobody has signed up for insurance.
Anyone have a problem with the rediculous propaganda being thrown in our face all day? Very Nazi Germanyish.
Well if a boatload of sick people with preexisting condition aren't trying to buy subsidized insurance, they're dumbasses.
I'm more interested in this dude "Chad Henderson", who the media seem to be currently slobbering over (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/03/meet-chad-henderson-the-obamacare-enrollee-tons-of-reporters-are-calling/) as a great example of a young, healthy person who bought insurance on the Obamacare exchange because, you know, it's the socially responsible thing to do. I know this sounds cynical, but I almost wonder if he's an Obama volunteer? Has anyone in the media asked him that?
Yeah, why would a healthy 21 year old ever need to buy health insurance? Something is definitely fishy here.
Nuts, when are you going to figure out that when I ask a question, I probably already know the answer? I do appreciate you setting up the punch line, however.
The answer is, no, the media does not appear to be interested in whether Mr. Henderson is an Obama volunteer, but it's right on his LinkedIn page (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/chad-henderson/30/69/b70?_mSplash=1).
Chad Henderson, currently employed at Flinstone Child Care Center (the dude works at a daycare :lol:), and volunteer for Obama's Organizing for America. (Oops...)
HA! We nailed this guy! He's just a lousy Obamateer signing up for health insurance because he wants to keep his Obamaphone and Obamafood. It has nothing to do with worrying about getting sick or injured at all.
Always missing the point. Dontcha think that maybe, just maybe, this is something the media should have investigated/reported before holding him up as the Obamacare poster child? Nope, nothing to see here! The media will always need a Chad Henderson or a Sandra Fluke to advance the narrative, and the Democrat machine will happily provide them.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/
You can add a seventh reason to that list: a recently unearthed provision that everyone gets a free puppy, too! I mean, Americans might not "love" Obamacare so much when find out what all this "free" stuff actually costs, but I guess that wasn't the point of the op-ed. Kudos to FoxNews for being "fair and balanced" though. They always keep a few token libtards on the payroll.
-
Just received this article from someone in my organization.
http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-fines-to-be-seized-from-bank-accounts/
-
Just received this article from someone in my organization.
http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-fines-to-be-seized-from-bank-accounts/
what kind of "organization" sends links to infowars? like, your wow clan?
-
Just received this article from someone in my organization.
http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-fines-to-be-seized-from-bank-accounts/
what kind of "organization" sends links to infowars? like, your wow clan?
Halo 4 Clan
-
I don't have kids and I haven't used my health insurance ever. I just get the cheapest health insurance possible, just in case. Are my premiums going to go up?
Yes, by a lot. Insurance companies are going to be all like, "Oh, crap! Obamacare! Didn't see that one coming!"
-
Just received this article from someone in my organization.
http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-fines-to-be-seized-from-bank-accounts/
what kind of "organization" sends links to infowars? like, your wow clan?
#libtardpost
-
Creating federal policy based on an anecdote named chad is the reason this law is so mumped up in the first place.
-
Creating federal policy based on an anecdote named chad is the reason this law is so mumped up in the first place.
I'm pretty sure this policy was created well before anybody ever heard of Obamachad, but maybe I'm wrong. :dunno:
-
Creating federal policy based on an anecdote named chad is the reason this law is so mumped up in the first place.
I'm pretty sure this policy was created well before anybody ever heard of Obamachad, but maybe I'm wrong. :dunno:
Stop being a Dumbass.
Also, lol at the guy who thinks Obama is cutting the deficit. More disingenuous than the congress exempt from aca nonsense I started.
-
Creating federal policy based on an anecdote named chad is the reason this law is so mumped up in the first place.
I'm pretty sure this policy was created well before anybody ever heard of Obamachad, but maybe I'm wrong. :dunno:
Obamachad. I like it. Looks like the White House is now fishing for sob stories (http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-asking-for-sad-shutdown-stories/article/2536836) about how they've been affected by the SHUTDOWN. Quick, somebody ask Obamachad!
-
I bet there is an Obamacarrie out there somewhere just waiting tell us all about all the free Obortions she will be having starting in January.
-
I bet there is an Obamacarrie out there somewhere just waiting tell us all about all the free Obortions she will be having starting in January.
That's good.
And now it turns out Obamachad is more than just an activist, he's a liar. Never bought a plan, just tweeted his story to some news outlets to advance the cause. And the media did not fact check because... it advanced the cause. Just another pathetic example of media bias.
-
I bet there is an Obamacarrie out there somewhere just waiting tell us all about all the free Obortions she will be having starting in January.
I don't understand why abortion is limited to unwanted babies. Why not abort the Chad's of the world?
-
my company is getting taxed for healthcare, and they are passing those taxes on down to me
-
my company is getting taxed for healthcare, and they are passing those taxes on down to me
Congratulations.
-
Our health insurance has gone up a crap ton. Don't like it 1 bit.
-
My insurance went down.
I think some of you need to switch employers.
-
my contribution went up like $2.60. obama! :shakesfist:
-
My insurance has gone up every year in the last 10 years.
-
How does what's happening now affect your conributions to a plan impacted by ACA mandates that took effect in 2010 and 2011?
-
It looks like some of the guys at GPC are really experiencing hard times due to Obamacare. Todd M is having to sell his house so he can prepare for the hard times coming. Just a real sob story.
http://kansasstate.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1707&tid=167186484&mid=167186484&sid=889&style=2
-
It looks like some of the guys at GPC are really experiencing hard times due to Obamacare. Todd M is having to sell his house so he can prepare for the hard times coming. Just a real sob story.
http://kansasstate.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1707&tid=167186484&mid=167186484&sid=889&style=2
i couldn't read any more after the part about he and his wife discussing divorce to protect each other from the fallout of barrycare :frown:
-
It looks like some of the guys at GPC are really experiencing hard times due to Obamacare. Todd M is having to sell his house so he can prepare for the hard times coming. Just a real sob story.
http://kansasstate.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1707&tid=167186484&mid=167186484&sid=889&style=2
i couldn't read any more after the part about he and his wife discussing divorce to protect each other from the fallout of barrycare :frown:
Did you get to the part where he said he would rather go to jail than pay the fee if he ever loses his insurance?
-
Todd, lol.
-
It looks like some of the guys at GPC are really experiencing hard times due to Obamacare. Todd M is having to sell his house so he can prepare for the hard times coming. Just a real sob story.
http://kansasstate.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1707&tid=167186484&mid=167186484&sid=889&style=2
i couldn't read any more after the part about he and his wife discussing divorce to protect each other from the fallout of barrycare :frown:
Did you get to the part where he said he would rather go to jail than pay the fee if he ever loses his insurance?
yeah, thankfully it was in the divorce paragraph so i caught that one! barry is basically just arresting people himself at this point. sad, really
-
I talked at length with our rep specifically about barrycare, it's far worse than anyone even knows. She is preparing to lose her job in a couple years, her and her husband are selling their house (as are we) to prepare for massive increases in our health care costs, which I've explained on here multiple times.
The Christian in me knows God is in control, but the weak fleshly side of me would enjoy nothing more than to punch each and every Barry supporter in the face for doing his to my wife!!
You have no clue what's coming...but you will.
For the record, I will never, ever enroll in barrycare and should I lose my insurance, I will not pay the fine either. My wife and I have already talked about divorcing on paper to protect each other financially. On her side it's for medical bills and on my side it's for when I refuse to pay Barry's mandated policy tax. So, you may have me as a guinea pig in the coming years to see if not paying will put you in prison?? You can only hope.
I pray you never breed...
:lol:
-
Articles like this just give me a nice warm and fuzzy feeling. http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area (http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area)
Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.
Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.
Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.
"Welcome to the club," said Robert Laszewksi, a prominent health care consultant and president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Virginia.
For years, the nation has been embroiled in the political rhetoric of "Obamacare," but this past week the reality of the new law sank in as millions of Americans had their first good look at how the 3? 1/2-year-old legislation will affect their pocketbooks.
This much quickly became clear:
As state- and federal-run health insurance exchanges debuted across the country offering a range of prices for different tiers of insurance coverage, the new online marketplaces -- which represent the centerpiece of Obamacare -- could greatly benefit more than 40 million Americans who now lack coverage. But an additional 16 million -- who buy individual health insurance policies on the open market -- are finding out that their plans may not comply with the new law, which requires 10 essential benefits such as maternity care, mental health care and prescription drug coverage.
In California, 1.9 million people buy plans on the open market, according to officials with Covered California, the state's new health insurance exchange. And many of them are steaming mad.
"There's going to be a number of people surprised" by their bills, said Jonathan Wu, a co-founder of ValuePenguin, a consumer finance website. "The upper-middle class are the people who are essentially being asked to foot the bill, and that's true across the country."
Covered California spokesman Dana Howard maintained that in public presentations the exchange has always made clear that there will be winners and losers under Obamacare.
"Some people will see an increase who are already on the individual market purchasing insurance," he said, "but most people will not."
Covered California officials note that at least 570,000 of the 1.9 million people who buy their own insurance should be eligible for subsidies that will reduce their premiums.
Even those who don't qualify for the tax subsidies could see their rates drop because Obamacare doesn't allow insurers to charge people more if they have pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and cancer, he said.
People like Marilynn Gray-Raine.
The 64-year-old Danville artist, who survived breast cancer, has purchased health insurance for herself for decades. She watched her Anthem Blue Cross monthly premiums rise from $317 in 2005 to $1,298 in 2013. But she found out last week from the Covered California site that her payments will drop to about $795 a month.
But people with no pre-existing conditions like Vinson, a 60-year-old retired teacher, and Waschura, a 52-year-old self-employed engineer, are making up the difference.
"I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today," Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.
"I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy." :lol:
Both Vinson and Waschura have adjusted gross incomes greater than four times the federal poverty level -- the cutoff for a tax credit. And while both said they anticipated their rates would go up, they didn't realize they would rise so much.
"Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally." :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Sounds like those people should keep their old plans rather than sign up for the exchange plans quoted. Problem solved.
-
Sounds like those people should keep their old plans rather than sign up for the exchange plans quoted. Problem solved.
They can't. Their old plans have been axed due to the new minimum coverage requirements. The old "if you like your health plan you can keep it" lie, etc.
And the libtard response is: "well, sure the price went up, but look at all the extra coverage they get now!" (which they don't need, but that's a minor technicality, amirite?)
-
Sounds like those people should keep their old plans rather than sign up for the exchange plans quoted. Problem solved.
They can't. Their old plans have been axed due to the new minimum coverage requirements. The old "if you like your health plan you can keep it" lie, etc.
And the libtard response is: "well, sure the price went up, but look at all the extra coverage they get now!" (which they don't need, but that's a minor technicality, amirite?)
What new minimum coverage requirements?
-
Sounds like those people should keep their old plans rather than sign up for the exchange plans quoted. Problem solved.
They can't. Their old plans have been axed due to the new minimum coverage requirements. The old "if you like your health plan you can keep it" lie, etc.
And the libtard response is: "well, sure the price went up, but look at all the extra coverage they get now!" (which they don't need, but that's a minor technicality, amirite?)
What new minimum coverage requirements?
Pretty sure you're not serious, but just in case. CNN Money: Most individual health insurance isn't good enough for Obamacare (http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/03/news/economy/health-insurance-exchanges/index.html)
-
A person would be stupid to keep an individual policy after Obamacare starts. Nobody has an individual plan that they like.
-
Sounds like those people should keep their old plans rather than sign up for the exchange plans quoted. Problem solved.
They can't. Their old plans have been axed due to the new minimum coverage requirements. The old "if you like your health plan you can keep it" lie, etc.
And the libtard response is: "well, sure the price went up, but look at all the extra coverage they get now!" (which they don't need, but that's a minor technicality, amirite?)
What new minimum coverage requirements?
Pretty sure you're not serious, but just in case. CNN Money: Most individual health insurance isn't good enough for Obamacare (http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/03/news/economy/health-insurance-exchanges/index.html)
It says their conclusions are based on 2010 data. The AFA mandates that would affect those people's rates went into effect from 2010 to 2012. I was asking about mandates that would change their rates from 2013 to 2014. I don't know of any.
-
Sounds like those people should keep their old plans rather than sign up for the exchange plans quoted. Problem solved.
They can't. Their old plans have been axed due to the new minimum coverage requirements. The old "if you like your health plan you can keep it" lie, etc.
And the libtard response is: "well, sure the price went up, but look at all the extra coverage they get now!" (which they don't need, but that's a minor technicality, amirite?)
What new minimum coverage requirements?
Pretty sure you're not serious, but just in case. CNN Money: Most individual health insurance isn't good enough for Obamacare (http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/03/news/economy/health-insurance-exchanges/index.html)
It says their conclusions are based on 2010 data. The AFA mandates that would affect those people's rates went into effect from 2010 to 2012. I was asking about mandates that would change their rates from 2013 to 2014. I don't know of any.
So they're lying then, kind of like Obamachad? Don't worry, I'm sure WaPo and the NYT already have a team of reporters en route to vet their story. Stay tuned...
-
Sounds like those people should keep their old plans rather than sign up for the exchange plans quoted. Problem solved.
They can't. Their old plans have been axed due to the new minimum coverage requirements. The old "if you like your health plan you can keep it" lie, etc.
And the libtard response is: "well, sure the price went up, but look at all the extra coverage they get now!" (which they don't need, but that's a minor technicality, amirite?)
What new minimum coverage requirements?
Pretty sure you're not serious, but just in case. CNN Money: Most individual health insurance isn't good enough for Obamacare (http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/03/news/economy/health-insurance-exchanges/index.html)
It says their conclusions are based on 2010 data. The AFA mandates that would affect those people's rates went into effect from 2010 to 2012. I was asking about mandates that would change their rates from 2013 to 2014. I don't know of any.
So they're lying then, kind of like Obamachad? Don't worry, I'm sure WaPo and the NYT already have a team of reporters en route to vet their story. Stay tuned...
Do they say there are changes to non-employee sponsored plans from 2013 to 2014? If so, yes, they're lying.
-
My contribution is increasing 67% to $25 a month. Thanks Obama!
-
Sounds like those people should keep their old plans rather than sign up for the exchange plans quoted. Problem solved.
They can't. Their old plans have been axed due to the new minimum coverage requirements. The old "if you like your health plan you can keep it" lie, etc.
And the libtard response is: "well, sure the price went up, but look at all the extra coverage they get now!" (which they don't need, but that's a minor technicality, amirite?)
What new minimum coverage requirements?
Pretty sure you're not serious, but just in case. CNN Money: Most individual health insurance isn't good enough for Obamacare (http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/03/news/economy/health-insurance-exchanges/index.html)
It says their conclusions are based on 2010 data. The AFA mandates that would affect those people's rates went into effect from 2010 to 2012. I was asking about mandates that would change their rates from 2013 to 2014. I don't know of any.
So they're lying then, kind of like Obamachad? Don't worry, I'm sure WaPo and the NYT already have a team of reporters en route to vet their story. Stay tuned...
Do they say there are changes to non-employee sponsored plans from 2013 to 2014? If so, yes, they're lying.
Yeah.... I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that they did, in fact, receive the letters they describe from the their insurance companies. Maybe their insurers are lying? Damned greedy insurance companies!! :shakesfist:
-
The CNN article makes it sound like the crappy bronze plan is so much better than what most people currently have, yet they don't mention any specifics. I think what makes most plans fall short is the mandatory coverage for things like birth control and breast pumps, which most people don't really care about but are going to pay extra for anyway.
-
Oh wait, I forgot this part of the article:
"Welcome to the club," said Robert Laszewksi, a prominent health care consultant and president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Virginia.
So he's obviously a liar, too. Sorry chum, if they had come to you for a quote, you could have set them straight about how Obamacare is actually supposed to work.
-
Oh wait, I forgot this part of the article:
"Welcome to the club," said Robert Laszewksi, a prominent health care consultant and president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Virginia.
So he's obviously a liar, too. Sorry chum, if they had come to you for a quote, you could have set them straight about how Obamacare is actually supposed to work.
What are the changes from 2013 to 2014 that affect these people?
-
Oh wait, I forgot this part of the article:
"Welcome to the club," said Robert Laszewksi, a prominent health care consultant and president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Virginia.
So he's obviously a liar, too. Sorry chum, if they had come to you for a quote, you could have set them straight about how Obamacare is actually supposed to work.
What are the changes from 2013 to 2014 that affect these people?
I don't know. All I know is what is in the article, and many others on the same topic. If you want to claim that they're lying, or the insurance companies are lying, or the insurance expert quoted in the article is lying, based on your personal Obamacare expertise, more power to you.
-
Hold the phone, turns out that all it took was a little googling to see what's going on. The "minimum essential coverage" doesn't take effect until January 1, 2014 (https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Individual_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf). In fact, until just a few months ago, the HHS was still issuing regulations as to what "minimum essential coverage" even means. So yes, I'd say that quite a lot will change for people going into 2014.
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
-
Oh wait, I forgot this part of the article:
"Welcome to the club," said Robert Laszewksi, a prominent health care consultant and president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Virginia.
So he's obviously a liar, too. Sorry chum, if they had come to you for a quote, you could have set them straight about how Obamacare is actually supposed to work.
What are the changes from 2013 to 2014 that affect these people?
I don't know. All I know is what is in the article, and many others on the same topic. If you want to claim that they're lying, or the insurance companies are lying, or the insurance expert quoted in the article is lying, based on your personal Obamacare expertise, more power to you.
I would say that, for whatever reason, the people who write those articles draw invalid conclusions due to piecing together quotes and information from disparate contexts. Is that so hard to believe? Especially when you consider that for every anti-Obamacare article, there is a contradictory pro-Obamacare article? You could just look at the law yourself, you know.
-
Hold the phone, turns out that all it took was a little googling to see what's going on. The "minimum essential coverage" doesn't take effect until January 1, 2014 (https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Individual_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf). In fact, until just a few months ago, the HHS was still issuing regulations as to what "minimum essential coverage" even means. So yes, I'd say that quite a lot will change for people going into 2014.
That's not it. The people from your article already had minimum essential coverage in 2013.
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Yeah, but the maternity benefits will be a big add on Jan 1.
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Ok, thank you anonymous goEMAW poster with Scotty avatar for your expertise on Obamacare. I'll just discount everything I've read.
-
I guess doctors must really love Obamacare.
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Yeah, but the maternity benefits will be a big add on Jan 1.
That only applies to the exchange and wouldn't affect other plans. (Besides, that's almost always covered already anyway.)
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Ok, thank you anonymous goEMAW poster with Scotty avatar for your expertise on Obamacare. I'll just discount everything I've read.
Don't take my word for it. Read the law!
-
chum1, your avatar is very trustworthy fwiw
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Yeah, but the maternity benefits will be a big add on Jan 1.
That only applies to the exchange and wouldn't affect other plans. (Besides, that's almost always covered already anyway.)
We are talking about the exchange plans. Group plans are different but individual and family plans that are HCR compliant through the exchange will have to have all the EHB included or you will pay the fine. Also your wrong, maternity benefits are hardly if ever covered in the individual market.
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Yeah, but the maternity benefits will be a big add on Jan 1.
That only applies to the exchange and wouldn't affect other plans. (Besides, that's almost always covered already anyway.)
We are talking about the exchange plans. Group plans are different but individual and family plans that are HCR compliant through the exchange will have to have all the EHB included or you will pay the fine. Also your wrong, maternity benefits are hardly if ever covered in the individual market.
We talking about all of it. And group plans outnumber individual plans by a fuckload.
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Ok, thank you anonymous goEMAW poster with Scotty avatar for your expertise on Obamacare. I'll just discount everything I've read.
Don't take my word for it. Read the law!
Rather than me wading through a couple thousand pages, and tens of thousands more in regulations, why not give me the cite?
-
chum1, your avatar is very trustworthy fwiw
Of all the people to trust, he is definitely the guy
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Ok, thank you anonymous goEMAW poster with Scotty avatar for your expertise on Obamacare. I'll just discount everything I've read.
Don't take my word for it. Read the law!
Rather than me wading through a couple thousand pages, and tens of thousands more in regulations, why not give me the cite?
Aren't you asking for something that he claims isn't there? How would he give you the cite for that?
-
lol @ k-s-u-.
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Ok, thank you anonymous goEMAW poster with Scotty avatar for your expertise on Obamacare. I'll just discount everything I've read.
Don't take my word for it. Read the law!
Rather than me wading through a couple thousand pages, and tens of thousands more in regulations, why not give me the cite?
Aren't you asking for something that he claims isn't there? How would he give you the cite for that?
No idea. First he insists that "Minimum Essential Coverage" has actually been mandated since - what - 2012? Provides no proof of this whatsoever, then tells me to "read the law." :dunno: If you've got something in the law to back up your claim, cite it. Otherwise, I'll take the word of the insurance expert cited in the article, as well as what I've found myself online that MEC commences January 1, 2104. You can just go on believing everyone in that article is another Obamachad.
-
2104 is kind of far off
-
EHB(essential health benefit) plans are what they are going to be called. Some of the things that in them have already been added to current plans. Like wellness visits and stuff like that. That's why Jan 1 is such a big deal, because thats when the exchanges and full blown HCR takes effect.
Almost all of the essential minimum coverage stuff was required to be added between 2010 and 2012.
Ok, thank you anonymous goEMAW poster with Scotty avatar for your expertise on Obamacare. I'll just discount everything I've read.
Don't take my word for it. Read the law!
Rather than me wading through a couple thousand pages, and tens of thousands more in regulations, why not give me the cite?
Aren't you asking for something that he claims isn't there? How would he give you the cite for that?
No idea. First he insists that "Minimum Essential Coverage" has actually been mandated since - what - 2012? Provides no proof of this whatsoever, then tells me to "read the law." :dunno: If you've got something in the law to back up your claim, cite it. Otherwise, I'll take the word of the insurance expert cited in the article, as well as what I've found myself online that MEC commences January 1, 2104. You can just go on believing everyone in that article is another Obamachad.
Well yeah... Someone at said point said something like "Don't believe everything you read..." But I'm sure they were either a conspiracy theorist or a complete moron.
-
2104 is kind of far off
I know right? All the articles I read said 2014, but it's really 2104. They just misread the law. Stupid articles. We've got plenty of time. Hell, by then we'll probably all be turned into zombies by global warming.
-
Sebelius to get canned? Probably not, lol. Not from this lame duck admin
-
she got beat up pretty bad on the daily show last night. Stewart was visibly frustrated with her.
-
Sebelius to get canned? Probably not, lol. Not from this lame duck admin
The daily show thing was pretty funny. Funny that she's there in the first place still trying to sell this turd, and the interview was even funnier. The best part was Stewart spending the whole interview talking about how the govmnt totally botched this, but then closing with the caveat that single-payer complete govmnt control would be better. :lol:
-
:buh-bye:
-
just a fun DYK: she is one of only 2 democrats i've ever voted for :D
-
just a fun DYK: she is one of only 2 democrats i've ever voted for :D
You picked a winner! :sdeek:
-
just a fun DYK: she is one of only 2 democrats i've ever voted for :D
You picked a winner! :sdeek:
Those were the days...
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnicedeb.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F02%2Ftiller-sebelius.jpg%3Fw%3D443&hash=3e5f236f3f28c307659b013f9309ee74025a7f88)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2Fassets%2Ftiller-sebelius-trifec3.jpg&hash=687a608dc8c5d65ced8e96e74946f18c4d98ea60)
-
just a fun DYK: she is one of only 2 democrats i've ever voted for :D
You picked a winner! :sdeek:
the other was obama :gocho:
-
just a fun DYK: she is one of only 2 democrats i've ever voted for :D
You picked a winner! :sdeek:
the other was obama :gocho:
:sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :sdeek: :Carl:
-
obama's press conference today made me wish i'd voted for him. he was great.
-
obama's press conference today made me wish i'd voted for him. he was great.
Yeah, thankfully there's still enough cash for the TOTUS.
-
Oh man. From the Maryland exchange website (http://www.marylandhealthconnection.gov/internet-policies-fraud):
Should you decide to apply for health coverage through Maryland Health Connection, the information you supply in your application will be used to determine whether you are eligible for health and dental coverage offered through Maryland Health Connection and for insurance affordability programs. It also may be used to assist you in making a payment for the insurance plan you select, and for related automated reminders or other activities permitted by law. We will preserve the privacy of personal records and protect confidential or privileged information in full accordance with federal and State law. We will not sell your information to others. Any information that you provide to us in your application will be used only to carry out the functions of Maryland Health Connection. The only exception to this policy is that we may share information provided in your application with the appropriate authorities for law enforcement and audit activities.
-
obama's press conference today made me wish i'd voted for him. he was great.
Yeah, he's just dreamy, isn't he? Did he recite the litany of blatant lies he told back in 2010 when selling this turd? "If you like you health plan, you can keep it!" "If you like your doctor, you can keep them!" "Premiums will drop by $2,500 per family!"
-
it was mostly about the debt ceiling.
-
it was mostly about the debt ceiling.
Oh, so did he compare the Republicans to arsonists and retell the lie for the umpteenth time that failing to raise the debt ceiling would mean defaulting on our debts?
-
Never mind, a quick perusal of the reports from his speech indicate that he did just that, quite a few times actually! What a shameful liar.
-
i hope K-S-U-Wildcats can make it to 2014/16 when the R's take back the USA.
:cheers:
-
i hope K-S-U-Wildcats can make it to 2014/16 when the R's take back the USA.
:cheers:
not with all these new illegal voters.
-
so did he compare the Republicans to arsonists and retell the lie for the umpteenth time that failing to raise the debt ceiling would mean defaulting on our debts?
i thought he did a great job of explaining things so that even stupid people could follow the process, without coming off as condescending. but maybe i was wrong.
-
If you thought he explained things well, you are a moron of epic proportions.
The guy can't even wrap his had around rudimentary economic and fiscal vernaculars.
-
If you thought he explained things well, you are a moron of epic proportions.
The guy can't even wrap his had around rudimentary economic and fiscal vernaculars.
And Barry is always condescending to somebody
-
"We're gonna make sure the wealthiest are paying their fair share by increasing income taxes on the top 2%"
:sdeek:
"Raising the debt ceiling won't raise our debt by a dime"
:shakesfist:
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/stewart-to-sebelius-on-health-care-law-am-i-a-stupid-man/
-
If you thought he explained things well, you are a moron of epic proportions.
The guy can't even wrap his had around rudimentary economic and fiscal vernaculars.
you don't even know the difference between the debt and the deficit!
-
"We're gonna make sure the wealthiest are paying their fair share by increasing income taxes on the top 2%"
:sdeek:
"Raising the debt ceiling won't raise our debt by a dime"
:shakesfist:
did you watch the video i linked? it's really very well done.
-
If you thought he explained things well, you are a moron of epic proportions.
The guy can't even wrap his had around rudimentary economic and fiscal vernaculars.
you don't even know the difference between the debt and the deficit!
Its okay with me that you're okay with your credibility on the topic of econ and fiscal policy being limited to the troglodytes and other fools on this board. Just an FYI in case you dont feel the need to bother with the trite retorts going forward.
-
:lol:
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/stewart-to-sebelius-on-health-care-law-am-i-a-stupid-man/
Stewart basically complains that the new healthcare law isn't liberal enough, and yet, you seem to be advocating his position. Is President Obama's healthcare law too moderate now for Republicans?
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/stewart-to-sebelius-on-health-care-law-am-i-a-stupid-man/
Stewart basically complains that the new healthcare law isn't liberal enough, and yet, you seem to be advocating his position. Is President Obama's healthcare law too moderate now for Republicans?
Yeah, no. It's amusing watching Stewart take Sebelius to task for how completely incompetent the government has been in implementing Obamacare, and it's even more amusing that Stewart closes with the caveat that "you know, the better thing to do would be for the government to take over the entire healthcare industry with single payer." I'm not surprised at all that you missed this contradiction.
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/08/stewart-to-sebelius-on-health-care-law-am-i-a-stupid-man/
Stewart basically complains that the new healthcare law isn't liberal enough, and yet, you seem to be advocating his position. Is President Obama's healthcare law too moderate now for Republicans?
Yeah, no. It's amusing watching Stewart take Sebelius to task for how completely incompetent the government has been in implementing Obamacare, and it's even more amusing that Stewart closes with the caveat that "you know, the better thing to do would be for the government to take over the entire healthcare industry with single payer." I'm not surprised at all that you missed this contradiction.
Are you blind, or just dumb?
-
Who gives a eff what John Stewart thinks, he is a rough ridin' comedian. Oh yeah, that's where libtards get there news...
-
Who gives a eff what John Stewart thinks, he is a rough ridin' comedian. Oh yeah, that's where libtards get there news...
It's Jon, fuckface!
-
Who gives a eff what John Stewart thinks, he is a rough ridin' comedian. Oh yeah, that's where libtards get there news...
It's Jon, fuckface!
Still don't give a eff
-
Who gives a eff what John Stewart thinks, he is a rough ridin' comedian. Oh yeah, that's where libtards get there news...
It's Jon, fuckface!
Still don't give a eff
Have some respect, Fake Sugar Jerk (WARNING, A REAL BIG SUGAR JERK!)
-
Okay
#michigancatpost
-
Guess how much we spent on that wonderful healthcare.gov website? Are you ready for this? $634,000. No wait, I left off a few zeros. $634,000,000. $634 million. Yes, what a wonderful preview of single payer coverage!
-
Guess how much we spent on that wonderful healthcare.gov website? Are you ready for this? $634,000. No wait, I left off a few zeros. $634,000,000. $634 million. Yes, what a wonderful preview of single payer coverage!
Sounds like a made up number to me.
-
Guess how much we spent on that wonderful healthcare.gov website? Are you ready for this? $634,000. No wait, I left off a few zeros. $634,000,000. $634 million. Yes, what a wonderful preview of single payer coverage!
Sounds like a made up number to me.
No, if you underline something it has to be a fact.
-
Guess how much we spent on that wonderful healthcare.gov website? Are you ready for this? $634,000. No wait, I left off a few zeros. $634,000,000. $634 million. Yes, what a wonderful preview of single payer coverage!
Sounds like a made up number to me.
When numbers get big enough, they all sound made up. Like $17 trillion, for example. Might as well say $17 bazillion gazillion, amiright?
Initial price tag was $93 million, which is staggering enough. They went a little over that budget. http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/obamacare-healthcare-gov-website-cost/)
How do you even spend $634 million - sorry, $634 million - on building this turd? Oh right, the government did it.
-
Who gives a eff what John Stewart thinks, he is a rough ridin' comedian. Oh yeah, that's where libtards get there news...
The people who watch the daily show/colbert report are better informed than people who watch nothing at all.
People who watch nothing at all are better informed than people who watch fox news.
-
Fun fact. Jon Stewart is very rich and puts all of his monies in trusts named after his pets.
-
Who gives a eff what John Stewart thinks, he is a rough ridin' comedian. Oh yeah, that's where libtards get there news...
The people who watch the daily show/colbert report are better informed than people who watch nothing at all.
People who watch nothing at all are better informed than people who watch fox news.
Good grief #superlibtardpost
-
Just did my estimate at insureks.org (http://insureks.org/taxcredit.php#results) :sdeek:, guess I'm keeping my current policy. Life as a have getting tougher all the time.
-
Just did my estimate at insureks.org (http://insureks.org/taxcredit.php#results) :sdeek:, guess I'm keeping my current policy. Life as a have getting tougher all the time.
Details please. Haven't checked out the exchanges myself.
-
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had a front-row view of the problems plaguing the website that the government established to allow people to shop for health insurance under Obamacare.
Sebelius and Steelers Chairman Dan Rooney were at an enrollment and education event on Thursday at Heinz Field to promote Healthcare.gov, but people who showed up encountered problems in signing up for coverage on the website.
Unable to handle heavy online traffic and riddled with technical glitches, the website has been a source of criticism of the Obama administration and the new Affordable Care Act since its start on Oct. 1.
Sebelius, who is making similar trips to cities across the country to spread the word about the website, told the audience of about 100 people that Healthcare.gov was “open for business.”
“Believe me, we had some early glitches,” said Sebelius, who was introduced by Rooney, a backer of the law. “But it's getting better every day.”
At the back of the room, it was a different story. About 20 people armed with laptops and certified by the government to sign up people for coverage were meeting with uninsured people, answering questions and fruitlessly trying to access the website.
LaKesha Lowry, 41, came to the event to find out about her health insurance options. But the North Side resident said she was not able to access the site, even with the help of a certified application counselor.
“It said, ‘Try again later,' ” Lowry said.
Asked about the ongoing problems with the website and the fact that people at a government enrollment event couldn't sign up, Sebelius told reporters that she didn't know what problems were affecting service at Heinz Field. The government has made hardware and software upgrades to improve the site, she said, and it is working for many people.
-
Just did my estimate at insureks.org (http://insureks.org/taxcredit.php#results) :sdeek:, guess I'm keeping my current policy. Life as a have getting tougher all the time.
Details please. Haven't checked out the exchanges myself.
Click the link. It takes 30 seconds, maybe less.
-
$382/month!!! :billdance:
-
Just did my estimate at insureks.org (http://insureks.org/taxcredit.php#results) :sdeek:, guess I'm keeping my current policy. Life as a have getting tougher all the time.
Details please. Haven't checked out the exchanges myself.
Click the link. It takes 30 seconds, maybe less.
Holy crap. $881/month, and that's before the rates go through the roof next year after mostly sick people sign up. :thumbsup:
-
$202 :billdance:
-
Just did my estimate at insureks.org (http://insureks.org/taxcredit.php#results) :sdeek:, guess I'm keeping my current policy. Life as a have getting tougher all the time.
Details please. Haven't checked out the exchanges myself.
Click the link. It takes 30 seconds, maybe less.
Holy crap. $881/month, and that's before the rates go through the roof next year after mostly sick people sign up. :thumbsup:
You must be old as crap. Good news for you, you'll be on Medicare soon.
-
Just did my estimate at insureks.org (http://insureks.org/taxcredit.php#results) :sdeek:, guess I'm keeping my current policy. Life as a have getting tougher all the time.
Details please. Haven't checked out the exchanges myself.
Click the link. It takes 30 seconds, maybe less.
Holy crap. $881/month, and that's before the rates go through the roof next year after mostly sick people sign up. :thumbsup:
do you have like over a million kids?
-
holy crap i basically had to hack that website to make it show that high an estimate :sdeek:
-
holy crap i basically had to hack that website to make it show that high an estimate :sdeek:
I just did 2 40 year old adults with 10 kids making $1,000,000 a year and the premium came to $907.00
-
Just did my estimate at insureks.org (http://insureks.org/taxcredit.php#results) :sdeek:, guess I'm keeping my current policy. Life as a have getting tougher all the time.
Details please. Haven't checked out the exchanges myself.
Click the link. It takes 30 seconds, maybe less.
Holy crap. $881/month, and that's before the rates go through the roof next year after mostly sick people sign up. :thumbsup:
What is your current premium? Mine would be more than that if I had kids, but I think I probably have a better copay and deductible than the silver level of Obamacare.
-
No dental, tho
-
holy crap i basically had to hack that website to make it show that high an estimate :sdeek:
I just did 2 40 year old adults with 10 kids making $1,000,000 a year and the premium came to $907.00
They are secretly subsidizing as the number of kids increases. The California exchange doesn't even count more than 3 kids.
-
holy crap i basically had to hack that website to make it show that high an estimate :sdeek:
I just did 2 40 year old adults with 10 kids making $1,000,000 a year and the premium came to $907.00
They are secretly subsidizing as the number of kids increases. The California exchange doesn't even count more than 3 kids.
I just checked the KS one and the premiums don't go up for more than 3 either.
-
What level of insurance are these estimates for?
-
This will be different through my employer, right?
-
holy crap i basically had to hack that website to make it show that high an estimate :sdeek:
I just did 2 40 year old adults with 10 kids making $1,000,000 a year and the premium came to $907.00
They are secretly subsidizing as the number of kids increases. The California exchange doesn't even count more than 3 kids.
I just checked the KS one and the premiums don't go up for more than 3 either.
Mormons and Catholics rejoice.
-
holy crap i basically had to hack that website to make it show that high an estimate :sdeek:
I just did 2 40 year old adults with 10 kids making $1,000,000 a year and the premium came to $907.00
They are secretly subsidizing as the number of kids increases. The California exchange doesn't even count more than 3 kids.
I just checked the KS one and the premiums don't go up for more than 3 either.
my insurance is the same if i have one kid or fifty...
-
Just did my estimate at insureks.org (http://insureks.org/taxcredit.php#results) :sdeek:, guess I'm keeping my current policy. Life as a have getting tougher all the time.
Details please. Haven't checked out the exchanges myself.
Click the link. It takes 30 seconds, maybe less.
Holy crap. $881/month, and that's before the rates go through the roof next year after mostly sick people sign up. :thumbsup:
do you have like over a million kids?
3 kids, mid 30s, and a good income such that I don't qualify for subsidies.
-
Has anyone actually gone beyond the estimate to actually submit your info and get some prices? I'm assuming the estimate you get is for "bronze level" coverage.
-
Just did my estimate at insureks.org (http://insureks.org/taxcredit.php#results) :sdeek:, guess I'm keeping my current policy. Life as a have getting tougher all the time.
Details please. Haven't checked out the exchanges myself.
Click the link. It takes 30 seconds, maybe less.
Holy crap. $881/month, and that's before the rates go through the roof next year after mostly sick people sign up. :thumbsup:
do you have like over a million kids?
3 kids, mid 30s, and a good income such that I don't qualify for subsidies.
Not sure who you work for but, probably due to that good income; your generous employer provides insurance...
The ACA was set up to provide affordable insurance for those who are not as fortunate.
Anecdotal story: My mom works for a very small doctors office in a rural area, she has been there forever. He doesn't provide health insurance. She had been getting it for herself with no prior conditions, fairly healthy, mid-fifties to the tune of $900/mo. ACA will help her.
-
holy crap i basically had to hack that website to make it show that high an estimate :sdeek:
I just did 2 40 year old adults with 10 kids making $1,000,000 a year and the premium came to $907.00
They are secretly subsidizing as the number of kids increases. The California exchange doesn't even count more than 3 kids.
I just checked the KS one and the premiums don't go up for more than 3 either.
my insurance is the same if i have one kid or fifty...
I think just about every insurance policy works that way. I could see the subsidy for Obamacare maybe lowering your rate if you have a bunch of kids or something, sort of like your tax burden get lowered.
-
Has anyone actually gone beyond the estimate to actually submit your info and get some prices? I'm assuming the estimate you get is for "bronze level" coverage.
I played around on the federal site just a little bit, and it provides estimates for silver level coverage. I haven't looked far enough to actually see what "silver level" means, though. The earlier point somebody else brought up about these rates not including dental was a good one, imo. I have no idea what dental insurance costs, but it's probably enough to keep the south toothless.
-
There is zero percent chance that k-s-u is under 50.
-
There is zero percent chance that k-s-u is under 50.
Probably less chance that he has a good income.
-
Has anyone actually gone beyond the estimate to actually submit your info and get some prices? I'm assuming the estimate you get is for "bronze level" coverage.
I played around on the federal site just a little bit, and it provides estimates for silver level coverage. I haven't looked far enough to actually see what "silver level" means, though. The earlier point somebody else brought up about these rates not including dental was a good one, imo. I have no idea what dental insurance costs, but it's probably enough to keep the south toothless.
Dental insurance is pretty cheap, like less than $20 per month, but there's almost always a good chunk out of pocket for most procedures. Usually get 2 free checkups per year. It's worth it if you care about your teeth.
-
Has anyone actually gone beyond the estimate to actually submit your info and get some prices? I'm assuming the estimate you get is for "bronze level" coverage.
I played around on the federal site just a little bit, and it provides estimates for silver level coverage. I haven't looked far enough to actually see what "silver level" means, though. The earlier point somebody else brought up about these rates not including dental was a good one, imo. I have no idea what dental insurance costs, but it's probably enough to keep the south toothless.
Dental insurance is pretty cheap, like less than $20 per month, but there's almost always a good chunk out of pocket for most procedures. Usually get 2 free checkups per year. It's worth it if you care about your teeth.
I don't have any idea what my dental plan costs, but I don't get any free checkups. I pay 50% of everything.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F10%2FHealthcare.gov_.jpg&hash=5bd758b281006eb0aed06077cd444282fe1875c5)
-
how long and how hard did you laugh at that K-S-U?
-
how long and how hard did you laugh at that K-S-U?
I just lold pretty hard
-
$450 for myself and my wife, pretending we live in riley county. assuming my employer isn't lying to me about the % of my wife's insurance they pay and assuming my insurance costs more or less the same as hers, my employer and i are combining to pay substantially more than that currently, in california.
no idea if the coverages are comparable.
-
pfffft!! Nothing looks super-affordable to me.
Household----3
Children-------1
Age of adult 1&2----40
Income-------19000
Estimated Monthly Premium:$ 554
Estimated Advanced Tax Credit:No tax credit available
Your Estimated Monthly Cost:$ 554
LOL at the poor :ROFL:
-
pfffft!! Nothing looks super-affordable to me.
Household----3
Children-------1
Age of adult 1&2----40
Income-------19000
Estimated Monthly Premium:$ 554
Estimated Advanced Tax Credit:No tax credit available
Your Estimated Monthly Cost:$ 554
LOL at the poor :ROFL:
That has to be a mistake.
-
I don't get the right or left complaining about the cost of these things. seems weird.
-
I don't get the right or left complaining about the cost of these things. seems weird.
well we do pay more for medical care than almost anywhere in the world. it seems rational to be a little put out about it, irregardless of your political bent.
-
Yeah, these prices aren't particularly ridiculous compared to the previous system, but they are ridiculous compared to what they should be.
-
pfffft!! Nothing looks super-affordable to me.
Household----3
Children-------1
Age of adult 1&2----40
Income-------19000
Estimated Monthly Premium:$ 554
Estimated Advanced Tax Credit:No tax credit available
Your Estimated Monthly Cost:$ 554
LOL at the poor :ROFL:
That has to be a mistake.
Yeah. I just bumped the income up to $30k and the monthly payment is only $104. Maybe there is just something wrong with the Kansas website.
-
What's the matter with kansas?
-
I just picked up that $450 check while no one was looking, don't worry about it, i'm generous like that.
-
There is zero percent chance that k-s-u is under 50.
Probably less chance that he has a good income.
Get 'em!, libtard
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/14/obamacares-website-is-crashing-because-it-doesnt-want-you-to-know-health-plans-true-costs/)
Interesting take. Essentially, it would have been a lot simpler if the gov'ment had allowed people to just browse policies without registering with the site, but they decided to not allow that because they didn't want you to see the actual cost of the policies before any subsidies were factored in.
So now, the only thing currently available without registering is the "Estimator" which provides no details about the type of policy being estimated.
-
Your personal financial info is safe with us (http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/14/obamacare-navigator-in-kansas-has-outstanding-arrest-warrant/).
-
Oh Ezra, not you too! http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361132/ezra-klein-thus-far-obamacare-big-failure-andrew-johnson (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/361132/ezra-klein-thus-far-obamacare-big-failure-andrew-johnson) ObamaCare champions are dropping faster than sick people waiting for surgery in a socialized healthcare system.
-
JD becoming more and more F-S-D everyday... sad really.
-
Was talking with an Australian yesterday afternoon. I told him I always wanted to try living there. I asked him about taxes and benefits. He told me income tax ranges from 30-50%, and goods are generally much more expensive because they have a VAT (they call it something different). What do you get for this? His answer went kind of like this:
"Well, the roads are crap. Even along the east coast where most of the population lives, the main 'highway' is one to two lanes and full of potholes. We get a pension after 65, but you can't live off it. The minimum wage is higher and most employees get at least 4 weeks vacation. Healthcare is 'free,' but the wait list for most surgeries takes too long so people end up paying for their surgeries if they can afford them to jump the line. And the cost of petrol and electric is through the roof. On the plus side, the people are real laid-back."
Anyway, I guess I'll chalk up Australia as another fine example of socialized medicine. It's gonna be totally awesome, and cheap, when we try to implement a similar system here for 320 million, approximately half of whom don't even pay income tax.
-
JD becoming more and more F-S-D everyday... sad really.
The joy of being a moderate is you can be pissed about the way things are going no matter who is at fault. Right now, we are wasting huge amounts of tax dollars on a POS giant bureaucracy that is incapable of being properly administered. Its horrendous seven, and you should be upset.
-
Was talking with an Australian yesterday afternoon. I told him I always wanted to try living there. I asked him about taxes and benefits. He told me income tax ranges from 30-50%, and goods are generally much more expensive because they have a VAT (they call it something different). What do you get for this? His answer went kind of like this:
"Well, the roads are crap. Even along the east coast where most of the population lives, the main 'highway' is one to two lanes and full of potholes. We get a pension after 65, but you can't live off it. The minimum wage is higher and most employees get at least 4 weeks vacation. Healthcare is 'free,' but the wait list for most surgeries takes too long so people end up paying for their surgeries if they can afford them to jump the line. And the cost of petrol and electric is through the roof. On the plus side, the people are real laid-back."
Anyway, I guess I'll chalk up Australia as another fine example of socialized medicine. It's gonna be totally awesome, and cheap, when we try to implement a similar system here for 320 million, approximately half of whom don't even pay income tax.
this guy sounds like a liar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_Australia
did not bother researching other claims but they sound dubious as well
-
I had lunch with an Australian the other day, and he said that the biggest difference between Australia and the US is that the corporations here basically run the country. Also, he said that Australia is much more strict when it comes to pharmaceutical advertising and pharmaceutical companies in general.
-
The dozen or so Australians I know all seem to like their economic and healthcare situations better than ours in the USA. They really love the cheap drinks in Aggieville though.
-
Was talking with an Australian yesterday afternoon. I told him I always wanted to try living there. I asked him about taxes and benefits. He told me income tax ranges from 30-50%, and goods are generally much more expensive because they have a VAT (they call it something different). What do you get for this? His answer went kind of like this:
"Well, the roads are crap. Even along the east coast where most of the population lives, the main 'highway' is one to two lanes and full of potholes. We get a pension after 65, but you can't live off it. The minimum wage is higher and most employees get at least 4 weeks vacation. Healthcare is 'free,' but the wait list for most surgeries takes too long so people end up paying for their surgeries if they can afford them to jump the line. And the cost of petrol and electric is through the roof. On the plus side, the people are real laid-back."
Anyway, I guess I'll chalk up Australia as another fine example of socialized medicine. It's gonna be totally awesome, and cheap, when we try to implement a similar system here for 320 million, approximately half of whom don't even pay income tax.
this guy sounds like a liar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_Australia
did not bother researching other claims but they sound dubious as well
Sorry, he was talking about a person with my income level, so it would appear that the tax rates he quoted were spot on. Also, $180,000 in Australia is not nearly as much as it would be in the United States. Sounds like Australia would be a great place to live if you're a poor, though.
-
180000 Australian dollars = 170550 US dollars
where I come from (America) that is nearly as much
-
180000 Australian dollars = 170550 US dollars
where I come from (America) that is nearly as much
Not when you consider cost of living.
-
180000 Australian dollars = 170550 US dollars
where I come from (America) that is nearly as much
Not when you consider cost of living.
sounds like being poor would suck then. either way great anecdote case closed
-
One of the best things about America is that rough ridin' idiots can still make 180k, or at least claim to.
-
Your personal financial info is safe with us (http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/14/obamacare-navigator-in-kansas-has-outstanding-arrest-warrant/).
That is completely unacceptable. This person wouldn't be fit to process checks at a bank, but is conscripted to give financial advice by the federal govt. Just lousy and reckless controls.
-
I'd like a photo of the loser who hired her.
-
This thing is a disaster
-
One of the best things about America is that rough ridin' idiots can still make 180k, or at least claim to.
You're very bitter.
-
One of the best things about America is that rough ridin' idiots can still make 180k, or at least claim to.
That's not really that much money. Anyone that puts in the necessary time and effort can make that after a few years, but not as many people are willing to do it. This is why people that work hard enough to achieve it don't like giving money to a government that isn't interested in stopping fraud or waste.
-
One of the best things about America is that rough ridin' idiots can still make 180k, or at least claim to.
You're very bitter.
i'm a very happy person actually.
-
One of the best things about America is that rough ridin' idiots can still make 180k, or at least claim to.
That's not really that much money. Anyone that puts in the necessary time and effort can make that after a few years, but not as many people are willing to do it. This is why people that work hard enough to achieve it don't like giving money to a government that isn't interested in stopping fraud or waste.
:dunno: why you getting mad buddy?
-
One of the best things about America is that rough ridin' idiots can still make 180k, or at least claim to.
That's not really that much money. Anyone that puts in the necessary time and effort can make that after a few years, but not as many people are willing to do it. This is why people that work hard enough to achieve it don't like giving money to a government that isn't interested in stopping fraud or waste.
:dunno: why you getting mad buddy?
Not mad bro. Mercury retrograde or some crap.
-
One of the best things about America is that rough ridin' idiots can still make 180k, or at least claim to.
That's not really that much money. Anyone that puts in the necessary time and effort can make that after a few years, but not as many people are willing to do it. This is why people that work hard enough to achieve it don't like giving money to a government that isn't interested in stopping fraud or waste.
Can confirm. When you've got three kids, a mortgage, and you paid a small fortune for the education that enables you to earn 6 figures, that's not really that much money, except to liberals, who consider you Scrooge McDuck. Hard work just doesn't seem to factor into the equation. "You didn't build that" and all that fine socialist garbage. I already pay, by my estimate, about 40% of income to the government in the form of one tax or another, but that's not enough. I can afford to pay more, right? As a prominent libtard once said "from each according to his ability." Was that Obama? Carter?
-
lol, nice rant.
-
I mean fanning makes six figures, you guys. Think about it.
-
lol, nice rant.
Very, very bitter. Sad really. Cheer up seven! Your team is winning! You'll get even more of my money someday soon!
-
lol, nice rant.
Very, very bitter. Sad really. Cheer up seven! Your team is winning! You'll get even more of my money someday soon!
i think rich people should pay more, not middle class. so you're getting all upset over nothing (you rough ridin' idiot).
-
Seven has been awfully virulent lately
Michigancat has been very cranky and whiny for as long as I can remember
-
lol, nice rant.
Very, very bitter. Sad really. Cheer up seven! Your team is winning! You'll get even more of my money someday soon!
i think rich people should pay more, not middle class. so you're getting all upset over nothing (you rough ridin' idiot).
Oh, well we're in perfect agreement then. eff those "rich" guys! :cheers: As long as it's not us, amiright? Cause we earned our money but those rich assholes stole it!
-
Pro tip: high earners also pay more taxes than poors in a flat tax and regressive income tax system
-
One of the best things about America is that rough ridin' idiots can still make 180k, or at least claim to.
That's not really that much money. Anyone that puts in the necessary time and effort can make that after a few years, but not as many people are willing to do it. This is why people that work hard enough to achieve it don't like giving money to a government that isn't interested in stopping fraud or waste.
Can confirm. When you've got three kids, a mortgage, and you paid a small fortune for the education that enables you to earn 6 figures, that's not really that much money, except to liberals, who consider you Scrooge McDuck. Hard work just doesn't seem to factor into the equation. "You didn't build that" and all that fine socialist garbage. I already pay, by my estimate, about 40% of income to the government in the form of one tax or another, but that's not enough. I can afford to pay more, right? As a prominent libtard once said "from each according to his ability." Was that Obama? Carter?
no one deserves to make 180k/yr, imo. sorry buddy.
-
my stance on taxes wouldn't change one bit if i were one of the lucky few to be "rich". one of the problems though, is "rich" is defined way too low as far as tax brackets are concerned.
and "rich" people didn't steal money you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (well, i guess some probably did), they just owe more to society because they have the money to do so. i wouldn't expect a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) like you to understand that concept though.
healthcare should also be free to anyone in this country that needs it. just like public education, public police protection, public defenders, and other public services. "rich" people should help out those that can't afford it, if you don't believe this is good for society, then you're a rough ridin' moron (which you are).
-
and "rich" people didn't steal money you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (well, i guess some probably did), they just owe more to society because they have the money to do so. i wouldn't expect a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) like you to understand that concept though.
Oh no, I totally get it. They didn't build that. They owe more because they have to ability to pay more. It's just social justice, amiright? :lol: Man, you get the best gems when you make the libtards cranky! Take the night off, seven.
healthcare should also be free to anyone in this country that needs it.
It was already "available" to anyone who needs it. In terms of "free," I don't think you understand the meaning of that word.
-
Don't understand a guy getting all this government for free or at a discount being all pissed off at the dudes that pay for it.
-
Don't understand a guy getting all this government for free or at a discount being all pissed off at the dudes that pay for it.
please copy and paste where i was "pissed off" at anyone. (the rough ridin' moron, of course, is excluded)
-
Don't understand a guy getting all this government for free or at a discount being all pissed off at the dudes that pay for it.
please copy and paste where i was "pissed off" at anyone. (the rough ridin' moron, of course, is excluded)
[/quot
Why did you think i was talking about you specifically?
-
then there is literally no substance or reason for you post.
durrrrr I LIKE CUPCAKES <---- equivalent to your post.
-
God bless you seven, you're a good man.
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
You only get to keep about half of that.
-
Guys, more money is more than less money
#itsnotcomplicated
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
You only get to keep about half of that.
lol if you make that and somehow only keep half you seriously need to fire your accountant.
-
also would like to address k-s-u's bullshit anecdote about his 180k friend being taxed 50 percent in income tax.
directly from the aus gov site:
$180,001 and over $54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 (higher for foreign residents)
that's 30.3% for 180k.
+1.5% medicare levy (being raised to 2%)
according to wiki, there are no province or city income taxes. it looks like 50 percent income tax is literally impossible to reach.
sidenote: the entire tax structure of Australia, at a quick read though, looks very interesting, and pretty fair.
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
You only get to keep about half of that.
lol if you make that and somehow only keep half you seriously need to fire your accountant.
Well, duh. But its funny coming from a lib. Pay your fair share and all that stuff.
-
Fed income tax
State income tax
Sales tax
Property tax
Self employed paying full payroll taxes
It can get up pretty high
-
Fed income tax
State income tax
Sales tax
Property tax
Self employed paying full payroll taxes
It can get up pretty high
jesus christ man, take a few weeks off and come back after some practice.
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
You only get to keep about half of that.
lol if you make that and somehow only keep half you seriously need to fire your accountant.
Well, duh. But its funny coming from a lib. Pay your fair share and all that stuff.
I'm honestly not sure how it's possible to have an effective tax rate that high with that income even if you don't take advantage of any deductions.
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
You only get to keep about half of that.
lol if you make that and somehow only keep half you seriously need to fire your accountant.
Well, duh. But its funny coming from a lib. Pay your fair share and all that stuff.
I'm honestly not sure how it's possible to have an effective tax rate that high with that income even if you don't take advantage of any deductions.
a popular neocon talking point is that the middle class are taxed at a 50-70 percent rate. it doesn't matter to them that this isn't true, they just repeat it over and over again.
-
Yeah, i wasn't really talking about 180k, that would probably come out around 30-35%
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
You only get to keep about half of that.
lol if you make that and somehow only keep half you seriously need to fire your accountant.
Well, duh. But its funny coming from a lib. Pay your fair share and all that stuff.
I'm honestly not sure how it's possible to have an effective tax rate that high with that income even if you don't take advantage of any deductions.
Now that the Scotus has deemed obamacare as a tax, we need to include healthcare premiums in tax rates.
-
this thread never fails to disappoint. and still no one has watched the video i linked. :frown:
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
You only get to keep about half of that.
lol if you make that and somehow only keep half you seriously need to fire your accountant.
Well, duh. But its funny coming from a lib. Pay your fair share and all that stuff.
I'm honestly not sure how it's possible to have an effective tax rate that high with that income even if you don't take advantage of any deductions.
Now that the Scotus has deemed obamacare as a tax, we need to include healthcare premiums in tax rates.
Ha, I still don't know how you could possibly get to 50%.
-
this thread never fails to disappoint. and still no one has watched the video i linked. :frown:
I'm going to watch it. But, you know. Thirty minutes.
-
this thread never fails to disappoint. and still no one has watched the video i linked. :frown:
I watched it, sys. I thought it might have been overly simplified, but then again, the economy really is much simpler than most of us try to make it. It was a fun watch.
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
You only get to keep about half of that.
lol if you make that and somehow only keep half you seriously need to fire your accountant.
Well, duh. But its funny coming from a lib. Pay your fair share and all that stuff.
I'm honestly not sure how it's possible to have an effective tax rate that high with that income even if you don't take advantage of any deductions.
Now that the Scotus has deemed obamacare as a tax, we need to include healthcare premiums in tax rates.
Ha, I still don't know how you could possibly get to 50%.
It wouldn't be that high. It might be approaching 50% if you took no deductions, figured in FICA, added property tax, as well as state taxes and sales tax, though. Of course, the same can be said for the poor people who "pay nothing".
-
Seriously though, 180k/year for an individual is a lot of money unless you're a rough ridin' idiot. (this is not a commentary on how much someone who earns that much should pay in taxes)
True, it's like what... 6 times the National average?
You only get to keep about half of that.
lol if you make that and somehow only keep half you seriously need to fire your accountant.
Well, duh. But its funny coming from a lib. Pay your fair share and all that stuff.
I'm honestly not sure how it's possible to have an effective tax rate that high with that income even if you don't take advantage of any deductions.
It is more than possible. I'm not just talking about income tax, I said all taxes in one form or another. Totaling all state and federal income tax, FICA, property tax, and estimated sales tax, my effective tax rate (all taxes paid divided by all income) was about 37% last year. This does not include the additional "hidden" indirect taxes, like the ones that the evil corporations pass along to us in the form of higher prices, the new taxes that will likely be levied upon my current health benefits, etc.
Anyway this was a fun diversion, but back on topic, Obamacare is a complete disaster, amiright? Now the (evil) Aetna CEO (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101110161) is chiming in.
-
I don't know if one of you is talking about effective federal income tax rate and the other about holistic tax liability and your both too stupid to realize what the other is saying or what.
Its not hard to contemplate only taking home 50% of what you make if all your earnings are wages or SE income.
State Income Tax of 5-12%
FICA of 7.65% (double if SE)
Sales Tax of 7-8% of everything you buy (assume you spend 20% of take home that ~1.5% of earnings)
Property Tax (if you own a house and car worth 400k total that's another 8k in taxes so assume 2-3% earnings)
City Income tax (I think KCMO is 1%)
Right there you're at 17%+ and you haven't even included actual federal income tax or myriad other hidden taxes that you pay for (tolls, excise tax, govt fees, charges embedded in your utility bills, aforementioned insurance) . If you live in a state with high income and property tax 50% tax obligation is not far fetched at all.
-
I don't know if one of you is talking about effective federal income tax rate and the other about holistic tax liability and your both too stupid to realize what the other is saying or what.
Its not hard to contemplate only taking home 50% of what you make if all your earnings are wages or SE income.
State Income Tax of 5-12%
FICA of 7.65% (double if SE)
Sales Tax of 7-8% of everything you buy (assume you spend 20% of take home that ~1.5% of earnings)
Property Tax (if you own a house and car worth 400k total that's another 8k in taxes so assume 2-3% earnings)
City Income tax (I think KCMO is 1%)
Right there you're at 17%+ and you haven't even included actual federal income tax or myriad other hidden taxes that you pay for (tolls, excise tax, govt fees, charges embedded in your utility bills, aforementioned insurance) . If you live in a state with high income and property tax 50% tax obligation is not far fetched at all.
Exactly. At 180k your effective federal tax rate is 22% assuming zero deductions, and 39% is still A LONG WAY from 50%. You would really have to try your damnedest to find another $20k of taxes to get to this made up 50% tax rate.
-
basically, I think you can make your point without making crap up.
-
I don't know if one of you is talking about effective federal income tax rate and the other about holistic tax liability and your both too stupid to realize what the other is saying or what.
Its not hard to contemplate only taking home 50% of what you make if all your earnings are wages or SE income.
State Income Tax of 5-12%
FICA of 7.65% (double if SE)
Sales Tax of 7-8% of everything you buy (assume you spend 20% of take home that ~1.5% of earnings)
Property Tax (if you own a house and car worth 400k total that's another 8k in taxes so assume 2-3% earnings)
City Income tax (I think KCMO is 1%)
Right there you're at 17%+ and you haven't even included actual federal income tax or myriad other hidden taxes that you pay for (tolls, excise tax, govt fees, charges embedded in your utility bills, aforementioned insurance) . If you live in a state with high income and property tax 50% tax obligation is not far fetched at all.
Exactly. At 180k your effective federal tax rate is 22% assuming zero deductions, and 39% is still A LONG WAY from 50%. You would really have to try your damnedest to find another $20k of taxes to get to this made up 50% tax rate.
Well it would be 39%+, based on what I typed above. If you lived in Cali it would be 48%+ (~9% effective rate). At 180k youll need a eff load of deductions to drop a marginal rate and substantially alter your effective rate. Also, AMT. So, you're wrong, per usual.
-
I watched it, sys. I thought it might have been overly simplified, but then again, the economy really is much simpler than most of us try to make it. It was a fun watch.
thanks, that makes me really happy.
-
I watched it, sys. I thought it might have been overly simplified, but then again, the economy really is much simpler than most of us try to make it. It was a fun watch.
thanks, that makes me really happy.
I watched it, too. It's crazy how you never hear anyone talk about long-term debt cycles that way.
-
Another of the Kos Kidz gets smacked in the face with reality... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium#) :lol:
My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.
Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.
I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any rough ridin' penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?
Some of the comments are priceless. A lot of "well, the insurance you had before was probably sub-standard" and "we've all got to do our share."
-
Young people and middle class folks are gonna be so pissed, it's probably why the sites are down until the shutdown threat on aca is gone.
-
Another of the Kos Kidz gets smacked in the face with reality... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium#) :lol:
My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.
Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.
I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any rough ridin' penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?
Some of the comments are priceless. A lot of "well, the insurance you had before was probably sub-standard" and "we've all got to do our share."
He won't have a choice whether or not to pay the penalty, it will be withheld from his tax refund.
-
Another of the Kos Kidz gets smacked in the face with reality... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium# (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium#) :lol:
My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.
Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.
I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any rough ridin' penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?
Some of the comments are priceless. A lot of "well, the insurance you had before was probably sub-standard" and "we've all got to do our share."
He won't have a choice whether or not to pay the penalty, it will be withheld from his tax refund.
He could always just file a false tax report and hope he doesn't get audited.
-
I think all anyone really needs to understand is that the Federal Gov't will collect more tax revenue than ever, and yet will fall short of paying it's bills this FY by around $800 to $900 billion dollars.
So we will be about $300 to $400 billion better than last year?
-
I think all anyone really needs to understand is that the Federal Gov't will collect more tax revenue than ever, and yet will fall short of paying it's bills this FY by around $800 to $900 billion dollars.
Isn't this talking point at least in some part due to having a larger working force than ever before as a result of an ever growing population? Not saying that the $.8T deficit is good by any means, but I think the 'most revenue' talking point is somewhere between misleading and dishonest.
-
Revenue and spending should both increase annually. Revenue increases need to outpace spending increases until the deficit becomes more manageable.
I don't really think anybody in Washington cares about the deficit, though. If the republicans cared, they wouldn't have shut down the government over the last 2 weeks for no apparent reason.
-
How is the discussion of having record revenue, and yet still having near record deficits, being dishonest??
I don't consider having a $300 to $400 billion dollar lower deficit than the previous year a paticularly positive talking point,
Seems like at least 300 to 400 billion off the record and making progress in the right direction
-
If interest rates on your credit card were close to 0%, would you try to pay it off all at once, or would you just make minimum payments until the day you died? In the case of the United States, we're not going to die any time soon.
-
The impact of Obamacare on the economy is unknown and so far not trending towards the positive given the number of layoffs, cutbacks etc. etc. that are already being announced almost soully because of Obamacare.
Employers don't even have a mandate this year, so not sure why this is happening. Do you have sources?
-
If interest rates on your credit card were close to 0%, would you try to pay it off all at once, or would you just make minimum payments until the day you died? In the case of the United States, we're not going to die any time soon.
Except the minimum payment is hundreds of billions of dollars, the interest is actually not 0%, is variable and adjusts daily, is being artificially suppressed by a central bank, which is essentially acting as the last "balance transfer" option, the balance of the debt exceeds your annual income, and the consequences of default don't involve a chapter 7 filing.
So yeah, its basically a credit card. Free money.
I nominate Beams the mayor of Face Palm City.
-
facebook has been a real treat. love the dave ramsey because math video that everyone is re-posting
-
If interest rates on your credit card were close to 0%, would you try to pay it off all at once, or would you just make minimum payments until the day you died? In the case of the United States, we're not going to die any time soon.
Except the minimum payment is hundreds of billions of dollars, the interest is actually not 0%, is variable and adjusts daily, is being artificially suppressed by a central bank, which is essentially acting as the last "balance transfer" option, the balance of the debt exceeds your annual income, and the consequences of default don't involve a chapter 7 filing.
So yeah, its basically a credit card. Free money.
I nominate Beams the mayor of Face Palm City.
You're the King of Strawmen Island, FSD. I never said interest rates were 0% (just close to 0%). I never said the debt was essentially "free money." It's just not that big of a deal unless we get to a point where we can't make interest payments, which isn't going to happen any time soon.
-
facebook has been a real treat. love the dave ramsey because math video that everyone is re-posting
yes, was outstanding. his closing argument was "what if I made you buy a gun"? Also I was disappointed that there was no actual math done.
-
I think all anyone really needs to understand is that the Federal Gov't will collect more tax revenue than ever, and yet will fall short of paying it's bills this FY by around $800 to $900 billion dollars.
Isn't this talking point at least in some part due to having a larger working force than ever before as a result of an ever growing population? Not saying that the $.8T deficit is good by any means, but I think the 'most revenue' talking point is somewhere between misleading and dishonest.
There are 2 million fewer people working today than in 2008. The actual U6 unemployment is around 14%, which includes those that have used up their unemployment and still unemployed and not counted in the advertised unemployment rate.
-
I think all anyone really needs to understand is that the Federal Gov't will collect more tax revenue than ever, and yet will fall short of paying it's bills this FY by around $800 to $900 billion dollars.
Isn't this talking point at least in some part due to having a larger working force than ever before as a result of an ever growing population? Not saying that the $.8T deficit is good by any means, but I think the 'most revenue' talking point is somewhere between misleading and dishonest.
There are 2 million fewer people working today than in 2008.
I don't really believe that is true.
-
The Dave Ramsey video is great because he implies that he's not going to be partisan, then he goes into the standard Tea Party screed against Obama and the gubmint taking all your monies to give to poor (fat) people.
-
If interest rates on your credit card were close to 0%, would you try to pay it off all at once, or would you just make minimum payments until the day you died? In the case of the United States, we're not going to die any time soon.
Except the minimum payment is hundreds of billions of dollars, the interest is actually not 0%, is variable and adjusts daily, is being artificially suppressed by a central bank, which is essentially acting as the last "balance transfer" option, the balance of the debt exceeds your annual income, and the consequences of default don't involve a chapter 7 filing.
So yeah, its basically a credit card. Free money.
I nominate Beams the mayor of Face Palm City.
You're the King of Strawmen Island, FSD. I never said interest rates were 0% (just close to 0%). I never said the debt was essentially "free money." It's just not that big of a deal unless we get to a point where we can't make interest payments, which isn't going to happen any time soon.
If I'm the king of straw man island, then your the captain of the s.s. doesn't know what a straw man is.
Aye Aye Cap'n Butthurt Beams! Your point about only needing enough revenue to cover interest is insanely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), matey.
-
I think all anyone really needs to understand is that the Federal Gov't will collect more tax revenue than ever, and yet will fall short of paying it's bills this FY by around $800 to $900 billion dollars.
Isn't this talking point at least in some part due to having a larger working force than ever before as a result of an ever growing population? Not saying that the $.8T deficit is good by any means, but I think the 'most revenue' talking point is somewhere between misleading and dishonest.
There are 2 million fewer people working today than in 2008.
I don't really believe that is true.
Its black and white on the BLS webpage, bruh
-
How are your stocks doing since President Obama has been in office, FSD?
-
How are your stocks doing since President Obama has been in office, FSD?
Mine are doing rough ridin' fantastic. i am really rich right now.
-
How are your stocks doing since President Obama has been in office, FSD?
As long as QE goes on, stocks will be fine and the rich get richer. :kstategrad:
My 401k is up 38% YTD.
-
I think all anyone really needs to understand is that the Federal Gov't will collect more tax revenue than ever, and yet will fall short of paying it's bills this FY by around $800 to $900 billion dollars.
Isn't this talking point at least in some part due to having a larger working force than ever before as a result of an ever growing population? Not saying that the $.8T deficit is good by any means, but I think the 'most revenue' talking point is somewhere between misleading and dishonest.
There are 2 million fewer people working today than in 2008.
I don't really believe that is true.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS11300000_2003_2013_all_period_M08_data.gif&hash=9b7dd9cded1abb8dfb423b19c447f748d8596358)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)
-
I think all anyone really needs to understand is that the Federal Gov't will collect more tax revenue than ever, and yet will fall short of paying it's bills this FY by around $800 to $900 billion dollars.
Isn't this talking point at least in some part due to having a larger working force than ever before as a result of an ever growing population? Not saying that the $.8T deficit is good by any means, but I think the 'most revenue' talking point is somewhere between misleading and dishonest.
There are 2 million fewer people working today than in 2008.
I don't really believe that is true.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS11300000_2003_2013_all_period_M08_data.gif&hash=9b7dd9cded1abb8dfb423b19c447f748d8596358)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)
That shows a drop in the participation rate of about 2.5% since 2008. The population of the US has increased by a little more than 4% since then, so I interpret that data to show that there are actually more people working now than in 2008.
-
I think all anyone really needs to understand is that the Federal Gov't will collect more tax revenue than ever, and yet will fall short of paying it's bills this FY by around $800 to $900 billion dollars.
Isn't this talking point at least in some part due to having a larger working force than ever before as a result of an ever growing population? Not saying that the $.8T deficit is good by any means, but I think the 'most revenue' talking point is somewhere between misleading and dishonest.
There are 2 million fewer people working today than in 2008.
I don't really believe that is true.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.bls.gov%2Fgenerated_files%2Fgraphics%2Flatest_numbers_LNS11300000_2003_2013_all_period_M08_data.gif&hash=9b7dd9cded1abb8dfb423b19c447f748d8596358)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)
That shows a drop in the participation rate of about 2.5% since 2008. The population of the US has increased by a little more than 4% since then, so I interpret that data to show that there are actually more people working now than in 2008.
Aug 2008 total labor force = 154,469,000 x 6.1% unemployment = 146,046,000 working
Aug 2013 total labor force = 155,486,000 x 7.3% unemployment = 144,135,000 working
1,911,000 fewer working.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000)
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)
-
Liberals hate the participation rate stat.
-
Liberals hate the participation rate stat.
It really effs up the unemployment rate.
-
I watched it, sys. I thought it might have been overly simplified, but then again, the economy really is much simpler than most of us try to make it. It was a fun watch.
thanks, that makes me really happy.
I watched it, too. It's crazy how you never hear anyone talk about long-term debt cycles that way.
i thought the idea that inflation is dependent on spending, not monetary supply was interesting. i also really liked seeing a billionaire, 'pub donor explain that (part of) the best way to ameliorate the current crisis is to tax the rich, and (re)distribute the wealth to the poor.
-
My 401k is up 38% YTD.
damn! company stock? what all are you allowed to invest in your 401k?
-
My 401k is up 38% YTD.
damn! company stock? what all are you allowed to invest in your 401k?
I stupidly have everything in the T Rowe Price health sciences fund right now. I need to spread it out but I just can't bring myself to do it right now.
-
My 401k is up 38% YTD.
damn! company stock? what all are you allowed to invest in your 401k?
I stupidly have everything in the T Rowe Price health sciences fund right now. I need to spread it out but I just can't bring myself to do it right now.
doesn't sound stupid at all. but sell the news, friend.
-
My 401k is up 38% YTD.
damn! company stock? what all are you allowed to invest in your 401k?
I stupidly have everything in the T Rowe Price health sciences fund right now. I need to spread it out but I just can't bring myself to do it right now.
doesn't sound stupid at all. but sell the news, friend.
It just makes me a little nervous having all of my eggs in one basket, so to speak, but I'm addicted to the ROR.
-
It just makes me a little nervous having all of my eggs in one basket, so to speak, but I'm addicted to the ROR.
if you're not nervous making 38%/year, you're not paying attention.
-
It just makes me a little nervous having all of my eggs in one basket, so to speak, but I'm addicted to the ROR.
if you're not nervous making 38%/year, you're not paying attention.
put your money into FBIOX, XBI, or BBH. you're a little late to the party though.
-
It just makes me a little nervous having all of my eggs in one basket, so to speak, but I'm addicted to the ROR.
if you're not nervous making 38%/year, you're not paying attention.
put your money into FBIOX, XBI, or BBH. you're a little late to the party though.
Commercial RE tho
-
Good news, everyone, Obamacare is causing an increase in employment. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-woes-widen-as-insurers-get-wrong-data-2013-10-18 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamacare-woes-widen-as-insurers-get-wrong-data-2013-10-18)
Insurers say the federal health-care marketplace is generating flawed data that is straining their ability to handle even the trickle of enrollees who have gotten through so far, in a sign that technological problems extend further than the website traffic and software issues already identified.
Emerging errors include duplicate enrollments, spouses reported as children, missing data fields and suspect eligibility determinations, say executives at more than a dozen health plans. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Nebraska said it had to hire temporary workers to contact new customers directly to resolve inaccuracies in submissions. Medical Mutual of Ohio said one customer had successfully signed up for three of its plans.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBVok4Cv.jpg&hash=12138f65c3d015b5c3b461db8cadded1e4499745)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBVok4Cv.jpg&hash=12138f65c3d015b5c3b461db8cadded1e4499745)
the two democrats i voted for :D
-
Sounds like we need to scrap this whole exchange altogether and just go right to a Single Payer system, huh K-S-U-Wildcats!?
-
Sounds like we need to scrap this whole exchange altogether and just go right to a Single Payer system, huh K-S-U-Wildcats!?
yeah, not real sure why we didn't just do that in the first place.
-
Sounds like we need to scrap this whole exchange altogether and just go right to a Single Payer system, huh K-S-U-Wildcats!?
yeah, not real sure why we didn't just do that in the first place.
I think its because nobody wants it.
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
Rationed health care and death panels run by our super efficient government. They're doing such a great job with the obmacare roll-out some people think they should take over 100%.
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
Rationed health care and death panels run by our super efficient government. They're doing such a great job with the obmacare roll-out some people think they should take over 100%.
Oh, so like the entire health industry would be controlled by our government? Interesting
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
Rationed health care and death panels run by our super efficient government. They're doing such a great job with the obmacare roll-out some people think they should take over 100%.
Yeah, it's a pretty remarkable disconnect, even for libtards, but you just can't fix stupid. I'm guessing this will be Hillary's big push in 2016.
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
-
Many carriers are canceling policies Dec 31, some in March, April 2014. Most are pulling out of the major med market and switching to "hospital specific indemnity plans" which reduce exposure considerably because the plans have set limits.
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
Rationed health care and death panels run by our super efficient government. They're doing such a great job with the obmacare roll-out some people think they should take over 100%.
Yeah, it's a pretty remarkable disconnect, even for libtards, but you just can't fix stupid. I'm guessing this will be Hillary's big push in 2016.
healthcare shouldn't be a for profit industry, just like firefighting. it should be a service provided by the government to it's citizens, paid for by taxes, just like other services.
that's not to say that private healthcare shouldn't be available as well for those that wish to go that route.
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
Rationed health care and death panels run by our super efficient government. They're doing such a great job with the obmacare roll-out some people think they should take over 100%.
Yeah, it's a pretty remarkable disconnect, even for libtards, but you just can't fix stupid. I'm guessing this will be Hillary's big push in 2016.
healthcare shouldn't be a for profit industry, just like firefighting. it should be a service provided by the government to it's citizens, paid for by taxes, just like other services.
that's not to say that private healthcare shouldn't be available as well for those that wish to go that route.
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
Rationed health care and death panels run by our super efficient government. They're doing such a great job with the obmacare roll-out some people think they should take over 100%.
yeah I heard millions of Canadians are about to riot because of it. Litres of maple syrup will be spilt.
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
Rationed health care and death panels run by our super efficient government. They're doing such a great job with the obmacare roll-out some people think they should take over 100%.
yeah I heard millions of Canadians are about to riot because of it. Litres of maple syrup will be spilt.
Canadians hate their healthcare system. Good grief, you are one misinformed idiot.
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
Rationed health care and death panels run by our super efficient government. They're doing such a great job with the obmacare roll-out some people think they should take over 100%.
yeah I heard millions of Canadians are about to riot because of it. Litres of maple syrup will be spilt.
Canadians hate their healthcare system. Good grief, you are one misinformed idiot.
I think "hate" might be too strong a word. The few Canadians I know seem incapable of "hating" anything. They're kind of like a whole country full of Mormons. They don't seem really mad about their taxes (VAT, etc.) - they've just kind of accepted it. Same with their healthcare. Basically, the ones I've talked to say it's neat that they don't have to "pay" out of pocket for it, but it sucks how long you have to wait for even routine treatment, doctor selection is limited, and it's an even longer wait for most surgeries and specialized procedures. They just kind of shrug their shoulders.
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
-
Good news though, I think Obama has found about a dozen (sick) people who actually signed up for insurance, and he's flying them in to provide a backdrop for his latest "remain calm" speech today. I wonder if one of them will be Obamachad?
-
Good news though, I think Obama has found about a dozen (sick) people who actually signed up for insurance, and he's flying them in to provide a backdrop for his latest "remain calm" speech today. I wonder if one of them will be Obamachad?
I hope Obamachad makes the trip. I can't wait to get a look at all of these sick deadbeats who are going to get the healthcare that they most certainly do not deserve.
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
-
wtf is single payer? It sounds awful.
Rationed health care and death panels run by our super efficient government. They're doing such a great job with the obmacare roll-out some people think they should take over 100%.
yeah I heard millions of Canadians are about to riot because of it. Litres of maple syrup will be spilt.
Canadians hate their healthcare system. Good grief, you are one misinformed idiot.
I think "hate" might be too strong a word. The few Canadians I know seem incapable of "hating" anything. They're kind of like a whole country full of Mormons. They don't seem really mad about their taxes (VAT, etc.) - they've just kind of accepted it. Same with their healthcare. Basically, the ones I've talked to say it's neat that they don't have to "pay" out of pocket for it, but it sucks how long you have to wait for even routine treatment, doctor selection is limited, and it's an even longer wait for most surgeries and specialized procedures. They just kind of shrug their shoulders.
Facts are for commies!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/healthcare-system-ratings-us-great-britain-canada.aspx
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
-
It's all in the wording of the question.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.gallup.com%2FGPTB%2Fhealthcare%2F20030325_1.gif&hash=e05348d23afd95096e08aa9caf52b7f9e7de57a9)
If they left the subjective word "affordable" out, the answers would be much different.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
The average doctor makes like 200k/year. Considering their level of education and training, that is nothing. A petroleum engineer with 10 years of experience and a 4 year degree makes nearly the same amount.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
The average doctor makes like 200k/year. Considering their level of education and training, that is nothing. A petroleum engineer with 10 years of experience and a 4 year degree makes nearly the same amount.
The petroleum engineer has a much more demanding job.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
The average doctor makes like 200k/year. Considering their level of education and training, that is nothing. A petroleum engineer with 10 years of experience and a 4 year degree makes nearly the same amount.
Primary care doctors bring the average down. Specialists make the big money and comprise more than 70% of the total doctors. I'm not in favor of doctors making less, but I am in favor of bringing down the cost of doing business for the entire medical industry, and that means limits on malpractice compensation. This should have been done before, or at least included within, obamacare.
-
Doctors should make what a free market will pay. Unfortunately, we have not had a free market medical system since WW2, and doctor pay is several times higher than it would be without the government propping them up.
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
I couldn't agree more. Clearly, the people who are receiving the cancellation letters are just dumbasses. But all the insurance people who are claiming Obamacare is the reason for the cancellations.... why are they lying?! I guess because they're evil, but it's still sad, you know? Shouldn't you pen a few op-eds to set the record straight? Somebody's gotta stand up for the truth!
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
I couldn't agree more. Clearly, the people who are receiving the cancellation letters are just dumbasses. But all the insurance people who are claiming Obamacare is the reason for the cancellations.... why are they lying?! I guess because they're evil, but it's still sad, you know? Shouldn't you pen a few op-eds to set the record straight? Somebody's gotta stand up for the truth!
Don't know if serious but, all those companies are pulling out of the states because don't want the added exposure for guaranteed issue plans. After all its still a business too, and adding all these pre-existing conditions to the pool takes more out of the pool. That's why alot are switching to more set payouts in the event of a claim, so they know how much would be paid out max. Less risk.
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
big surprise that the guy who sells insurance doesn't want insurance to go away.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
lol if you think doctor salaries have hardly anything to do the huge cost of healthcare.
hey, guess we should cut the pay of soldiers because the military costs so much!
-
I support cutting pay and benefits of new enlistees. We need to get the number of volunteers down so that our defense budget can get to some reasonable level.
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
big surprise that the guy who sells insurance doesn't want insurance to go away.
I never said that, just :lol: at your idea that would never work well.
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
I couldn't agree more. Clearly, the people who are receiving the cancellation letters are just dumbasses. But all the insurance people who are claiming Obamacare is the reason for the cancellations.... why are they lying?! I guess because they're evil, but it's still sad, you know? Shouldn't you pen a few op-eds to set the record straight? Somebody's gotta stand up for the truth!
Don't know if serious but, all those companies are pulling out of the states because don't want the added exposure for guaranteed issue plans. After all its still a business too, and adding all these pre-existing conditions to the pool takes more out of the pool. That's why alot are switching to more set payouts in the event of a claim, so they know how much would be paid out max. Less risk.
Yeah, just kidding around with Chum. He's got it in his head that the coverage mandates at issue actually went into effect a couple years ago, so they therefore cannot be responsible for all the cancelled insurance policies beginning 1/1/14, despite all these articles quoting insurance professionals explaining that that's exactly the reason for the cancellations. I suspect Chum's only half-serious at this point, anyway.
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
I couldn't agree more. Clearly, the people who are receiving the cancellation letters are just dumbasses. But all the insurance people who are claiming Obamacare is the reason for the cancellations.... why are they lying?! I guess because they're evil, but it's still sad, you know? Shouldn't you pen a few op-eds to set the record straight? Somebody's gotta stand up for the truth!
I just said lots of people are confused. Why do you think policyholders are dumbasses and insurance people are liars?
-
I support cutting pay and benefits of new enlistees. We need to get the number of volunteers down so that our defense budget can get to some reasonable level.
i'm the exact opposite. we should take any volunteer that qualifies (mentally, physically, etc.).
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
I couldn't agree more. Clearly, the people who are receiving the cancellation letters are just dumbasses. But all the insurance people who are claiming Obamacare is the reason for the cancellations.... why are they lying?! I guess because they're evil, but it's still sad, you know? Shouldn't you pen a few op-eds to set the record straight? Somebody's gotta stand up for the truth!
I just said lots of people are confused. Why do you think policyholders are dumbasses and insurance people are liars?
Slow your roll.
-
I support cutting pay and benefits of new enlistees. We need to get the number of volunteers down so that our defense budget can get to some reasonable level.
i'm the exact opposite. we should take any volunteer that qualifies (mentally, physically, etc.).
I think this is good policy when we are at war, but when we are at peace, we need to be more selective. The military does open a lot of doors for poor people, and we should be mindful of that, but at some point, our defense spending has to be addressed. Just being at peace and keeping our soldiers home would make a big dent in spending (we spend $850,000 per year per soldier deployed in Afghanistan), even if we maintain current troop levels, but why do we need so many soldiers if we aren't using them?
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/one-soldier-one-year-850000-and-rising/
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
The average doctor makes like 200k/year. Considering their level of education and training, that is nothing. A petroleum engineer with 10 years of experience and a 4 year degree makes nearly the same amount.
The petroleum engineer has a much more demanding job.
No. Not even close.
-
If we could just kill 50-100 million people, a lot of this country's problems would go away.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
The average doctor makes like 200k/year. Considering their level of education and training, that is nothing. A petroleum engineer with 10 years of experience and a 4 year degree makes nearly the same amount.
The petroleum engineer has a much more demanding job.
No. Not even close.
If petroleum engineering were a more desirable job than being a doctor, there wouldn't be more doctors than petroleum engineers.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
The average doctor makes like 200k/year. Considering their level of education and training, that is nothing. A petroleum engineer with 10 years of experience and a 4 year degree makes nearly the same amount.
The petroleum engineer has a much more demanding job.
No. Not even close.
If petroleum engineering were a more desirable job than being a doctor, there wouldn't be more doctors than petroleum engineers.
You're not a very intelligent person. The amount of jobs available in a profession is dictated by demand.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
The average doctor makes like 200k/year. Considering their level of education and training, that is nothing. A petroleum engineer with 10 years of experience and a 4 year degree makes nearly the same amount.
The petroleum engineer has a much more demanding job.
No. Not even close.
If petroleum engineering were a more desirable job than being a doctor, there wouldn't be more doctors than petroleum engineers.
You're not a very intelligent person. The amount of jobs available in a profession is dictated by demand.
Yes, and when supply can't meet demand, you have petroleum engineers making upwards of $200k.
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
I couldn't agree more. Clearly, the people who are receiving the cancellation letters are just dumbasses. But all the insurance people who are claiming Obamacare is the reason for the cancellations.... why are they lying?! I guess because they're evil, but it's still sad, you know? Shouldn't you pen a few op-eds to set the record straight? Somebody's gotta stand up for the truth!
I just said lots of people are confused. Why do you think policyholders are dumbasses and insurance people are liars?
You're right, all these insurance professionals quoted in the articles are just "confused." You know better, Chum. :lol:
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
lol if you think doctor salaries have hardly anything to do the huge cost of healthcare.
hey, guess we should cut the pay of soldiers because the military costs so much!
Doctors salaries are high because the cost of malpractice insurance is astronomical. Its hilarious that in obamacare's 2500 pages there is no limits put on malpractice compensation. That's what happens when ambulance chasers write the law.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
lol if you think doctor salaries have hardly anything to do the huge cost of healthcare.
hey, guess we should cut the pay of soldiers because the military costs so much!
Doctors salaries are high because the cost of malpractice insurance is astronomical. Its hilarious that in obamacare's 2500 pages there is no limits put on malpractice compensation. That's what happens when ambulance chasers write the law.
Their salaries are high because they are in high demand, and the AMA does everything in its power to see that we don't get expansion of medical schools to meet that demand. Plus, insurance allows people to just pay whatever the doctor asks without batting an eye. They don't even know what the actual cost of their procedure was in most cases.
-
the disconnect is republicans thinking it's ok to make massive profits off of sick people.
Blame the government. They're the ones propping up the massive medical industry monopoly that will eventually be part of our collapse.
This. Doctors didn't start making massive cash until the government regulators and lawyers got their greedy hands into medicine and the insurance industry.
lol if you think doctor salaries have hardly anything to do the huge cost of healthcare.
hey, guess we should cut the pay of soldiers because the military costs so much!
Doctors salaries are high because the cost of malpractice insurance is astronomical. Its hilarious that in obamacare's 2500 pages there is no limits put on malpractice compensation. That's what happens when ambulance chasers write the law.
Their salaries are high because they are in high demand, and the AMA does everything in its power to see that we don't get expansion of medical schools to meet that demand. Plus, insurance allows people to just pay whatever the doctor asks without batting an eye. They don't even know what the actual cost of their procedure was in most cases.
How does the AMA do this school limiting thing?
-
The medical industry is monopolized by the FDA, people. Has nothing to do with Dr. salaries.
-
Doctors salaries are high because the cost of malpractice insurance is astronomical. Its hilarious that in obamacare's 2500 pages there is no limits put on malpractice compensation. That's what happens when ambulance chasers write the law.
Overall annual medical liability system costs, including defensive medicine, are estimated to be $55.6 billion in 2008 dollars, or 2.4 percent of total health care spending.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048809/
-
lol if you think doctor salaries have hardly anything to do the huge cost of healthcare.
no one will ever be able to afford a hamburger if the minimum wage is raised a couple bucks and the salaries of medical personnel have nothing to do with the cost of medical care. it's perfectly logical.
-
How does the AMA do this school limiting thing?
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-association-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html
-
Having enough medical schools so that anyone can become a doctor might not be a good thing. I would prefer that only the best get into doctor school and eventually cut me open.
-
Having enough medical schools so that anyone can become a doctor might not be a good thing. I would prefer that only the best get into doctor school and eventually cut me open.
making people think like this is the most effective way the ama has maintained us medical salaries at 2x that of the rest of the developed world.
-
How does the AMA do this school limiting thing?
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-association-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html
The AMA acts just like a government agency. Pretty horrible.
-
How does the AMA do this school limiting thing?
http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/25/american-medical-association-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html
58 billion is a drop in the bucket. WGAF
-
I know a lot of people (mostly girls) who wanted to be doctors but because of the rigorous admission standards, they were not able to get into med school. People should be thankful for that.
-
Having enough medical schools so that anyone can become a doctor might not be a good thing. I would prefer that only the best get into doctor school and eventually cut me open.
Is this a terry pierce analogy?
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
I couldn't agree more. Clearly, the people who are receiving the cancellation letters are just dumbasses. But all the insurance people who are claiming Obamacare is the reason for the cancellations.... why are they lying?! I guess because they're evil, but it's still sad, you know? Shouldn't you pen a few op-eds to set the record straight? Somebody's gotta stand up for the truth!
I just said lots of people are confused. Why do you think policyholders are dumbasses and insurance people are liars?
You're right, all these insurance professionals quoted in the articles are just "confused." You know better, Chum. :lol:
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right (which I am), but just saying that there is a reasonable explanation other than dumbassery or evil. I have no doubt that I could find articles with quotes from insurance professionals that contradict the insurance professionals in your articles. Some of these insurance professionals are just confused.
-
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right.
i wish you'd try a little. i've been very patient throughout this whole interaction, but i'd like to see a little more reveal.
-
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right.
i wish you'd try a little. i've been very patient throughout this whole interaction, but i'd like to see a little more reveal.
Like what? Here's something I find interesting. Prior to the exchanges, the cost of healthcare insurance was pretty obscure and complicated, difficult for people to figure out. Now, it's much easier to have grasp of how much a health plan costs because there are so many quotes to compare readily available online.
-
Like what?
anything funny or educational.
-
at k-s-u's expense, i mean.
-
Anybody here signed up yet?
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
I couldn't agree more. Clearly, the people who are receiving the cancellation letters are just dumbasses. But all the insurance people who are claiming Obamacare is the reason for the cancellations.... why are they lying?! I guess because they're evil, but it's still sad, you know? Shouldn't you pen a few op-eds to set the record straight? Somebody's gotta stand up for the truth!
I just said lots of people are confused. Why do you think policyholders are dumbasses and insurance people are liars?
You're right, all these insurance professionals quoted in the articles are just "confused." You know better, Chum. :lol:
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right (which I am), but just saying that there is a reasonable explanation other than dumbassery or evil. I have no doubt that I could find articles with quotes from insurance professionals that contradict the insurance professionals in your articles. Some of these insurance professionals are just confused.
Ok, go ahead and do that, and get back to us.
-
Prior to the exchanges, the cost of healthcare insurance was pretty obscure and complicated, difficult for people to figure out.
Yes, it's much easier now. :lol: Maybe once they fix the "glitches"....
Now, it's much easier to have grasp of how much a health plan costs because there are so many quotes to compare readily available online.
Actually, one of the reasons this whole Healthcare.gov thing is such a fiasco is that the government is intentionally trying to obscure the true cost of the policies. Rather than just letting people shop the exchanges directly, they first require you to "sign up" and submit a bunch of information to determine whether you are eligible for a subsidy (this is where the primary breakdown is occurring). The subsidy is then credited against the true cost of the policy to make it appear cheaper.
But take this all worth a grain of salt. I'm just reading the news. What does Chum think?
-
More confused insurance companies....
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-americans-are-getting-letters-saying-their-health-insurance-is-canceled-2013-10 (http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-americans-are-getting-letters-saying-their-health-insurance-is-canceled-2013-10)
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/21/2810881/insurance-cancellation-letters/ (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/21/2810881/insurance-cancellation-letters/)
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/898262_Thousands-of-Highmark-insurance-customers-in-Central-Pa--face-cancellations.html (http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/898262_Thousands-of-Highmark-insurance-customers-in-Central-Pa--face-cancellations.html)
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/10/obamacare_forces_insurance_companies_to_scrap_some_plans_create_new_ones.html (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/10/obamacare_forces_insurance_companies_to_scrap_some_plans_create_new_ones.html)
http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/10/18/analyst-receives-the-dreaded-obamacare-caused-cancellation-letter#.UmXdHfmkpio (http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/10/18/analyst-receives-the-dreaded-obamacare-caused-cancellation-letter#.UmXdHfmkpio)
-
States with tort reform have better and more efficient healthcare systems than those without, see Texas v. New York. If you only want to attribute $58B to it (a staggering number), that's your problem.
Tort reform should not be included in federal legislation because tort actions are not a creature of federal law.
-
Prior to the exchanges, the cost of healthcare insurance was pretty obscure and complicated, difficult for people to figure out.
Yes, it's much easier now. :lol: Maybe once they fix the "glitches"....
Now, it's much easier to have grasp of how much a health plan costs because there are so many quotes to compare readily available online.
Actually, one of the reasons this whole Healthcare.gov thing is such a fiasco is that the government is intentionally trying to obscure the true cost of the policies. Rather than just letting people shop the exchanges directly, they first require you to "sign up" and submit a bunch of information to determine whether you are eligible for a subsidy (this is where the primary breakdown is occurring). The subsidy is then credited against the true cost of the policy to make it appear cheaper.
But take this all worth a grain of salt. I'm just reading the news. What does Chum think?
The government website isn't the only place to find them. Besides, I was talking about the "true cost" in the first place.
-
Odd, a whole bunch of insurers are canceling policies due to ObamaCare. I guess they're all reading "the law" wrong. Chum should explain to them that all these mandates actually took effect years ago.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205847/for-thousands-keeping-your-old.html)
Good catch. That's one of many inaccuracies in that misleading article.
I know, right? Where do they keep finding all these liars who claim to have sent/received cancellation notices? Probably a bunch of Republican activists.
Policies get cancelled every year for a variety of business related reasons. One thing we should definitely do, though, is expect that the people talking about this are citing the correct reasons and not just confused. Much like the people on this board, they wouldn't talk about something if they didn't truly know what they were talking about.
I couldn't agree more. Clearly, the people who are receiving the cancellation letters are just dumbasses. But all the insurance people who are claiming Obamacare is the reason for the cancellations.... why are they lying?! I guess because they're evil, but it's still sad, you know? Shouldn't you pen a few op-eds to set the record straight? Somebody's gotta stand up for the truth!
I just said lots of people are confused. Why do you think policyholders are dumbasses and insurance people are liars?
You're right, all these insurance professionals quoted in the articles are just "confused." You know better, Chum. :lol:
I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right (which I am), but just saying that there is a reasonable explanation other than dumbassery or evil. I have no doubt that I could find articles with quotes from insurance professionals that contradict the insurance professionals in your articles. Some of these insurance professionals are just confused.
Ok, go ahead and do that, and get back to us.
No, don't care to read a buch of bullshit like you.
-
Getting an insurance quote was not complicated before, and no more complicated that buying car insurance. If you think having fewer choices is less complicated you're a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
For gods sake, men should not have to purchase policies that include coverage for mammograms and cpv immunizations.
-
Is chum one of those "navigators" like that felon from Douglas county?
-
More confused insurance companies....
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-americans-are-getting-letters-saying-their-health-insurance-is-canceled-2013-10 (http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-americans-are-getting-letters-saying-their-health-insurance-is-canceled-2013-10)
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/21/2810881/insurance-cancellation-letters/ (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/21/2810881/insurance-cancellation-letters/)
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/898262_Thousands-of-Highmark-insurance-customers-in-Central-Pa--face-cancellations.html (http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/898262_Thousands-of-Highmark-insurance-customers-in-Central-Pa--face-cancellations.html)
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/10/obamacare_forces_insurance_companies_to_scrap_some_plans_create_new_ones.html (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/10/obamacare_forces_insurance_companies_to_scrap_some_plans_create_new_ones.html)
http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/10/18/analyst-receives-the-dreaded-obamacare-caused-cancellation-letter#.UmXdHfmkpio (http://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/10/18/analyst-receives-the-dreaded-obamacare-caused-cancellation-letter#.UmXdHfmkpio)
These people are contradicting each other. They sound pretty confused to me.
-
For gods sake, men should not have to purchase policies that include coverage for mammograms and cpv immunizations.
Well, you obviously hate women, FSD. We all need to pitch in and pay more for insurance so Sandra Fluke can get her "free" birth control, abortions, etc.
-
at k-s-u's expense, i mean.
I guess I'm just finding it fascinating how he seems reasonable for a bit, but then things reach a certain point and the wheels fall off. Like, in contrast, FSD is just crap for brains from the get go, which does not interest me.
-
at k-s-u's expense, i mean.
I guess I'm just finding it fascinating how he seems reasonable for a bit, but then things reach a certain point and the wheels fall off. Like, in contrast, FSD is just crap for brains from the get go, which does not interest me.
You don't know me, bro. But you seem awfully stupid on the interwebs. Navigator?
-
I guess I'm just finding it fascinating how he seems reasonable for a bit, but then things reach a certain point and the wheels fall off. Like, in contrast, FSD is just crap for brains from the get go, which does not interest me.
i agree, k-s-u is much more interesting than fsd.
-
I heard a report today that said more people have been forced off their plans in Florida and California as a result of obamacare than people who have signed up for obamacare in all 50 states, combined. . . by a multiple of 10.
I wonder what the resulting cost to the economy and healthcare system will be?
-
How does the AMA do this school limiting thing?
The AMA is incredibly powerful because stupid people (much of congress) believe anything and everything they say due to the fact that they are doctors.
-
"I heard..."
-
Having enough medical schools so that anyone can become a doctor might not be a good thing. I would prefer that only the best get into doctor school and eventually cut me open.
You would still have to be able to pass your coursework and complete a residency. It's not like people would just show up to the medical school, collect a diploma, and start practicing. Even if you could, a system where we make malpractice result in immediate loss of licensure would weed out the bad doctors after they screw up only one person. "Pass 'em all and let Trim sort 'em out" would be a better system than we have now.
-
Good news everyone, healthcare.gov (http://rexharrisonshat.com/healthcare/) is back up and running again.
-
Good news everyone, healthcare.gov (http://rexharrisonshat.com/healthcare/) is back up and running again.
He should have put "best viewed with Netscape Navigator (https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtZE99g4.jpg&hash=5df71943b8fe13f34e48a2bc9b18fbca92fa42e1)"
-
Having enough medical schools so that anyone can become a doctor might not be a good thing. I would prefer that only the best get into doctor school and eventually cut me open.
You would still have to be able to pass your coursework and complete a residency. It's not like people would just show up to the medical school, collect a diploma, and start practicing. Even if you could, a system where we make malpractice result in immediate loss of licensure would weed out the bad doctors after they screw up only one person. "Pass 'em all and let Trim sort 'em out" would be a better system than we have now.
vocal tone of the provider is actually a better indicator of malpractice claims than surgical outcomes.
-
Having enough medical schools so that anyone can become a doctor might not be a good thing. I would prefer that only the best get into doctor school and eventually cut me open.
You would still have to be able to pass your coursework and complete a residency. It's not like people would just show up to the medical school, collect a diploma, and start practicing. Even if you could, a system where we make malpractice result in immediate loss of licensure would weed out the bad doctors after they screw up only one person. "Pass 'em all and let Trim sort 'em out" would be a better system than we have now.
vocal tone of the provider is actually a better indicator of malpractice claims than surgical outcomes.
Well, whatever works.
-
What happens when all the poors who sign up for insurance decide to stop paying their monthly premiums?
-
What happens when all the poors who sign up for insurance decide to stop paying their monthly premiums?
They lose their insurance.
-
What happens when all the poors who sign up for insurance decide to stop paying their monthly premiums?
They lose their insurance.
:dubious:
Allow me to rephrase:
What happens when all the millions of poors who sign up through healthcare.gov get tired of paying their premiums after a few months and decide to buy a new flat panel TV and extra large bags of Funyuns instead?
-
Anybody here signed up yet?
a guy on another message board reported enrolling. california, no tax credit. cheaper than what my employer pays for me. be nice if employers would offer a cash out option on their benefit and let employees buy on their own...
Today I enrolled my family of four for $671.86 per month. This is for the Bronze 60 HSA PPO through Anthem.
-
hurr hurr poors
-
hey brock landers, shut the eff up.
-
Anybody here signed up yet?
a guy on another message board reported enrolling. california, no tax credit. cheaper than what my employer pays for me. be nice if employers would offer a cash out option on their benefit and let employees buy on their own...
Today I enrolled my family of four for $671.86 per month. This is for the Bronze 60 HSA PPO through Anthem.
I checked those out the first day. The deductibles are really high on the bronze plans as well as the copays. I suppose for a young family it makes sense if you aren't the type to use a doctor for colds and stuff. I suppose the $60 copay will stop a lot of that.
-
my employer offers a really shitty high-deductible/hsa plan. it's basically the same cost to me as for the plan that pays almost everything that we currently have. otherwise i'd be just as happy switching to that as switching to a cheaper exchange plan and getting my benefit as salary.
-
More confused insurers. Chum really needs to get on this. People are suffering.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx)
-
More confused insurers. Chum really needs to get on this. People are suffering.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx)
Do you realize that you're linking the exact same story over and over? Do you even have a point?
-
Sys, believe it or not, you could buy health insurance on the internet before obamacare, and in most cases it was cheaper than it is now. So I'm not sure what your point here is, unless its that you were an ignorant rough ridin' rube.
I agree that you should be able to accept your health benefit as cash from your employer, however.
-
FSD is the best poster in this thread
-
Having enough medical schools so that anyone can become a doctor might not be a good thing. I would prefer that only the best get into doctor school and eventually cut me open.
You would still have to be able to pass your coursework and complete a residency. It's not like people would just show up to the medical school, collect a diploma, and start practicing. Even if you could, a system where we make malpractice result in immediate loss of licensure would weed out the bad doctors after they screw up only one person. "Pass 'em all and let Trim sort 'em out" would be a better system than we have now.
no, your entire post is dumb.
-
I agree that you should be able to accept your health benefit as cash from your employer, however.
i know, right. it's bullshit.
-
Prior to the exchanges, the cost of healthcare insurance was pretty obscure and complicated, difficult for people to figure out. Now, it's much easier to have grasp of how much a health plan costs because there are so many quotes to compare readily available online.
Getting an insurance quote was not complicated before, and no more complicated that buying car insurance.
The difference I was referring to is that, before, you'd have to submit an online form with a bunch of personal information before getting a quote, often while being contacted by a salesperson. Now, you can quickly and easily pull up a bunch of quotes, compare them, and get a rough idea about the going rate for policies.
-
Getting an insurance quote was not complicated before, and no more complicated that buying car insurance. If you think having fewer choices is less complicated you're a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
What do you mean by fewer choices? There will be a major increase in the number of policyholders, yet a decrease in the number of policies? How does that make sense?
-
Prior to the exchanges, the cost of healthcare insurance was pretty obscure and complicated, difficult for people to figure out. Now, it's much easier to have grasp of how much a health plan costs because there are so many quotes to compare readily available online.
Getting an insurance quote was not complicated before, and no more complicated that buying car insurance.
The difference I was referring to is that, before, you'd have to submit an online form with a bunch of personal information before getting a quote, often while being contacted by a salesperson. Now, you can quickly and easily pull up a bunch of quotes, compare them, and get a rough idea about the going rate for policies.
Actually it is as easy as an age and zip code, so...idk what you are talking about.
-
More confused insurers. Chum really needs to get on this. People are suffering.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx)
How do you get from this
Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage
to this
The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1
?
Can anyone fill in the gaps? Didn't all policies fall short of what the ACA requires a couple years ago? Why weren't cancellation letters sent out for all of them? Why are these particular policies inherently incompatible with the ACA?
-
Prior to the exchanges, the cost of healthcare insurance was pretty obscure and complicated, difficult for people to figure out. Now, it's much easier to have grasp of how much a health plan costs because there are so many quotes to compare readily available online.
Getting an insurance quote was not complicated before, and no more complicated that buying car insurance.
The difference I was referring to is that, before, you'd have to submit an online form with a bunch of personal information before getting a quote, often while being contacted by a salesperson. Now, you can quickly and easily pull up a bunch of quotes, compare them, and get a rough idea about the going rate for policies.
Actually it is as easy as an age and zip code, so...idk what you are talking about.
Also, like the average person knows what they are buying :lol:
-
More confused insurers. Chum really needs to get on this. People are suffering.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx)
How do you get from this
Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage
to this
The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1
?
Can anyone fill in the gaps? Didn't all policies fall short of what the ACA requires a couple years ago? Why weren't cancellation letters sent out for all of them? Why are these particular policies inherently incompatible with the ACA?
:facepalm: Full blown HCR doesn't take effect until Jan 1 you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
More confused insurers. Chum really needs to get on this. People are suffering.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx)
How do you get from this
Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage
to this
The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1
?
Can anyone fill in the gaps? Didn't all policies fall short of what the ACA requires a couple years ago? Why weren't cancellation letters sent out for all of them? Why are these particular policies inherently incompatible with the ACA?
:facepalm: Full blown HCR doesn't take effect until Jan 1 you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Didn't almost all of the changes to existing plans take effect from 2010 to 2012? In any case, I'll rephrase. Don't all (non-grandfathered, etc.) policies fall short of what the ACA requires? Why aren't cancellation letters being sent out for all of them?
-
Prior to the exchanges, the cost of healthcare insurance was pretty obscure and complicated, difficult for people to figure out. Now, it's much easier to have grasp of how much a health plan costs because there are so many quotes to compare readily available online.
Getting an insurance quote was not complicated before, and no more complicated that buying car insurance.
The difference I was referring to is that, before, you'd have to submit an online form with a bunch of personal information before getting a quote, often while being contacted by a salesperson. Now, you can quickly and easily pull up a bunch of quotes, compare them, and get a rough idea about the going rate for policies.
Actually it is as easy as an age and zip code, so...idk what you are talking about.
I'll just put it this way. There are a shitload of quotes out there now with lots of different cost sharing options. It's a lot more information from which to draw conclusions about costs.
-
Prior to the exchanges, the cost of healthcare insurance was pretty obscure and complicated, difficult for people to figure out. Now, it's much easier to have grasp of how much a health plan costs because there are so many quotes to compare readily available online.
Getting an insurance quote was not complicated before, and no more complicated that buying car insurance.
The difference I was referring to is that, before, you'd have to submit an online form with a bunch of personal information before getting a quote, often while being contacted by a salesperson. Now, you can quickly and easily pull up a bunch of quotes, compare them, and get a rough idea about the going rate for policies.
Actually it is as easy as an age and zip code, so...idk what you are talking about.
Also, like the average person knows what they are buying :lol:
True. But they're pretty aware of how much it will cost them.
-
More confused insurers. Chum really needs to get on this. People are suffering.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx)
How do you get from this
Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage
to this
The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1
?
Can anyone fill in the gaps? Didn't all policies fall short of what the ACA requires a couple years ago? Why weren't cancellation letters sent out for all of them? Why are these particular policies inherently incompatible with the ACA?
:facepalm: Full blown HCR doesn't take effect until Jan 1 you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Didn't almost all of the changes to existing plans take effect from 2010 to 2012? In any case, I'll rephrase. Don't all (non-grandfathered, etc.) policies fall short of what the ACA requires? Why aren't cancellation letters being sent out for all of them?
Yes there were gradual changes that happened during that period. Some of the major ones were wellness visits, which in a simple form encourage people to get annual check-ups at no cost to them to avoid illness later, it saves both sides money. As far as grandfathered plans, there have been some renewal strategies in place for certain companies, ex. renewing Dec 31, 2013 so clients can keep their plans through all of 2014. Once that time comes tho, that policy will be cancelled or changed(depending on the company) to a new HCR compliant plan. Meanwhile there are no guarantees on premiums for such plans, and if a person keeps them during this time, they will be subject to the penalty($95 or 1% of their income, whichever is higher). Those that don't accept this renewal strategy for most companies will either be cancelled Jan 1, or in March/April sometime. As of now, the only way to not pay the penalty is to either have a group plan or go with a plan on the exchange.
-
Prior to the exchanges, the cost of healthcare insurance was pretty obscure and complicated, difficult for people to figure out. Now, it's much easier to have grasp of how much a health plan costs because there are so many quotes to compare readily available online.
Getting an insurance quote was not complicated before, and no more complicated that buying car insurance.
The difference I was referring to is that, before, you'd have to submit an online form with a bunch of personal information before getting a quote, often while being contacted by a salesperson. Now, you can quickly and easily pull up a bunch of quotes, compare them, and get a rough idea about the going rate for policies.
Actually it is as easy as an age and zip code, so...idk what you are talking about.
Also, like the average person knows what they are buying :lol:
True. But they're pretty aware of how much it will cost them.
For a monthly premium, yes. What they don't understand is that extra $20-50 a month can mean hundreds of thousands of coverage in exchange.
-
More confused insurers. Chum really needs to get on this. People are suffering.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx)
How do you get from this
Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage
to this
The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1
?
Can anyone fill in the gaps? Didn't all policies fall short of what the ACA requires a couple years ago? Why weren't cancellation letters sent out for all of them? Why are these particular policies inherently incompatible with the ACA?
:facepalm: Full blown HCR doesn't take effect until Jan 1 you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Didn't almost all of the changes to existing plans take effect from 2010 to 2012? In any case, I'll rephrase. Don't all (non-grandfathered, etc.) policies fall short of what the ACA requires? Why aren't cancellation letters being sent out for all of them?
Yes there were gradual changes that happened during that period. Some of the major ones were wellness visits, which in a simple form encourage people to get annual check-ups at no cost to them to avoid illness later, it saves both sides money. As far as grandfathered plans, there have been some renewal strategies in place for certain companies, ex. renewing Dec 31, 2013 so clients can keep their plans through all of 2014. Once that time comes tho, that policy will be cancelled or changed(depending on the company) to a new HCR compliant plan. Meanwhile there are no guarantees on premiums for such plans, and if a person keeps them during this time, they will be subject to the penalty($95 or 1% of their income, whichever is higher). Those that don't accept this renewal strategy for most companies will either be cancelled Jan 1, or in March/April sometime. As of now, the only way to not pay the penalty is to either have a group plan or go with a plan on the exchange.
As always, there are many, many facets to all of this. What I'm more interested in here, though, is the sense in which these people claim that they can't keep their old plans. Because, like you say, in a broad sense, no one can. But no one who claimed that people could keep their old plans meant that they could keep them in that sense. They knew certain changes were coming. So, in what meaningful sense can't these people keep their old plans?
-
More confused insurers. Chum really needs to get on this. People are suffering.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx)
How do you get from this
Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage
to this
The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1
?
Can anyone fill in the gaps? Didn't all policies fall short of what the ACA requires a couple years ago? Why weren't cancellation letters sent out for all of them? Why are these particular policies inherently incompatible with the ACA?
:facepalm: Full blown HCR doesn't take effect until Jan 1 you rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Didn't almost all of the changes to existing plans take effect from 2010 to 2012? In any case, I'll rephrase. Don't all (non-grandfathered, etc.) policies fall short of what the ACA requires? Why aren't cancellation letters being sent out for all of them?
Yes there were gradual changes that happened during that period. Some of the major ones were wellness visits, which in a simple form encourage people to get annual check-ups at no cost to them to avoid illness later, it saves both sides money. As far as grandfathered plans, there have been some renewal strategies in place for certain companies, ex. renewing Dec 31, 2013 so clients can keep their plans through all of 2014. Once that time comes tho, that policy will be cancelled or changed(depending on the company) to a new HCR compliant plan. Meanwhile there are no guarantees on premiums for such plans, and if a person keeps them during this time, they will be subject to the penalty($95 or 1% of their income, whichever is higher). Those that don't accept this renewal strategy for most companies will either be cancelled Jan 1, or in March/April sometime. As of now, the only way to not pay the penalty is to either have a group plan or go with a plan on the exchange.
As always, there are many, many facets to all of this. What I'm more interested in here, though, is the sense in which these people claim that they can't keep their old plans. Because, like you say, in a broad sense, no one can. But no one who claimed that people could keep their old plans meant that they could keep them in that sense. They knew certain changes were coming. So, in what meaningful sense can't these people keep their old plans?
The reason these people can't keep their current plans is because of the HCR mandates for major medical coverage. The reason most major national and state carriers(BCBS(said state)) are canceling plans is because of the non-declinability mandated Jan 1, 2014 in the ACA. Adding that risk to a for profit business is not a responsible way to run a business. That is why most carriers are developing non-reform compliant plans to stay in the market. Hopefully I sorta answered the question, I am very tired and will redo if need be in the morning.
-
If some plans get cancelled due to Obamacare and others don't, why is that? Doesn't Obamacare apply to (almost) all plans? For example, if we say that certain plans get cancelled due to non-declinability regulation, then why don't all plans to which this regulation applies get cancelled? What's unique about the plans that are getting cancelled?
-
Plans are getting cancelled because of maximum coverage amounts and excluded services.
Protip: You're plan that costs $300 a month to "cover" your family is shitty and you're a bad parent for even considering it adequate.
-
Plans are getting cancelled because of maximum coverage amounts and excluded services.
Protip: You're plan that costs $300 a month to "cover" your family is shitty and you're a bad parent for even considering it adequate.
Why do maximum coverage amounts and excluded services cause some plans to be cancelled but not others?
-
Also, health plans pretty much all cover the same crap. The difference in rates is determined by what you pay up front vs. what you pay out of pocket should you need to.
-
Chum, just admit you were wrong and move on. Insurers are cancelling policies by the hundreds of thousands due to Obamacare. This isn't an opinion - it's straight from the insurance companies.
-
Oops, turns out that pricing calculator we were all using a few pages back may be way underestimating the cost of insurance on the exchanges. Big surprise. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-pricing-feature-can-be-off-the-mark/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-pricing-feature-can-be-off-the-mark/)
-
A fix is on the way, available at your local Circuit City or CompUSA. http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-improved-obamacare-program-released-on-35-flop,34294/?ref=auto (http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-improved-obamacare-program-released-on-35-flop,34294/?ref=auto)
-
Chum, just admit you were wrong and move on. Insurers are cancelling policies by the hundreds of thousands due to Obamacare. This isn't an opinion - it's straight from the insurance companies.
My question is about how these policies could be cancelled due to Obamacare. It doesn't make sense for the reasons I gave. The articles you linked which cite that Kaiser story don't explain it, they just assert it.
-
Chum, just admit you were wrong and move on. Insurers are cancelling policies by the hundreds of thousands due to Obamacare. This isn't an opinion - it's straight from the insurance companies.
My question is about how these policies could be cancelled due to Obamacare. It doesn't make sense for the reasons I gave. The articles you linked which cite that Kaiser story don't explain it, they just assert it.
Ok, so you still think the insurance companies are wrong. Does anybody else agree with you? Can you cite to one industry professional, journalist, even a crack-pot blogger?
-
Chum, just admit you were wrong and move on. Insurers are cancelling policies by the hundreds of thousands due to Obamacare. This isn't an opinion - it's straight from the insurance companies.
My question is about how these policies could be cancelled due to Obamacare. It doesn't make sense for the reasons I gave. The articles you linked which cite that Kaiser story don't explain it, they just assert it.
Ok, so you still think the insurance companies are wrong. Does anybody else agree with you? Can you cite to one industry professional, journalist, even a crack-pot blogger?
Some agree, some disagree. So, why don't we see if we can figure this out for ourelves rather than merely picking a side that we already agree with? I asked a question. As a next step, you could try to answer it.
-
So if Kaiser has 300,000 policies out that don't meet the obamacare standard, and it doesn't make economic sense to increase the coverage for the current premium, shouldn't they withdraw the policy and let those 300,000 go through the exchanges? Seems much easier than trying to adjust everyone's premiums accordingly and dealing with customer sticker shock when they can deflect that problem to the government.
-
Chum, just admit you were wrong and move on. Insurers are cancelling policies by the hundreds of thousands due to Obamacare. This isn't an opinion - it's straight from the insurance companies.
My question is about how these policies could be cancelled due to Obamacare. It doesn't make sense for the reasons I gave. The articles you linked which cite that Kaiser story don't explain it, they just assert it.
Ok, so you still think the insurance companies are wrong. Does anybody else agree with you? Can you cite to one industry professional, journalist, even a crack-pot blogger?
Some agree, some disagree. So, why don't we see if we can figure this out for ourelves rather than merely picking a side that we already agree with? I asked a question. As a next step, you could try to answer it.
Let's start with you citing to anyone who concurs with you.
-
So if Kaiser has 300,000 policies out that don't meet the obamacare standard, and it doesn't make economic sense to increase the coverage for the current premium, shouldn't they withdraw the policy and let those 300,000 go through the exchanges? Seems much easier than trying to adjust everyone's premiums accordingly and dealing with customer sticker shock when they can deflect that problem to the government.
Wouldn't they want to retain as much business as possible? They could probably deal with having some pissed off customers, I'd think.
-
So if Kaiser has 300,000 policies out that don't meet the obamacare standard, and it doesn't make economic sense to increase the coverage for the current premium, shouldn't they withdraw the policy and let those 300,000 go through the exchanges? Seems much easier than trying to adjust everyone's premiums accordingly and dealing with customer sticker shock when they can deflect that problem to the government.
Wouldn't they want to retain as much business as possible? They could probably deal with having some pissed off customers, I'd think.
They're part of the exchange, so they'll get most of them back at a higher rate and deflect the blame for higher premiums.
-
Chum, just admit you were wrong and move on. Insurers are cancelling policies by the hundreds of thousands due to Obamacare. This isn't an opinion - it's straight from the insurance companies.
My question is about how these policies could be cancelled due to Obamacare. It doesn't make sense for the reasons I gave. The articles you linked which cite that Kaiser story don't explain it, they just assert it.
Ok, so you still think the insurance companies are wrong. Does anybody else agree with you? Can you cite to one industry professional, journalist, even a crack-pot blogger?
Some agree, some disagree. So, why don't we see if we can figure this out for ourelves rather than merely picking a side that we already agree with? I asked a question. As a next step, you could try to answer it.
Let's start with you citing to anyone who concurs with you.
I just spent a minute searching and didn't find any. There are just a bunch of links to articles citing that same Kaiser story. Let's assume no one agrees with me. Now, go ahead and tell me why Obamacare causes some plans to get cancelled, but not othets.
-
Chum, just admit you were wrong and move on. Insurers are cancelling policies by the hundreds of thousands due to Obamacare. This isn't an opinion - it's straight from the insurance companies.
My question is about how these policies could be cancelled due to Obamacare. It doesn't make sense for the reasons I gave. The articles you linked which cite that Kaiser story don't explain it, they just assert it.
Ok, so you still think the insurance companies are wrong. Does anybody else agree with you? Can you cite to one industry professional, journalist, even a crack-pot blogger?
Some agree, some disagree. So, why don't we see if we can figure this out for ourelves rather than merely picking a side that we already agree with? I asked a question. As a next step, you could try to answer it.
Let's start with you citing to anyone who concurs with you.
I just spent a minute searching and didn't find any. There are just a bunch of links to articles citing that same Kaiser story. Let's assume no one agrees with me. Now, go ahead and tell me why Obamacare causes some plans to get cancelled, but not othets.
The others already comply with the minimums and always have?
-
Chum, just admit you were wrong and move on. Insurers are cancelling policies by the hundreds of thousands due to Obamacare. This isn't an opinion - it's straight from the insurance companies.
My question is about how these policies could be cancelled due to Obamacare. It doesn't make sense for the reasons I gave. The articles you linked which cite that Kaiser story don't explain it, they just assert it.
Ok, so you still think the insurance companies are wrong. Does anybody else agree with you? Can you cite to one industry professional, journalist, even a crack-pot blogger?
Some agree, some disagree. So, why don't we see if we can figure this out for ourelves rather than merely picking a side that we already agree with? I asked a question. As a next step, you could try to answer it.
Let's start with you citing to anyone who concurs with you.
I just spent a minute searching and didn't find any. There are just a bunch of links to articles citing that same Kaiser story. Let's assume no one agrees with me. Now, go ahead and tell me why Obamacare causes some plans to get cancelled, but not othets.
The others already comply with the minimums and always have?
Right. There are plenty of policies that already meet the minimum coverage mandates.
-
Wow.
-
Lol
-
Yawn... just another industry expert explaining how Obamacare is trashing existing policies on the individual market....
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2013/10/week-two-of-obamacare-federal-health.html#more (http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2013/10/week-two-of-obamacare-federal-health.html#more)
The entire article post is very informative, but here's the key excerpt.
The U.S. individual health insurance market currently totals about 19 million people. Because the Obama administration's regulations on grandfathering existing plans were so stringent about 85% of those, 16 million, are not grandfathered and must comply with Obamacare at their next renewal. The rules are very complex. For example, if you had an individual plan in March of 2010 when the law was passed and you only increased the deductible from $1,000 to $1,500 in the years since, your plan has lost its grandfather status and it will no longer be available to you when it would have renewed in 2014.
These 16 million people are now receiving letters from their carriers saying they are losing their current coverage and must re-enroll in order to avoid a break in coverage and comply with the new health law's benefit mandates––the vast majority by January 1. Most of these will be seeing some pretty big rate increases.
-
TRASHING
-
I hope my policy doesn't get trashed. I really like it.
-
i don't have any insurance to even get thrashed <---ahead of the game
:gocho:
-
Just signed up for my health benefits for 2014. I'm getting paid $1.84/month to have health insurance. Lotta liars in this thread.
-
Just signed up for my health benefits for 2014. I'm getting paid $1.84/month to have health insurance. Lotta liars in this thread.
How did you afford all that Chipotle for a week?
-
Just signed up for my health benefits for 2014. I'm getting paid $1.84/month to have health insurance. Lotta liars in this thread.
Sounds like your old policy was CANCELLED and TRASHED.
-
i don't have any insurance to even get thrashed <---ahead of the game
:gocho:
You only have 'till mid april to get signed up, seven.
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
-
i don't have any insurance to even get thrashed <---ahead of the game
:gocho:
You only have 'till mid april to get signed up, seven.
probably just pay the penalty. :dunno: thought about signing up for the plan that's offered though the school, but that's still like $100 a month when i've only been to the doctor once in the last 13 years.
-
i don't have any insurance to even get thrashed <---ahead of the game
:gocho:
You only have 'till mid april to get signed up, seven.
probably just pay the penalty. :dunno: thought about signing up for the plan that's offered though the school, but that's still like $100 a month when i've only been to the doctor once in the last 13 years.
That's what I would do this year, but maybe they will pay you like they did kitten mittons.
-
i don't have any insurance to even get thrashed <---ahead of the game
:gocho:
You only have 'till mid april to get signed up, seven.
probably just pay the penalty. :dunno: thought about signing up for the plan that's offered though the school, but that's still like $100 a month when i've only been to the doctor once in the last 13 years.
That's what I would do this year, but maybe they will pay you like they did kitten mittons.
oh, i'm sure i'm eligible for all kinds of subsidy's, but they make you like sign up on that healthcare.gov website... and i'm just not motivated enough to find out. i just did the quick checker thing and even the premium plans were like $350 a month, which is about what my employer paid when i had insurance though them. (meaning they are reasonable, just not for someone in my situation)
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
There is some significance in that the people were promised that they would be able to keep their plans if they liked them, they would be able to keep their doctor, and that the new plans would be less expensive.
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
For those keeping score at home, Chum now concedes that ObamaCare is causing cancellations, and has switched to "they're insignificant." Next up will be the latest libtard fallback "well, their old insurance obviously sucked."
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
There is some significance in that the people were promised that they would be able to keep their plans if they liked them, they would be able to keep their doctor, and that the new plans would be less expensive.
I never took Obama to be saying both that their plans would change and and would not change. But even if that's what he conveyed, is it really that significant? Politicians do that all the time.
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
For those keeping score at home, Chum now concedes that ObamaCare is causing cancellations, and has switched to "they're insignificant." Next up will be the latest libtard fallback "well, their old insurance obviously sucked."
The type of cancellations you're talking about have been the norm for a long time. They've been caused by many other laws. I thought you were saying there was somerhing uniquely disasterous about cancellations caused by Obamacare. Were you not?
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
For those keeping score at home, Chum now concedes that ObamaCare is causing cancellations, and has switched to "they're insignificant." Next up will be the latest libtard fallback "well, their old insurance obviously sucked."
The type of cancellations you're talking about have been the norm for a long time. They've been caused by many other laws. I thought you were saying there was somerhing uniquely disasterous about cancellations caused by Obamacare. Were you not?
Sorry chum. Before I move on to your next stupid argument, you're going to have to admit you were wrong about ObamaCare not causing cancellations.
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
For those keeping score at home, Chum now concedes that ObamaCare is causing cancellations, and has switched to "they're insignificant." Next up will be the latest libtard fallback "well, their old insurance obviously sucked."
The type of cancellations you're talking about have been the norm for a long time. They've been caused by many other laws. I thought you were saying there was somerhing uniquely disasterous about cancellations caused by Obamacare. Were you not?
Sorry chum. Before I move on to your next stupid argument, you're going to have to admit you were wrong about ObamaCare not causing cancellations.
You're using the word "cancellation" to be synonymous with "plan change." Everyone knew there would be plan changes, including me. It's the law. So, in your sense, yes, I did know there would be cancellations. I just thought you were trying to say something that wasn't completely trivial. My mistake.
-
:popcorn:
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
There is some significance in that the people were promised that they would be able to keep their plans if they liked them, they would be able to keep their doctor, and that the new plans would be less expensive.
I never took Obama to be saying both that their plans would change and and would not change. But even if that's what he conveyed, is it really that significant? Politicians do that all the time.
Well, I do think its significant because this was one of the cornerstone promises to the people he used to get that very, very slim win (using bribes as well) in the house and senate. And it isn't ambiguous at all. There is only one way to interpret what he says.
So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage - they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/obama-ama-speech-full-tex_n_215699.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/15/obama-ama-speech-full-tex_n_215699.html)
-
I have no idea what you guys are arguing about over the last week or so, but here's the problem with obamacare:
It was sold as a plan that will provide insurance to everyone, to "fill the gap for those people who have fallen through the cracks", with the "rich footing the bill",
When in reality its consequences leave fewer people insured, and the people that were already doing what they were supposed to be doing, working a job or buying their own, footing the bill. Only a fool could think that the law was drafted without being aware of the consequences.
And the person propogating the lie that is the former is hardly being held responsible for the latter. Per usual, in libtard la la land, having an idea that is well intended is good enough, regardless of the extraordinary cost and suffering to the public.
-
I have no idea what you guys are arguing about over the last week or so, but here's the problem with obamacare:
It was sold as a plan that will provide insurance to everyone, to "fill the gap for those people who have fallen through the cracks", with the "rich footing the bill",
When in reality its consequences leave fewer people insured, and the people that were already doing what they were supposed to be doing, working a job or buying their own, footing the bill. Only a fool could think that the law was drafted without being aware of the consequences.
And the person propogating the lie that is the former is hardly being held responsible for the latter. Per usual, in libtard la la land, having an idea that is well intended is good enough, regardless of the extraordinary cost and suffering to the public.
^
butthurt
-
^
Butthurtier
-
:angry:
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
For those keeping score at home, Chum now concedes that ObamaCare is causing cancellations, and has switched to "they're insignificant." Next up will be the latest libtard fallback "well, their old insurance obviously sucked."
The type of cancellations you're talking about have been the norm for a long time. They've been caused by many other laws. I thought you were saying there was somerhing uniquely disasterous about cancellations caused by Obamacare. Were you not?
Sorry chum. Before I move on to your next stupid argument, you're going to have to admit you were wrong about ObamaCare not causing cancellations.
You're using the word "cancellation" to be synonymous with "plan change." Everyone knew there would be plan changes, including me. It's the law. So, in your sense, yes, I did know there would be cancellations. I just thought you were trying to say something that wasn't completely trivial. My mistake.
And you're using the words "plan change" to gloss over the fact that millions of plans are being cancelled - i.e. not renewed - due to ObamaCare mandates. The new plans will in many cases have higher deductibles, higher premiums, and/or different doctor networks, as many unfortunate recipients of these letters have discovered. Hence the importance of Obama's bullshit promise that "if you like your plan, you can keep it."
Thus, your sanguine response that these "plan changes" are "insignificant" is just as stupid as your previous claim that ObamaCare was not to blame. Trying to convince you otherwise is just an excercise in futility. It was fun for a while to point out how demonstrably wrong you are, but even that's getting boring.
-
Do plans even have doctor networks anymore?
-
TRASHING
Now you're getting it. Seriously though, if at any point you find something to the contrary, feel free to share. Or just go ahead and keep pretending that policies are not being cancelled due to ObamaCare mandates. Up to you.
What I'm getting is that I completely mistook you to be saying that there was something of significance about these cancellations.
For those keeping score at home, Chum now concedes that ObamaCare is causing cancellations, and has switched to "they're insignificant." Next up will be the latest libtard fallback "well, their old insurance obviously sucked."
The type of cancellations you're talking about have been the norm for a long time. They've been caused by many other laws. I thought you were saying there was somerhing uniquely disasterous about cancellations caused by Obamacare. Were you not?
Sorry chum. Before I move on to your next stupid argument, you're going to have to admit you were wrong about ObamaCare not causing cancellations.
You're using the word "cancellation" to be synonymous with "plan change." Everyone knew there would be plan changes, including me. It's the law. So, in your sense, yes, I did know there would be cancellations. I just thought you were trying to say something that wasn't completely trivial. My mistake.
And you're using the words "plan change" to gloss over the fact that millions of plans are being cancelled - i.e. not renewed - due to ObamaCare mandates. The new plans will in many cases have higher deductibles, higher premiums, and/or different doctor networks, as many unfortunate recipients of these letters have discovered. Hence the importance of Obama's bullshit promise that "if you like your plan, you can keep it."
Thus, your sanguine response that these "plan changes" are "insignificant" is just as stupid as your previous claim that ObamaCare was not to blame. Trying to convince you otherwise is just an excercise in futility. It was fun for a while to point out how demonstrably wrong you are, but even that's getting boring.
Everyone knew all along that there would be higher deductibles and premiums. (I've even stated that previously in this thread.). So you saying that there are higher deductibles, higher premiums, and CANCELLED PLANS really doesn't add anything meaningful.
-
Do plans even have doctor networks anymore?
Some have multiple networks and some just one, like Kaiser.
-
And you're using the words "plan change" to gloss over the fact that millions of plans are being cancelled - i.e. not renewed - due to ObamaCare mandates. The new plans will in many cases have higher deductibles, higher premiums, and/or different doctor networks, as many unfortunate recipients of these letters have discovered. Hence the importance of Obama's bullshit promise that "if you like your plan, you can keep it."
Thus, your sanguine response that these "plan changes" are "insignificant" is just as stupid as your previous claim that ObamaCare was not to blame. Trying to convince you otherwise is just an exercise in futility. It was fun for a while to point out how demonstrably wrong you are, but even that's getting boring.
Everyone knew all along that there would be higher deductibles and premiums.
:lol:
Obama: "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
Pelosi: "And everybody will have lower rates...."
Redi: "For people that have health insurance today, they will have an immediate reduction on an average of their insurance premium by $1,600 per year."
Glad that you "knew" it though Chum. Does that make it "insignificant" to those getting hit by increases? Or, are you now changing arguments again? Let's see: First it wasn't true that Obamacare was causing cancellations, er "plan changes" (false), then these changes were "insignificant" (false), and now I'm not "adding anything meaningful." :lol:
-
Obama: "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
To be fair to Obama, this really isn't the plan he was endorsing when he was campaigning. He wanted single payer, iirc. This is Mitt Romney's plan.
-
Obama: "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
To be fair to Obama, this really isn't the plan he was endorsing when he was campaigning. He wanted single payer, iirc. This is Mitt Romney's plan.
This claim did not pertain to a single-payer plan, which would have had no premium. The New York Times has the explanation of Obama's bullshit promise. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html?_r=3& (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html?_r=3&)
-
Just signed up for my health benefits for 2014. I'm getting paid $1.84/month to have health insurance. Lotta liars in this thread.
How did you afford all that Chipotle for a week?
My health insurance covered it.
-
And you're using the words "plan change" to gloss over the fact that millions of plans are being cancelled - i.e. not renewed - due to ObamaCare mandates. The new plans will in many cases have higher deductibles, higher premiums, and/or different doctor networks, as many unfortunate recipients of these letters have discovered. Hence the importance of Obama's bullshit promise that "if you like your plan, you can keep it."
Thus, your sanguine response that these "plan changes" are "insignificant" is just as stupid as your previous claim that ObamaCare was not to blame. Trying to convince you otherwise is just an exercise in futility. It was fun for a while to point out how demonstrably wrong you are, but even that's getting boring.
Everyone knew all along that there would be higher deductibles and premiums.
:lol:
Obama: "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
Pelosi: "And everybody will have lower rates...."
Redi: "For people that have health insurance today, they will have an immediate reduction on an average of their insurance premium by $1,600 per year."
Glad that you "knew" it though Chum. Does that make it "insignificant" to those getting hit by increases? Or, are you now changing arguments again? Let's see: First it wasn't true that Obamacare was causing cancellations, er "plan changes" (false), then these changes were "insignificant" (false), and now I'm not "adding anything meaningful." :lol:
Congrats on your recent discovery about politicians. They're slippery bastards.
-
And you're using the words "plan change" to gloss over the fact that millions of plans are being cancelled - i.e. not renewed - due to ObamaCare mandates. The new plans will in many cases have higher deductibles, higher premiums, and/or different doctor networks, as many unfortunate recipients of these letters have discovered. Hence the importance of Obama's bullshit promise that "if you like your plan, you can keep it."
Thus, your sanguine response that these "plan changes" are "insignificant" is just as stupid as your previous claim that ObamaCare was not to blame. Trying to convince you otherwise is just an exercise in futility. It was fun for a while to point out how demonstrably wrong you are, but even that's getting boring.
Everyone knew all along that there would be higher deductibles and premiums.
:lol:
Obama: "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
Pelosi: "And everybody will have lower rates...."
Redi: "For people that have health insurance today, they will have an immediate reduction on an average of their insurance premium by $1,600 per year."
Glad that you "knew" it though Chum. Does that make it "insignificant" to those getting hit by increases? Or, are you now changing arguments again? Let's see: First it wasn't true that Obamacare was causing cancellations, er "plan changes" (false), then these changes were "insignificant" (false), and now I'm not "adding anything meaningful." :lol:
for one, subsidies, how do they work?
two, you keep thinking that increased costs aren't an issue here.
-
You fellas need to think of the Obamacare Website like a typical government procurement scenario, particularly as it relates to IT, which is also very similar to military weapons system procurement.
Award the lowest bidder (still spending lots of money tho), have various subcontractors, roll out with many issues, lots of money to fix all the issues, once millions/billions are spent fixing, PR campaign lauding performance mile stones coupled with "all complex things have bumps in the road" talking points, sprinkle with "but everything is working great now" (say with emphasis/smiles/hand gestures).
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/24/obamacare_operator_fired_after_taking_call_from_hannity_hannity_to_give_her_a_years_salary.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/24/obamacare_operator_fired_after_taking_call_from_hannity_hannity_to_give_her_a_years_salary.html)
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/23/george_will_on_obamacare_when_they_fix_the_website_their_real_problems_will_begin.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/23/george_will_on_obamacare_when_they_fix_the_website_their_real_problems_will_begin.html)
When they fix the website, their real problems will begin. They're going to look back on the last few weeks as the good old days. When people hack their way through the thicket of difficulties and get to the real choices that Obamacare offers, particularly the 2.7 million young people they're counting on to sign up and the young people say, 'this is awfully expensive for something I don't want,' and recoil, That is the difficulties today are actually keeping people from seeing the bad choice they're going to have to make once they get onto the site.
-
what a dick, getting a woman who makes $26k a year fired to further his agenda. just a slimy cocksucker.
-
what a dick, getting a woman who makes $26k a year fired to further his agenda. just a slimy cocksucker.
This is how it works in the lib world. kill the messenger.
-
what a dick, getting a woman who makes $26k a year fired to further his agenda. just a slimy cocksucker.
This is how it works in the lib world. kill the messenger.
you don't think he was absolutely giddy (and hopeful) that this would be the outcome? don't be naive JD.
-
what a dick, getting a woman who makes $26k a year fired to further his agenda. just a slimy cocksucker.
This is how it works in the lib world. kill the messenger.
you don't think he was absolutely giddy (and hopeful) that this would be the outcome? don't be naive JD.
No, I don't believe that. He got more than enough from the interview itself. And paying this woman a year's salary is a class act. Hardly "slimy." I'm not even a big Hannity fan, but this was very nice of him. He didn't trick her. He told her she was on the air, he didn't ask trick questions, she just spoke the truth, got fired for it, and now he's helping her out.
-
we already know you're a rough ridin' moron K-S-U, but you're an even bigger rough ridin' moron if you don't think his whole plan was to get this woman fired and grandstand about it.
slimy cocksucker.
-
what a dick, getting a woman who makes $26k a year fired to further his agenda. just a slimy cocksucker.
This is how it works in the lib world. kill the messenger.
you don't think he was absolutely giddy (and hopeful) that this would be the outcome? don't be naive JD.
No, I don't think that was his intention at all. I think he was trying to get truthful answers and perhaps she was a little too truthful so her employer was told by HHS to fire her. He did give her a years salary and found her a job, something I don't think many people in his position would bother to do.
-
what a dick, getting a woman who makes $26k a year fired to further his agenda. just a slimy cocksucker.
This is how it works in the lib world. kill the messenger.
you don't think he was absolutely giddy (and hopeful) that this would be the outcome? don't be naive JD.
No, I don't think that was his intention at all. I think he was trying to get truthful answers and perhaps she was a little too truthful so her employer was told by HHS to fire her. He did give her a years salary and found her a job, something I don't think many people in his position would bother to do.
:lol:
would love to see all of you naive kool-sean drinker's reactions if maddow did this.
-
what a dick, getting a woman who makes $26k a year fired to further his agenda. just a slimy cocksucker.
This is how it works in the lib world. kill the messenger.
you don't think he was absolutely giddy (and hopeful) that this would be the outcome? don't be naive JD.
No, I don't think that was his intention at all. I think he was trying to get truthful answers and perhaps she was a little too truthful so her employer was told by HHS to fire her. He did give her a years salary and found her a job, something I don't think many people in his position would bother to do.
:lol:
would love to see all of you naive kool-sean drinker's reactions if maddow did this.
I don't watch or listen to hannity, but I do watch maddow and chris hayes occasionally, and I don't think they would go out of their way to help her out if the same thing happened.They would just excoriate the bush administration and move on.
-
what a dick, getting a woman who makes $26k a year fired to further his agenda. just a slimy cocksucker.
This is how it works in the lib world. kill the messenger.
you don't think he was absolutely giddy (and hopeful) that this would be the outcome? don't be naive JD.
No, I don't think that was his intention at all. I think he was trying to get truthful answers and perhaps she was a little too truthful so her employer was told by HHS to fire her. He did give her a years salary and found her a job, something I don't think many people in his position would bother to do.
:lol:
would love to see all of you naive kool-sean drinker's reactions if maddow did this.
I don't watch or listen to hannity, but I do watch maddow and chris hayes occasionally, and I don't think they would go out of their way to help her out if the same thing happened.They would just excoriate the bush administration and move on.
:jerk:
-
we already know you're a rough ridin' moron K-S-U, but you're an even bigger rough ridin' moron if you don't think his whole plan was to get this woman fired and grandstand about it.
slimy cocksucker.
While we're reading his mind, I bet he's a racist, too. And a homophobe. Cocksucker. You stay classy seven.
-
we already know you're a rough ridin' moron K-S-U, but you're an even bigger rough ridin' moron if you don't think his whole plan was to get this woman fired and grandstand about it.
slimy cocksucker.
While we're reading his mind, I bet he's a racist, too. And a homophobe. Cocksucker. You stay classy seven.
i knew you were a fan of his. :Carl:
-
Chum can disregard. http://washingtonexaminer.com/carefirst-says-76000-customers-will-lose-current-coverage-due-to-obamacare/article/2537782 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/carefirst-says-76000-customers-will-lose-current-coverage-due-to-obamacare/article/2537782)
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield is being forced to cancel plans that currently cover 76,000 individuals in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., due to changes made by President Obama's health care law, the company told the Washington Examiner today.
That represents more than 40 percent of the 177,000 individuals covered by CareFirst in those states.
Though Obama famously promised that those who liked their health care coverage could keep it under his program, in reality, the health care law imposes a raft of new regulations on insurance policies starting Jan. 1 that are forcing insurers across the country to terminate existing plans.
In theory, rules were supposed to allow pre-existing plans to be "grandfathered in," but they were written so narrowly that they leave out many plans.
"Of the 177,000 individuals under age 65 who are covered by CareFirst, about 76,000 of them are in a non-grandfathered plan — a plan that will not comply with the guidelines imposed by the Affordable Care Act at their time of renewal this year or next," CareFirst said in an email in response to an inquiry by the Examiner.
It continued, "These individuals in Maryland, Washington, D.C., and portions of Northern Virginia will be required by the health law to purchase a new ACA-compliant health plan. This phenomenon is not unique to CareFirst and its members, but rather a result of industrywide changes in accordance with new ACA health plan standards."
And in other news, http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/24/health-insurance-cancellation-notices-soar-above-obamacare-enrollment-rates/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/24/health-insurance-cancellation-notices-soar-above-obamacare-enrollment-rates/)
-
My brother went to the website today to price out some coverage, he entered all his information, he said it seemed like once the site determined he wasn't a poor it dropped him like a hot potata, so my question is why wouldn't anybody be able to buy off the site? Can anybody?
-
My brother went to the website today to price out some coverage, he entered all his information, he said it seemed like once the site determined he wasn't a poor it dropped him like a hot potata, so my question is why wouldn't anybody be able to buy off the site? Can anybody?
If he lives in Kansas, blame Brownback. Many radically conservative states decided it would be better to screw over their citizens instead of letting them get health care.
-
My brother went to the website today to price out some coverage, he entered all his information, he said it seemed like once the site determined he wasn't a poor it dropped him like a hot potata, so my question is why wouldn't anybody be able to buy off the site? Can anybody?
If he lives in Kansas, blame Brownback. Many radically conservative states decided it would be better to screw over their citizens instead of letting them get health care.
Yes, it's the GOP's fault! :lol:
-
And you're using the words "plan change" to gloss over the fact that millions of plans are being cancelled - i.e. not renewed - due to ObamaCare mandates. The new plans will in many cases have higher deductibles, higher premiums, and/or different doctor networks, as many unfortunate recipients of these letters have discovered. Hence the importance of Obama's bullshit promise that "if you like your plan, you can keep it."
Thus, your sanguine response that these "plan changes" are "insignificant" is just as stupid as your previous claim that ObamaCare was not to blame. Trying to convince you otherwise is just an exercise in futility. It was fun for a while to point out how demonstrably wrong you are, but even that's getting boring.
Everyone knew all along that there would be higher deductibles and premiums.
:lol:
Obama: "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year."
Pelosi: "And everybody will have lower rates...."
Redi: "For people that have health insurance today, they will have an immediate reduction on an average of their insurance premium by $1,600 per year."
Glad that you "knew" it though Chum. Does that make it "insignificant" to those getting hit by increases? Or, are you now changing arguments again? Let's see: First it wasn't true that Obamacare was causing cancellations, er "plan changes" (false), then these changes were "insignificant" (false), and now I'm not "adding anything meaningful." :lol:
for one, subsidies, how do they work?
two, you keep thinking that increased costs aren't an issue here.
Yes, some of these people receiving cancellations, if they earn less than 400% of the poverty line, will receive subsidies to help them balance out the higher costs of the new plans. And while that should help them, is that really a good thing as a matter of public and fiscal policy? You're taking people who were already paying their own way, cancelling their plans, and giving them tax dollars to buy a new one.
-
Its hannity's fault this person got fired for doing there job. Wow, I didn't realize the left had become this demented.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is-executive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is-executive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/)
-
My brother went to the website today to price out some coverage, he entered all his information, he said it seemed like once the site determined he wasn't a poor it dropped him like a hot potata, so my question is why wouldn't anybody be able to buy off the site? Can anybody?
If he lives in Kansas, blame Brownback. Many radically conservative states decided it would be better to screw over their citizens instead of letting them get health care.
Yes, it's the GOP's fault! :lol:
100% confirmed you have no idea what Obamacare is or how it was deployed.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
-
Republicans are so dumb.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote - and even then it required a number of bribes, plus special legislative maneuvering after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat on the promise to be the 60th vote against ObamaCare - and it's the Republicans' fault for not helping to implement something they universally opposed?
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote - and even then it required a number of bribes, plus special legislative maneuvering after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat on the promise to be the 60th vote against ObamaCare - and it's the Republicans' fault for not helping to implement something they universally opposed?
It wasn't rammed through congress, it was debated on for close to a year and many republicans had a say, and the main say they got was their 90s idea being implemented while single payer and the public option were thrown to the side.
Also it is a fact that republican governors thumbed their nose at the law and refused the money to build their state exchanges thus turning the Obamacare website into a much more complex project than originally planned.
Our own lousy person as a governor is one of them and he has also basically refused money from the Feds to cover the poor in this state and therefore added to the problem of the uninsured.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote - and even then it required a number of bribes, plus special legislative maneuvering after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat on the promise to be the 60th vote against ObamaCare - and it's the Republicans' fault for not helping to implement something they universally opposed?
It wasn't rammed through congress, it was debated on for close to a year and many republicans had a say, and the main say they got was their 90s idea being implemented while single payer and the public option were thrown to the side.
Also it is a fact that republican governors thumbed their nose at the law and refused the money to build their state exchanges thus turning the Obamacare website into a much more complex project than originally planned.
Our own lousy person as a governor is one of them and he has also basically refused money from the Feds to cover the poor in this state and therefore added to the problem of the uninsured.
ObamaCare never started out as single payer. Not one. Single. Republican. Voted for this law. At least two dem senators were bribed. The House and Senate never even voted on the same frigging bill, because the dems had to use budget reconciliation to ram it through after losing their filibuster proof majority due to the election of a republican senator in Massachusetts due to popular backlash against ObamaCare. These are facts.
And republicans are to blame for not helping to implement a law they never supported? This truly is the dumbest excuse yet. The Feds stepped in and created their own exchanges anyway - they just don't work.
Finally, these problems with the exchanges are just the beginning. This was the easy part! The real problems begin once people really begin signing up in greater numbers. That is when the fundamental disaster of ObamaCare will be revealed. Primarily older, sicker people will sign up. Not enough young people will be willing to pay the high premiums for coverage they don't need. Rates will soar higher due to the adverse selection.
-
Regardless of party, government administrators are usually required to implement laws they may not like.
With all these Obamacare fears maybe we should just go with single payer making us responsible through our payroll taxes.
If we can already pay for others now, we should be able to pay for ourselves.
-
Regardless of party, government administrators are usually required to implement laws they may not like.
With all these Obamacare fears maybe we should just go with single payer making us responsible through our payroll taxes.
If we can already pay for others now, we should be able to pay for ourselves.
Can you name another piece of legislation anywhere close to this magnitude that was signed into law with zero bipartisan support? If you're going to ram a law through without any Republican support, you probably shouldn't rely on Republicans to cooperate in its implementation, and you sure as hell shouldn't claim this as an excuse.
Regarding single payer, you're in luck! This will be Hillary's 2016 campaign. First we make our healthcare system worse with more government meddling, and the obvious solution is complete government control! Libtards will make this argument (they already are) with a completely straight face.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is-executive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is-executive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/)
FORMER KAT KID CLASSMATE IS A BABY SHAKER
Kat Kid quoted as saying "I Love Leon Patton!"
http://cjonline.com/stories/092008/cat_334492708.shtml (http://cjonline.com/stories/092008/cat_334492708.shtml)
-
Republicans are so dumb.
obamacare is not a good system. Nobody could legitimately argue it is.
-
Republicans are so dumb.
obamacare is not a good system. Nobody could legitimately argue it is.
they aren't mutually exclusive.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote - and even then it required a number of bribes, plus special legislative maneuvering after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat on the promise to be the 60th vote against ObamaCare - and it's the Republicans' fault for not helping to implement something they universally opposed?
It wasn't rammed through congress, it was debated on for close to a year and many republicans had a say, and the main say they got was their 90s idea being implemented while single payer and the public option were thrown to the side.
Also it is a fact that republican governors thumbed their nose at the law and refused the money to build their state exchanges thus turning the Obamacare website into a much more complex project than originally planned.
Our own lousy person as a governor is one of them and he has also basically refused money from the Feds to cover the poor in this state and therefore added to the problem of the uninsured.
ObamaCare never started out as single payer. Not one. Single. Republican. Voted for this law. At least two dem senators were bribed. The House and Senate never even voted on the same frigging bill, because the dems had to use budget reconciliation to ram it through after losing their filibuster proof majority due to the election of a republican senator in Massachusetts due to popular backlash against ObamaCare. These are facts.
And republicans are to blame for not helping to implement a law they never supported? This truly is the dumbest excuse yet. The Feds stepped in and created their own exchanges anyway - they just don't work.
Finally, these problems with the exchanges are just the beginning. This was the easy part! The real problems begin once people really begin signing up in greater numbers. That is when the fundamental disaster of ObamaCare will be revealed. Primarily older, sicker people will sign up. Not enough young people will be willing to pay the high premiums for coverage they don't need. Rates will soar higher due to the adverse selection.
You've made it abundantly clear you have no idea how this law has been implemented, what its components are, or how it works. I mean just no clue whatsoever.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote - and even then it required a number of bribes, plus special legislative maneuvering after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat on the promise to be the 60th vote against ObamaCare - and it's the Republicans' fault for not helping to implement something they universally opposed?
It wasn't rammed through congress, it was debated on for close to a year and many republicans had a say, and the main say they got was their 90s idea being implemented while single payer and the public option were thrown to the side.
Also it is a fact that republican governors thumbed their nose at the law and refused the money to build their state exchanges thus turning the Obamacare website into a much more complex project than originally planned.
Our own lousy person as a governor is one of them and he has also basically refused money from the Feds to cover the poor in this state and therefore added to the problem of the uninsured.
ObamaCare never started out as single payer. Not one. Single. Republican. Voted for this law. At least two dem senators were bribed. The House and Senate never even voted on the same frigging bill, because the dems had to use budget reconciliation to ram it through after losing their filibuster proof majority due to the election of a republican senator in Massachusetts due to popular backlash against ObamaCare. These are facts.
And republicans are to blame for not helping to implement a law they never supported? This truly is the dumbest excuse yet. The Feds stepped in and created their own exchanges anyway - they just don't work.
Finally, these problems with the exchanges are just the beginning. This was the easy part! The real problems begin once people really begin signing up in greater numbers. That is when the fundamental disaster of ObamaCare will be revealed. Primarily older, sicker people will sign up. Not enough young people will be willing to pay the high premiums for coverage they don't need. Rates will soar higher due to the adverse selection.
You've made it abundantly clear you have no idea how this law has been implemented, what its components are, or how it works. I mean just no clue whatsoever.
These kinds of posts are meaningless unless you try to explain how it was implemented, what it's components are, and how it works. Anyone can blurt those words out.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote - and even then it required a number of bribes, plus special legislative maneuvering after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat on the promise to be the 60th vote against ObamaCare - and it's the Republicans' fault for not helping to implement something they universally opposed?
It wasn't rammed through congress, it was debated on for close to a year and many republicans had a say, and the main say they got was their 90s idea being implemented while single payer and the public option were thrown to the side.
Also it is a fact that republican governors thumbed their nose at the law and refused the money to build their state exchanges thus turning the Obamacare website into a much more complex project than originally planned.
Our own lousy person as a governor is one of them and he has also basically refused money from the Feds to cover the poor in this state and therefore added to the problem of the uninsured.
ObamaCare never started out as single payer. Not one. Single. Republican. Voted for this law. At least two dem senators were bribed. The House and Senate never even voted on the same frigging bill, because the dems had to use budget reconciliation to ram it through after losing their filibuster proof majority due to the election of a republican senator in Massachusetts due to popular backlash against ObamaCare. These are facts.
And republicans are to blame for not helping to implement a law they never supported? This truly is the dumbest excuse yet. The Feds stepped in and created their own exchanges anyway - they just don't work.
Finally, these problems with the exchanges are just the beginning. This was the easy part! The real problems begin once people really begin signing up in greater numbers. That is when the fundamental disaster of ObamaCare will be revealed. Primarily older, sicker people will sign up. Not enough young people will be willing to pay the high premiums for coverage they don't need. Rates will soar higher due to the adverse selection.
You've made it abundantly clear you have no idea how this law has been implemented, what its components are, or how it works. I mean just no clue whatsoever.
These kinds of posts are meaningless unless you try to explain how it was implemented, what it's components are, and how it works. Anyone can blurt those words out.
Since Fake and KSU can't do it, how me where I'm wrong about how Brownback didn't screw people.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote - and even then it required a number of bribes, plus special legislative maneuvering after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat on the promise to be the 60th vote against ObamaCare - and it's the Republicans' fault for not helping to implement something they universally opposed?
It wasn't rammed through congress, it was debated on for close to a year and many republicans had a say, and the main say they got was their 90s idea being implemented while single payer and the public option were thrown to the side.
Also it is a fact that republican governors thumbed their nose at the law and refused the money to build their state exchanges thus turning the Obamacare website into a much more complex project than originally planned.
Our own lousy person as a governor is one of them and he has also basically refused money from the Feds to cover the poor in this state and therefore added to the problem of the uninsured.
ObamaCare never started out as single payer. Not one. Single. Republican. Voted for this law. At least two dem senators were bribed. The House and Senate never even voted on the same frigging bill, because the dems had to use budget reconciliation to ram it through after losing their filibuster proof majority due to the election of a republican senator in Massachusetts due to popular backlash against ObamaCare. These are facts.
And republicans are to blame for not helping to implement a law they never supported? This truly is the dumbest excuse yet. The Feds stepped in and created their own exchanges anyway - they just don't work.
Finally, these problems with the exchanges are just the beginning. This was the easy part! The real problems begin once people really begin signing up in greater numbers. That is when the fundamental disaster of ObamaCare will be revealed. Primarily older, sicker people will sign up. Not enough young people will be willing to pay the high premiums for coverage they don't need. Rates will soar higher due to the adverse selection.
You've made it abundantly clear you have no idea how this law has been implemented, what its components are, or how it works. I mean just no clue whatsoever.
These kinds of posts are meaningless unless you try to explain how it was implemented, what it's components are, and how it works. Anyone can blurt those words out.
Since Fake and KSU can't do it, how me where I'm wrong about how Brownback didn't screw people.
Explain how brownback is screwing people. You may have a valid point, but we won't know until you explain it to the less informed.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote - and even then it required a number of bribes, plus special legislative maneuvering after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat on the promise to be the 60th vote against ObamaCare - and it's the Republicans' fault for not helping to implement something they universally opposed?
It wasn't rammed through congress, it was debated on for close to a year and many republicans had a say, and the main say they got was their 90s idea being implemented while single payer and the public option were thrown to the side.
Also it is a fact that republican governors thumbed their nose at the law and refused the money to build their state exchanges thus turning the Obamacare website into a much more complex project than originally planned.
Our own lousy person as a governor is one of them and he has also basically refused money from the Feds to cover the poor in this state and therefore added to the problem of the uninsured.
ObamaCare never started out as single payer. Not one. Single. Republican. Voted for this law. At least two dem senators were bribed. The House and Senate never even voted on the same frigging bill, because the dems had to use budget reconciliation to ram it through after losing their filibuster proof majority due to the election of a republican senator in Massachusetts due to popular backlash against ObamaCare. These are facts.
And republicans are to blame for not helping to implement a law they never supported? This truly is the dumbest excuse yet. The Feds stepped in and created their own exchanges anyway - they just don't work.
Finally, these problems with the exchanges are just the beginning. This was the easy part! The real problems begin once people really begin signing up in greater numbers. That is when the fundamental disaster of ObamaCare will be revealed. Primarily older, sicker people will sign up. Not enough young people will be willing to pay the high premiums for coverage they don't need. Rates will soar higher due to the adverse selection.
You've made it abundantly clear you have no idea how this law has been implemented, what its components are, or how it works. I mean just no clue whatsoever.
These kinds of posts are meaningless unless you try to explain how it was implemented, what it's components are, and how it works. Anyone can blurt those words out.
Since Fake and KSU can't do it, how me where I'm wrong about how Brownback didn't screw people.
Explain how brownback is screwing people. You may have a valid point, but we won't know until you explain it to the less informed.
I'm not going to spoon feed people crap they should know if they are going to enter into the debate. If you're sufficiently educated you'll know exactly where I'm coming from when it say "states, exchange roll out, medicare expansion." Those were all state level issues which are going to have a crippling effect on the coverage of the ACA because of the actions of ideologues like Brownback.
-
JFC, Edna :facepalm:
quote me where I'm wrong. your ignorance is showing.
Ok, let's see if I've got this straight. ObamaCare was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote - and even then it required a number of bribes, plus special legislative maneuvering after Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's seat on the promise to be the 60th vote against ObamaCare - and it's the Republicans' fault for not helping to implement something they universally opposed?
It wasn't rammed through congress, it was debated on for close to a year and many republicans had a say, and the main say they got was their 90s idea being implemented while single payer and the public option were thrown to the side.
Also it is a fact that republican governors thumbed their nose at the law and refused the money to build their state exchanges thus turning the Obamacare website into a much more complex project than originally planned.
Our own lousy person as a governor is one of them and he has also basically refused money from the Feds to cover the poor in this state and therefore added to the problem of the uninsured.
ObamaCare never started out as single payer. Not one. Single. Republican. Voted for this law. At least two dem senators were bribed. The House and Senate never even voted on the same frigging bill, because the dems had to use budget reconciliation to ram it through after losing their filibuster proof majority due to the election of a republican senator in Massachusetts due to popular backlash against ObamaCare. These are facts.
And republicans are to blame for not helping to implement a law they never supported? This truly is the dumbest excuse yet. The Feds stepped in and created their own exchanges anyway - they just don't work.
Finally, these problems with the exchanges are just the beginning. This was the easy part! The real problems begin once people really begin signing up in greater numbers. That is when the fundamental disaster of ObamaCare will be revealed. Primarily older, sicker people will sign up. Not enough young people will be willing to pay the high premiums for coverage they don't need. Rates will soar higher due to the adverse selection.
You've made it abundantly clear you have no idea how this law has been implemented, what its components are, or how it works. I mean just no clue whatsoever.
These kinds of posts are meaningless unless you try to explain how it was implemented, what it's components are, and how it works. Anyone can blurt those words out.
Since Fake and KSU can't do it, how me where I'm wrong about how Brownback didn't screw people.
Explain how brownback is screwing people. You may have a valid point, but we won't know until you explain it to the less informed.
I'm not going to spoon feed people crap they should know if they are going to enter into the debate. If you're sufficiently educated you'll know exactly where I'm coming from when it say "states, exchange roll out, medicare expansion." Those were all state level issues which are going to have a crippling effect on the coverage of the ACA because of the actions of ideologues like Brownback.
Seems like this ACA thing wasn't debated enough before they voted in congress.
-
Lotta libtards on the wrong side of history in here, ACA won't last, just passed by the wall and there was writing on it guys.
-
Well, Edna just made it abundantly clear he doesn't know jack crap about the implementation of the law.
Lol, that its on brownback. Good grief what a libtard.
-
I know, I know, this isn't really adding anything "meaningful" to the discussion, unless your one of the millions getting screwed by Obamacare... CBS: ObamaCare Resulting in Dropped Coverage and Higher Premiums (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1qQzvhgid4)
-
Straight from the healthcare.gov on "What do immigrant families need to know about the Marketplace" (https://www.healthcare.gov/what-do-immigrant-families-need-to-know/), some reassurance for those families of "mixed" immigration status:
Mixed status families’ options for care and coverage
Many immigrant families are of “mixed status,” with members having different immigration and citizenship statuses. :lol: Some families may have taxpaying members who can’t buy health insurance through the Marketplace, alongside other family members who are eligible to use the Marketplace as citizens or lawfully present immigrants.
The same situation could apply in a family that has some members who are not eligible for full Medicaid, and others who are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP.
“Mixed status” families can apply for a tax credit or lower out-of-pocket costs for private insurance for their dependent family members who are eligible for coverage in the Marketplace or for Medicaid and CHIP coverage. Family members who aren't applying for health coverage for themselves won't be asked if they have eligible immigration status. That is none of the government's business. So for now, be sure to not apply for health coverage for family members who are undocumented. Rest assured, President Barack Obama is working to confer legal status on the presently undocumented as soon as possible. Please remember to vote.
-
Well, that's good for the immigrants. Hopefully they vote.
-
Nothing really meaningful here. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/28/ObamaCare-Costs-15-Million-Their-Health-Insurance-So-Far (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/28/ObamaCare-Costs-15-Million-Their-Health-Insurance-So-Far)
-
THESE PEOPLE'S PLANS ARE BEING CANCELLED! THEY WILL NEVER HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE AGAIN!
-
Well, Edna just made it abundantly clear he doesn't know jack crap about the implementation of the law.
Lol, that its on brownback. Good grief what a libtard.
Thanks for confirming you have no idea what the eff you are talking about.
-
Nothing meaningful here. http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite (http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite)
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
...
Obama lied, health plans died.
-
Well, Edna just made it abundantly clear he doesn't know jack crap about the implementation of the law.
Lol, that its on brownback. Good grief what a libtard.
Thanks for confirming you have no idea what the eff you are talking about.
Well, you certainly haven't convinced anyone either.
-
Our health plan was basically another member of the family. So, when 2014 rolled around, it was like Obama took away our dog, shot it, and then tried to replace it with another dog that looked almost exactly the same. "THIS IS NOT OUR HEALTH PLAN!", we all shouted. "YOU KILLED OUR HEALTH PLAN, OBAMA!", we then shouted.
-
Obama lied, my health plan died! :'bye cruel world:
-
Our health plan was basically another member of the family. So, when 2014 rolled around, it was like Obama took away our dog, shot it, and then tried to replace it with another dog that looked almost exactly the same. "THIS IS NOT OUR HEALTH PLAN!", we all shouted. "YOU KILLED OUR HEALTH PLAN, OBAMA!", we then shouted.
Yes, almost a perfect analogy, except for the folks who liked the dog they had, but get a new government dog that only eats the most expensive food, requires weekly professional grooming, and has a nasty habit of shitting in the corner of the living room. But unless you're the poor sap who's getting eff'd over, I suppose that's not very meaningful, you know?
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
-
Dude, I'm pretty sure the reason those plans got canceled was because they were garbage and really weren't health plans at all. Hence the reason the new plans cost more.
-
Dude, I'm pretty sure the reason those plans got canceled was because they were garbage and really weren't health plans at all. Hence the reason the new plans cost more.
And yet, the folks interviewed by NBC and other outlets were perfectly happy with their "garbage" plans. I know this seems unfathomable, but some people just don't need coverage for maternity, mental health, etc. Or at least, they don't perceive a need for such things. The government obviously knows better, right?
-
Forgot this was a thread, can you guys give me an update?
-
Our health plan was basically another member of the family. So, when 2014 rolled around, it was like Obama took away our dog, shot it, and then tried to replace it with another dog that looked almost exactly the same. "THIS IS NOT OUR HEALTH PLAN!", we all shouted. "YOU KILLED OUR HEALTH PLAN, OBAMA!", we then shouted.
Yes, almost a perfect analogy, except for the folks who liked the dog they had, but get a new government dog that only eats the most expensive food, requires weekly professional grooming, and has a nasty habit of shitting in the corner of the living room. But unless you're the poor sap who's getting eff'd over, I suppose that's not very meaningful, you know?
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
I think we're in agreement that the additional costs to some are problematic. I disagree that it's because of anything Obama said about people being able to keep their plans. He also said some people would be paying more. I just find the focus on supposed cancellations due to Obamacare's richer benefits to be completely misguided. In a strict sense, everyone's plan gets cancelled every year. That's how long they typically last. Sometimes, there are benefit changes and/or corresponding rate changes from year to year. Other times, there aren't. "Cancellations" and benefit changes in this sense are ordinary business practice.
It should also be noted that this cancellation catastrophe affects three percent of the population, the very large majority of whom won't even see huge rate increases. The people who are truly going to get mumped over are the people who didn't have insurance before. I think we may even agree on that point, too, although you probably got your info from some awful source. I looked it up a few weeks ago, and it's no big mystery as alleged, but a decent rule of thumb is that a person at the poverty level will contribute $100 per month after subsidies. That's $100 per month for someone who makes $11,000 per year. This is what you should focus on, in my opinion.
-
Forgot this was a thread, can you guys give me an update?
Barry is an enormous liar jerk guy
-
Our health plan was basically another member of the family. So, when 2014 rolled around, it was like Obama took away our dog, shot it, and then tried to replace it with another dog that looked almost exactly the same. "THIS IS NOT OUR HEALTH PLAN!", we all shouted. "YOU KILLED OUR HEALTH PLAN, OBAMA!", we then shouted.
Yes, almost a perfect analogy, except for the folks who liked the dog they had, but get a new government dog that only eats the most expensive food, requires weekly professional grooming, and has a nasty habit of shitting in the corner of the living room. But unless you're the poor sap who's getting eff'd over, I suppose that's not very meaningful, you know?
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
I think we're in agreement that the additional costs to some are problematic. I disagree that it's because of anything Obama said about people being able to keep their plans. He also said some people would be paying more. I just find the focus on supposed cancellations due to Obamacare's richer benefits to be completely misguided. In a strict sense, everyone's plan gets cancelled every year. That's how long they typically last. Sometimes, there are benefit changes and/or corresponding rate changes from year to year. Other times, there aren't. "Cancellations" and benefit changes in this sense are ordinary business practice.
It should also be noted that this cancellation catastrophe affects three percent of the population, the very large majority of whom won't even see huge rate increases. The people who are truly going to get mumped over are the people who didn't have insurance before. I think we may even agree on that point, too, although you probably got your info from some awful source. I looked it up a few weeks ago, and it's no big mystery as alleged, but a decent rule of thumb is that a person at the poverty level will contribute $100 per month after subsidies. That's $100 per month for someone who makes $11,000 per year. This is what you should focus on, in my opinion.
If liberals really cared about this, gasoline wouldn't be $3.75 right now, Obama wouldn't have pulled all of the leases on federal land and we would have 5-7% GDP growth with <5% unemployment. This should have been the focus for the last 5 years, not effing up the health care system.
-
Our health plan was basically another member of the family. So, when 2014 rolled around, it was like Obama took away our dog, shot it, and then tried to replace it with another dog that looked almost exactly the same. "THIS IS NOT OUR HEALTH PLAN!", we all shouted. "YOU KILLED OUR HEALTH PLAN, OBAMA!", we then shouted.
Yes, almost a perfect analogy, except for the folks who liked the dog they had, but get a new government dog that only eats the most expensive food, requires weekly professional grooming, and has a nasty habit of shitting in the corner of the living room. But unless you're the poor sap who's getting eff'd over, I suppose that's not very meaningful, you know?
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
I think we're in agreement that the additional costs to some are problematic. I disagree that it's because of anything Obama said about people being able to keep their plans. He also said some people would be paying more. I just find the focus on supposed cancellations due to Obamacare's richer benefits to be completely misguided. In a strict sense, everyone's plan gets cancelled every year. That's how long they typically last. Sometimes, there are benefit changes and/or corresponding rate changes from year to year. Other times, there aren't. "Cancellations" and benefit changes in this sense are ordinary business practice.
It should also be noted that this cancellation catastrophe affects three percent of the population, the very large majority of whom won't even see huge rate increases. The people who are truly going to get mumped over are the people who didn't have insurance before. I think we may even agree on that point, too, although you probably got your info from some awful source. I looked it up a few weeks ago, and it's no big mystery as alleged, but a decent rule of thumb is that a person at the poverty level will contribute $100 per month after subsidies. That's $100 per month for someone who makes $11,000 per year. This is what you should focus on, in my opinion.
I think the "notion" that healthy poors will come out of their own pocket $100 for an insurance policy is a gross misscalculation.
-
Ok, one piece at a time...
I think we're in agreement that the additional costs to some are problematic. I disagree that it's because of anything Obama said about people being able to keep their plans.
No, it's Obamacare that is causing the "problematic" "additional costs." Obama just lied about it.
He also said some people would be paying more.
Did he? I'm honestly not aware that he ever said this in the lead up to passing the law. I'm only aware of the numerous times he promised that people pay less, and "if you like your plan, you can keep it." He lied, plain and simple.
I just find the focus on supposed cancellations due to Obamacare's richer benefits to be completely misguided. In a strict sense, everyone's plan gets cancelled every year. That's how long they typically last. Sometimes, there are benefit changes and/or corresponding rate changes from year to year. Other times, there aren't. "Cancellations" and benefit changes in this sense are ordinary business practice.
You're still missing the point. In this case, millions of policies are being discontinued because of Obamacare. The new coverage will be more expensive for many. The government is forcing people who were already playing by the rules, paying for insurance, to pay more for additional coverage they probably don't need. Responsible consumers should be able to decide whether they want maternity coverage, or mental health coverage, or any other kind of coverage.
It should also be noted that this cancellation catastrophe affects three percent of the population, the very large majority of whom won't even see huge rate increases.
Even if it is only "three percent" - that represents millions of people. Not that it's particularly relevant, but at this point there is a very real possibility that the people getting mumped over by Obamacare will outnumber the people signing up for reduced price insurance. If you have some basis for your claim that "a very large majority" won't see rate increases, please cite that. I would hazard a guess that a sizable chunk of those who were self-insuring also made a decent enough income that they won't be eligible for much of a subsidy, if any.
What we should be able to agree on is that Obamacare is absolute disaster that needs to be repealed ASAP. If you can agree with that, we can stop quibbling over the details.
-
Dude, I'm pretty sure the reason those plans got canceled was because they were garbage and really weren't health plans at all. Hence the reason the new plans cost more.
Which is the bigger problem? People underinsured, or people without any insurance at all? Honest question.
-
Our health plan was basically another member of the family. So, when 2014 rolled around, it was like Obama took away our dog, shot it, and then tried to replace it with another dog that looked almost exactly the same. "THIS IS NOT OUR HEALTH PLAN!", we all shouted. "YOU KILLED OUR HEALTH PLAN, OBAMA!", we then shouted.
Yes, almost a perfect analogy, except for the folks who liked the dog they had, but get a new government dog that only eats the most expensive food, requires weekly professional grooming, and has a nasty habit of shitting in the corner of the living room. But unless you're the poor sap who's getting eff'd over, I suppose that's not very meaningful, you know?
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.”
I think we're in agreement that the additional costs to some are problematic. I disagree that it's because of anything Obama said about people being able to keep their plans. He also said some people would be paying more. I just find the focus on supposed cancellations due to Obamacare's richer benefits to be completely misguided. In a strict sense, everyone's plan gets cancelled every year. That's how long they typically last. Sometimes, there are benefit changes and/or corresponding rate changes from year to year. Other times, there aren't. "Cancellations" and benefit changes in this sense are ordinary business practice.
It should also be noted that this cancellation catastrophe affects three percent of the population, the very large majority of whom won't even see huge rate increases. The people who are truly going to get mumped over are the people who didn't have insurance before. I think we may even agree on that point, too, although you probably got your info from some awful source. I looked it up a few weeks ago, and it's no big mystery as alleged, but a decent rule of thumb is that a person at the poverty level will contribute $100 per month after subsidies. That's $100 per month for someone who makes $11,000 per year. This is what you should focus on, in my opinion.
I think the "notion" that healthy poors will come out of their own pocket $100 for an insurance policy is a gross misscalculation.
It was! It should be more like $20 per month.
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
-
Responsible consumers should be able to decide whether they want maternity coverage, or mental health coverage, or any other kind of coverage.
:lol:
-
Dude, I'm pretty sure the reason those plans got canceled was because they were garbage and really weren't health plans at all. Hence the reason the new plans cost more.
Which is the bigger problem? People underinsured, or people without any insurance at all? Honest question.
Here are some calculations
Rich- health insurance is good to have, it also protects your assets.\
middle class- still good to have, fewer assets to protect
low income workers/not covered at work- not worth 1/3 or 1/2 your income, just go to er, no assets to protect
as long as poor americans can go to er for essentially free we will have this problem, this won't change. the old system was better because even though we were subsidizing the er visits in the policies that we pay for, the care was more in line with what the non-insured paid for. In the end our system is so technologically advanced that right now poors can't afford it, in ten years the middle class might not be able to afford it. A similar thing will happen with college education, the government gives loans to anyone with a pulse, universities raise prices on the third party financier, a bachelors degree becomes the new high school diploma, a generation or two of young americans go deep into debt in hopes of better paying careers that may or may not materialize, and college becomes so expensive that the rich that funded all this mess end up struggling to pay for their own kids education with cash.
-
The government hasn't let doctors know how much their compensation will be for treating the newly insured.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/29/new-york-doctors-flee-obamacare-i-plan-retire/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/29/new-york-doctors-flee-obamacare-i-plan-retire/)
-
The government hasn't let doctors know how much their compensation will be for treating the newly insured.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/29/new-york-doctors-flee-obamacare-i-plan-retire/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/29/new-york-doctors-flee-obamacare-i-plan-retire/)
I bet I can take a guess at another person that doesn't know this..............or at least will say he never knew about it.
-
stop using the term "poors".
-
Doctors are super duper butthurt about obamacare
-
Well, Edna just made it abundantly clear he doesn't know jack crap about the implementation of the law.
Lol, that its on brownback. Good grief what a libtard.
Thanks for confirming you have no idea what the eff you are talking about.
Well, you certainly haven't convinced anyone either.
There is nothing to "convince" you of. You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not. You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not. There is nothing partisan about this issue. You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.
This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues. You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.
-
There is nothing to "convince" you of. You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not. You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not. There is nothing partisan about this issue. You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.
This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues. You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.
You're not going to convince anyone, except the libtarded, because you're wrong. But you could start by at least explaining your point. :facepalm:
-
CNN: Obama Admin Trying to Silence Insurance Companies on Obamacare Criticism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHWEUPOFO8M)
-
Obama has issued a belated correction. He did not lie when he said "if you like you insurance plan, you can keep it." He just "misspoke." What he meant to say was, "If I like you insurance plan, you can keep it." Clears that up.
-
representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. :surprised:
-
There is nothing to "convince" you of. You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not. You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not. There is nothing partisan about this issue. You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.
This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues. You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.
You're not going to convince anyone, except the libtarded, because you're wrong. But you could start by at least explaining your point. :facepalm:
This is all I'm asking.
If you can't explain it, the only logical conclusion is you don't know.
-
There is nothing to "convince" you of. You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not. You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not. There is nothing partisan about this issue. You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.
This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues. You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.
You're not going to convince anyone, except the libtarded, because you're wrong. But you could start by at least explaining your point. :facepalm:
This is all I'm asking.
If you can't explain it, the only logical conclusion is you don't know.
There is nothing to explain to you people. There is no point of rhetoric. You two don't know what this law actually does. You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out. Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing. Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic. Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger. I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.
-
is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?
-
There is nothing to "convince" you of. You either do understand the way the exchanges were rolled out or you do not. You either understand how state governments worked in that or you do not. There is nothing partisan about this issue. You do not understand what you are talking about in regards to the ACA and you should run your mouth until you do.
This is the problem whenever you deal with radical ideologues. You would rather spew nonsense and taking points then educate yourself about the law.
You're not going to convince anyone, except the libtarded, because you're wrong. But you could start by at least explaining your point. :facepalm:
This is all I'm asking.
If you can't explain it, the only logical conclusion is you don't know.
There is nothing to explain to you people. There is no point of rhetoric. You two don't know what this law actually does. You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out. Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing. Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic. Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger. I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.
That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.
-
is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?
call me when his lies get 100k+ people killed.
-
is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?
we both know he's not.
-
is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?
we both know he's not.
Top two?
-
representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. :surprised:
well, he's a liar
-
representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. :surprised:
well, he's a liar
It's not lying if it's dementia.
-
There is nothing to explain to you people. There is no point of rhetoric. You two don't know what this law actually does. You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out. Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing. Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic. Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger. I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.
That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.
The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy. They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think. Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges. They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans. The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.
-
There is nothing to explain to you people. There is no point of rhetoric. You two don't know what this law actually does. You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out. Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing. Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic. Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger. I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.
That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.
The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy. They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think. Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges. They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans. The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.
I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.
-
is B.O. the biggest liar of the last decade?
we both know he's not.
Top two?
we'll settle for this.
-
There is nothing to explain to you people. There is no point of rhetoric. You two don't know what this law actually does. You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out. Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing. Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic. Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger. I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.
That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.
The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy. They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think. Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges. They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans. The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.
I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.
see dobber this is what I'm talking about. First anything he disagrees with is a "liberal talking point." He never asked for education before condeming my remark. If he was interested in education or a the very least civil discourse he wouldn't have first approached the isse with ad hominem attacks. Overview his entire position now with the fact he and KSU have condemned the ACA without caring to educate themselves on how the bill functions at its most basci levels.
Now I don't expect much from the ole birther pit anymore since the majority of posters here are only interested in spouting recycled talking points from foxnews or the daily caller. But we should hide behind the veil of faux moderate questioning from extermists like these two. I've given them all the key words to google if they wanted to educate themselves.
-
There is nothing to explain to you people. There is no point of rhetoric. You two don't know what this law actually does. You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out. Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing. Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic. Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger. I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.
That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.
The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy. They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think. Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges. They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans. The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.
I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.
see dobber this is what I'm talking about. First anything he disagrees with is a "liberal talking point." He never asked for education before condeming my remark. If he was interested in education or a the very least civil discourse he wouldn't have first approached the isse with ad hominem attacks. Overview his entire position now with the fact he and KSU have condemned the ACA without caring to educate themselves on how the bill functions at its most basci levels.
Now I don't expect much from the ole birther pit anymore since the majority of posters here are only interested in spouting recycled talking points from foxnews or the daily caller. But we should hide behind the veil of faux moderate questioning from extermists like these two. I've given them all the key words to google if they wanted to educate themselves.
:lol: You got us, ed. Nice trollin'. :Take the Bait:
-
Obama is rolling out the latest excuse for his lie. From his speech today:
"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.
"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy."
"You see, people are just too stupid to decide how much insurance they really need. The Affordable Care Act fixes that. We know what's best for you. We'll take care of you. People need to stop complaining and pay for the coverage they really need."
-
representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. :surprised:
well, he's a liar
hall didn't say that. he asked sebelius if she was raised in meade, ks, because he thought he saw her there when he was in third grade. sebelius told him she had been born in cincinnati. hall didn't clarify, but he left the impression that he'd just been passing though meade, checking out the third grade girls.
you should be able to find it in the congressional record, if you want to verify who was in meade, ks, and when.
-
There is nothing to explain to you people. There is no point of rhetoric. You two don't know what this law actually does. You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out. Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing. Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic. Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger. I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.
That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.
The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy. They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think. Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges. They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans. The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.
I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.
see dobber this is what I'm talking about. First anything he disagrees with is a "liberal talking point." He never asked for education before condeming my remark. If he was interested in education or a the very least civil discourse he wouldn't have first approached the isse with ad hominem attacks. Overview his entire position now with the fact he and KSU have condemned the ACA without caring to educate themselves on how the bill functions at its most basci levels.
Now I don't expect much from the ole birther pit anymore since the majority of posters here are only interested in spouting recycled talking points from foxnews or the daily caller. But we should hide behind the veil of faux moderate questioning from extermists like these two. I've given them all the key words to google if they wanted to educate themselves.
Ha ha. Good work. I'm now certain you have zero knowledge regarding the ACA. You could have shown off some of your vast understanding of the rollout but instead you waste 2 paragraphs attacking Olbermann style.
-
Oh crap. Turns out one of the people getting effed by ObamaCare is Daily Beast columnist David Frum.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html)
It's always exciting to be part of a chapter in American history. I happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands of people whose insurance coverage was canceled for not complying with the terms of the Affordable Care Act. As a result, not only will I pay more, but I have had to divert many otherwise useful hours to futzing around with websites and paperwork.
President Obama promised, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." It was a more ambiguous promise than it sounded. Who likes his or her health insurance? But it was there, and it did its job.
I probably need to be clear straight off that I am not presenting myself as any kind of hard-luck case. Maybe from some social justice perspective it's perfectly fair and reasonable to load all the costs of health reform onto people like me. The trouble is, this administration has been less than candid about what those costs would be.
As best I can tell, the ACA will require me to pay $200 a month more for a policy that is marginally worse than the one I have now.
Here's the before and after contrast:
My family was enrolled in a Carefirst high-deductible plan that cost $667.63 per month. In-network deductible, $5,400; out of network, $10,800. Out-of-pocket limit: $6,400 in-network; $12,800 out of network. The plan was joined to an HSA.
The most directly comparable plan on the D.C. health exchange will cost $865. The deductibles are somewhat higher: $6,000 and $12,000. The out-of-pocket limits are very slightly lower: $6,000 and $12,000.
That $200 a month differential seems to be the cost of community rating: I had to answer a bunch of questions about my health before qualifying for my prior plan; the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall. [:lol: Now he's getting it! The "winners" and "losers."]
If that extra $2,400 per year in insurance premiums were the end of my ACA costs, I'd congratulate myself on getting off easy: I'll also be paying considerably more than that in higher taxes to support the program. As I said, I'm not a hard-luck case.
The ACA was ingeniously designed to deliver benefits to Democratic constituencies and impose costs on Republican ones. The big surprise in the ACA rollout is that this design is going awry. It's not only plutocrats and one-percenters who will find themselves worse off; not only the comparatively affluent retirees enrolled in Medicare Plus programs. Self-employed professionals who earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies will soon discover what I have discovered: They are paying more for a worse product.
-
Obama is rolling out the latest excuse for his lie. From his speech today:
"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.
"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy."
"You see, people are just too stupid to decide how much insurance they really need. The Affordable Care Act fixes that. We know what's best for you. We'll take care of you. People need to stop complaining and pay for the coverage they really need."
:dubious:
-
representative hall, (r) texas, just told sebelius he was born and raised in meade, ks. :surprised:
well, he's a liar
hall didn't say that. he asked sebelius if she was raised in meade, ks, because he thought he saw her there when he was in third grade. sebelius told him she had been born in cincinnati. hall didn't clarify, but he left the impression that he'd just been passing though meade, checking out the third grade girls.
you should be able to find it in the congressional record, if you want to verify who was in meade, ks, and when.
actually he said he was in the third grade in meade. I guess I mistakenly extrapolated that to mean he spent the first few years of his life there, which I don't know to be true. sorry for the confusion everybody. whatever the case, it was a very weird exchange. glad we could clear this up.
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/188689-rep-hall-to-sebelius-i-thought-i-saw-you-on-a-tricycle (http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/188689-rep-hall-to-sebelius-i-thought-i-saw-you-on-a-tricycle)
-
Obama is rolling out the latest excuse for his lie. From his speech today:
"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.
"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy."
"You see, people are just too stupid to decide how much insurance they really need. The Affordable Care Act fixes that. We know what's best for you. We'll take care of you. People need to stop complaining and pay for the coverage they really need."
:dubious:
:lol: Yeah, I took a little "artistic license" with that last paragraph just to see if anyone was paying attention. It's what he believes, of course, but he would obviously never say it.
-
Oh crap. Turns out one of the people getting effed by ObamaCare is Daily Beast columnist David Frum.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html)
It's always exciting to be part of a chapter in American history. I happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands of people whose insurance coverage was canceled for not complying with the terms of the Affordable Care Act. As a result, not only will I pay more, but I have had to divert many otherwise useful hours to futzing around with websites and paperwork.
President Obama promised, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." It was a more ambiguous promise than it sounded. Who likes his or her health insurance? But it was there, and it did its job.
I probably need to be clear straight off that I am not presenting myself as any kind of hard-luck case. Maybe from some social justice perspective it's perfectly fair and reasonable to load all the costs of health reform onto people like me. The trouble is, this administration has been less than candid about what those costs would be.
As best I can tell, the ACA will require me to pay $200 a month more for a policy that is marginally worse than the one I have now.
Here's the before and after contrast:
My family was enrolled in a Carefirst high-deductible plan that cost $667.63 per month. In-network deductible, $5,400; out of network, $10,800. Out-of-pocket limit: $6,400 in-network; $12,800 out of network. The plan was joined to an HSA.
The most directly comparable plan on the D.C. health exchange will cost $865. The deductibles are somewhat higher: $6,000 and $12,000. The out-of-pocket limits are very slightly lower: $6,000 and $12,000.
That $200 a month differential seems to be the cost of community rating: I had to answer a bunch of questions about my health before qualifying for my prior plan; the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall. [:lol: Now he's getting it! The "winners" and "losers."]
If that extra $2,400 per year in insurance premiums were the end of my ACA costs, I'd congratulate myself on getting off easy: I'll also be paying considerably more than that in higher taxes to support the program. As I said, I'm not a hard-luck case.
The ACA was ingeniously designed to deliver benefits to Democratic constituencies and impose costs on Republican ones. The big surprise in the ACA rollout is that this design is going awry. It's not only plutocrats and one-percenters who will find themselves worse off; not only the comparatively affluent retirees enrolled in Medicare Plus programs. Self-employed professionals who earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies will soon discover what I have discovered: They are paying more for a worse product.
I didn't read the whole thing, but I don't understand why he thinks he must use an exchange plan.
-
I just want to go on record saying that endksu looks like a complete dumbass in this thread, probably IRL too.
-
Oh crap. Turns out one of the people getting effed by ObamaCare is Daily Beast columnist David Frum.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html)
It's always exciting to be part of a chapter in American history. I happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands of people whose insurance coverage was canceled for not complying with the terms of the Affordable Care Act. As a result, not only will I pay more, but I have had to divert many otherwise useful hours to futzing around with websites and paperwork.
President Obama promised, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." It was a more ambiguous promise than it sounded. Who likes his or her health insurance? But it was there, and it did its job.
I probably need to be clear straight off that I am not presenting myself as any kind of hard-luck case. Maybe from some social justice perspective it's perfectly fair and reasonable to load all the costs of health reform onto people like me. The trouble is, this administration has been less than candid about what those costs would be.
As best I can tell, the ACA will require me to pay $200 a month more for a policy that is marginally worse than the one I have now.
Here's the before and after contrast:
My family was enrolled in a Carefirst high-deductible plan that cost $667.63 per month. In-network deductible, $5,400; out of network, $10,800. Out-of-pocket limit: $6,400 in-network; $12,800 out of network. The plan was joined to an HSA.
The most directly comparable plan on the D.C. health exchange will cost $865. The deductibles are somewhat higher: $6,000 and $12,000. The out-of-pocket limits are very slightly lower: $6,000 and $12,000.
That $200 a month differential seems to be the cost of community rating: I had to answer a bunch of questions about my health before qualifying for my prior plan; the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall. [:lol: Now he's getting it! The "winners" and "losers."]
If that extra $2,400 per year in insurance premiums were the end of my ACA costs, I'd congratulate myself on getting off easy: I'll also be paying considerably more than that in higher taxes to support the program. As I said, I'm not a hard-luck case.
The ACA was ingeniously designed to deliver benefits to Democratic constituencies and impose costs on Republican ones. The big surprise in the ACA rollout is that this design is going awry. It's not only plutocrats and one-percenters who will find themselves worse off; not only the comparatively affluent retirees enrolled in Medicare Plus programs. Self-employed professionals who earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies will soon discover what I have discovered: They are paying more for a worse product.
I didn't read the whole thing, but I don't understand why he thinks he must use an exchange plan.
Because he lives in DC, so he doesn't have a choice. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/your-money/health-insurance-options-arent-limited-to-obamacare-exchanges.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/your-money/health-insurance-options-arent-limited-to-obamacare-exchanges.html?_r=0) Besides, I'm not aware of any evidence that plans sold outside the exchanges are a better value - all new policies have to provide the inflated coverage required by the Obamacare mandates. So you're probably not gonna save much, if any, money shopping outside the exchanges, but you will lose any subsidies, to the extent you were eligible for them in the first place.
-
Oh crap. Turns out one of the people getting effed by ObamaCare is Daily Beast columnist David Frum.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/29/the-obamacare-ripoff-more-money-for-less-insurance.html)
:emawkid:
It's always exciting to be part of a chapter in American history. I happen to be one of the hundreds of thousands of people whose insurance coverage was canceled for not complying with the terms of the Affordable Care Act. As a result, not only will I pay more, but I have had to divert many otherwise useful hours to futzing around with websites and paperwork.
President Obama promised, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." It was a more ambiguous promise than it sounded. Who likes his or her health insurance? But it was there, and it did its job.
I probably need to be clear straight off that I am not presenting myself as any kind of hard-luck case. Maybe from some social justice perspective it's perfectly fair and reasonable to load all the costs of health reform onto people like me. The trouble is, this administration has been less than candid about what those costs would be.
As best I can tell, the ACA will require me to pay $200 a month more for a policy that is marginally worse than the one I have now.
Here's the before and after contrast:
My family was enrolled in a Carefirst high-deductible plan that cost $667.63 per month. In-network deductible, $5,400; out of network, $10,800. Out-of-pocket limit: $6,400 in-network; $12,800 out of network. The plan was joined to an HSA.
The most directly comparable plan on the D.C. health exchange will cost $865. The deductibles are somewhat higher: $6,000 and $12,000. The out-of-pocket limits are very slightly lower: $6,000 and $12,000.
That $200 a month differential seems to be the cost of community rating: I had to answer a bunch of questions about my health before qualifying for my prior plan; the new plan will be issued, no questions asked. Presumably somewhere there is a D.C. resident who smokes or who has some pre-existing condition who will receive a corresponding $200 a month windfall. [:lol: Now he's getting it! The "winners" and "losers."]
If that extra $2,400 per year in insurance premiums were the end of my ACA costs, I'd congratulate myself on getting off easy: I'll also be paying considerably more than that in higher taxes to support the program. As I said, I'm not a hard-luck case.
The ACA was ingeniously designed to deliver benefits to Democratic constituencies and impose costs on Republican ones. The big surprise in the ACA rollout is that this design is going awry. It's not only plutocrats and one-percenters who will find themselves worse off; not only the comparatively affluent retirees enrolled in Medicare Plus programs. Self-employed professionals who earn too much to qualify for ACA subsidies will soon discover what I have discovered: They are paying more for a worse product.
I didn't read the whole thing, but I don't understand why he thinks he must use an exchange plan.
Because he lives in DC, so he doesn't have a choice. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/your-money/health-insurance-options-arent-limited-to-obamacare-exchanges.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/your-money/health-insurance-options-arent-limited-to-obamacare-exchanges.html?_r=0) Besides, I'm not aware of any evidence that plans sold outside the exchanges are a better value - all new policies have to provide the inflated coverage required by the Obamacare mandates. So you're probably not gonna save much, if any, money shopping outside the exchanges, but you will lose any subsidies, to the extent you were eligible for them in the first place.
I've said it a bunch, but Obamacare mandated changes don't affect premiums that much. From 1999 to 2009, they increased like 130%. Since, during the time that Obamacare mandates started taking effect, they've gone up 5-10% per year, including 2014. (Lots of reasons for this. One is that in the 2000s states were implementing laws which were merely duplicated by Obamacare on a national level later on.). If you had an individual plan in 2013, a regular commercial 2014 plan isn't going to be way more expensive.
-
Check it out, you can now shop policies on healthcare.gov without registering (this is what should have been allowed all along). You just have to click through a few pages that make abundantly clear that it might not really cost you this much if you're eligible for a subsidy. The government is really worried about the sticker shock. :lol: https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/ (https://www.healthcare.gov/find-premium-estimates/)
JFC. $500/mo for a "bronze level" family plan (covering 60% of costs). Glad I get to get to choose from all 2 of the insurance providers who elected to participate in the Kansas exchange (not that it really matters, since the Obamacare mandates apply nationwide).
I'm thinking it would be neat if you could just buy whatever level of insurance you want, from whereever you want. Might bring costs down. But I guess people are just too stupid to make these kinds of decisions for themselves, you know?
-
I've said it a bunch, but Obamacare mandated changes don't affect premiums that much. From 1999 to 2009, they increased like 130%. Since, during the time that Obamacare mandates started taking effect, they've gone up 5-10% per year, including 2014. (Lots of reasons for this. One is that in the 2000s states were implementing laws which were merely duplicated by Obamacare on a national level later on.). If you had an individual plan in 2013, a regular commercial 2014 plan isn't going to be way more expensive.
Sorry chum, you're just wrong. Avik Roy has done a lot of comparisons between preACA and postACA plans (his articles are linked in posts several pages back), and he found significant price increases. This isn't really a surprise. If you add guaranteed issue, plus a lot of additional coverage, the price shoots up. This is common sense.
-
Obama is rolling out the latest excuse for his lie. From his speech today:
"One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured but also the under-insured," Obama said. "And there are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who've got cut-rate plans that don't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.
"Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received or used minor pre-existing conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy."
"You see, people are just too stupid to decide how much insurance they really need. The Affordable Care Act fixes that. We know what's best for you. We'll take care of you. People need to stop complaining and pay for the coverage they really need."
:dubious:
:lol: Yeah, I took a little "artistic license" with that last paragraph just to see if anyone was paying attention. It's what he believes, of course, but he would obviously never say it.
:D
-
I've said it a bunch, but Obamacare mandated changes don't affect premiums that much. From 1999 to 2009, they increased like 130%. Since, during the time that Obamacare mandates started taking effect, they've gone up 5-10% per year, including 2014. (Lots of reasons for this. One is that in the 2000s states were implementing laws which were merely duplicated by Obamacare on a national level later on.). If you had an individual plan in 2013, a regular commercial 2014 plan isn't going to be way more expensive.
Sorry chum, you're just wrong. Avik Roy has done a lot of comparisons between preACA and postACA plans (his articles are linked in posts several pages back), and he found significant price increases. This isn't really a surprise. If you add guaranteed issue, plus a lot of additional coverage, the price shoots up. This is common sense.
Common sense tells me that most people who are really sick already found coverage of one kind or another. People don't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pockets. It also tells me that most people who didn't have coverage before, like students, wouldn't have used it if they had it - apart from a few hard luck cases.
I've also said a buch of times that there aren't really any benefit changes mandated from 2013 to 2014, which is the time period I was talking about. This isn't common sense, but these changes are documented.
-
There is nothing to explain to you people. There is no point of rhetoric. You two don't know what this law actually does. You could google the key words I've already given you, educate yourself and then make an informed decision about this law and how its been rolled out. Instead you two are jerking each other off to Rush's talking points without the benefit of fully understanding what he is critiquing. Like I said, I'm not going to spoon feed you information which you should already know if you're going to comment about this topic. Go parrot talking points and have fun with your full on dunning kruger. I at least understand how this law is being implemented and can make informed commentary on it.
That's a lot of words that still don't explain anything. I think they are saying to you, "look, if this is so simple and I am stupid for not understanding it, would you please explain it?" It actually seems like a pretty reasonable request on their part based upon all of your posts.
The issue I have is that they are not interested in education about this policy. They are ONLY going to pay attention to what their demigods in Rush and Hannity tell them they should think. Note how they challenged the assertion about rolling out the exchanges. They don't want to know that Brownback and Kansas Republicans screwed over their citizens in failing to expand medicaid with "free" federal money for Kansans. The broader issue I have with these ideologues is that they are the first to shout about the dangers of all things Obama when the have zero understanding of the policies which he has continued or implemented, they only know the rhetoric they consumed.
I have been asking you to educate us, but you refuse. I would think you'd be anxious to do so, but your refusal lends me to believe you have no clue or you're just parroting liberal talking points. I'm an open minded moderate that is able to change with the right information.
see dobber this is what I'm talking about. First anything he disagrees with is a "liberal talking point." He never asked for education before condeming my remark. If he was interested in education or a the very least civil discourse he wouldn't have first approached the isse with ad hominem attacks. Overview his entire position now with the fact he and KSU have condemned the ACA without caring to educate themselves on how the bill functions at its most basci levels.
Now I don't expect much from the ole birther pit anymore since the majority of posters here are only interested in spouting recycled talking points from foxnews or the daily caller. But we should hide behind the veil of faux moderate questioning from extermists like these two. I've given them all the key words to google if they wanted to educate themselves.
Ha ha. Good work. I'm now certain you have zero knowledge regarding the ACA. You could have shown off some of your vast understanding of the rollout but instead you waste 2 paragraphs attacking Olbermann style.
How about you play the game you always create. Disprove the negative. I've made a claim based on fact, you disprove it.
-
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/9-levels-of-shade-kathleen-sebelius-threw-at-republicans (http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/9-levels-of-shade-kathleen-sebelius-threw-at-republicans)
-
I've said it a bunch, but Obamacare mandated changes don't affect premiums that much. From 1999 to 2009, they increased like 130%. Since, during the time that Obamacare mandates started taking effect, they've gone up 5-10% per year, including 2014. (Lots of reasons for this. One is that in the 2000s states were implementing laws which were merely duplicated by Obamacare on a national level later on.). If you had an individual plan in 2013, a regular commercial 2014 plan isn't going to be way more expensive.
Sorry chum, you're just wrong. Avik Roy has done a lot of comparisons between preACA and postACA plans (his articles are linked in posts several pages back), and he found significant price increases. This isn't really a surprise. If you add guaranteed issue, plus a lot of additional coverage, the price shoots up. This is common sense.
Common sense tells me that most people who are really sick already found coverage of one kind or another. People don't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pockets. It also tells me that most people who didn't have coverage before, like students, wouldn't have used it if they had it - apart from a few hard luck cases.
I've also said a buch of times that there aren't really any benefit changes mandated from 2013 to 2014, which is the time period I was talking about. This isn't common sense, but these changes are documented.
Also, Avik Roy was an advisor to Mitt Romney. Given that Obama was advised so poorly, why should we even listen to his counterpart's advisor in the first place? Unless we've already made up our minds, of couse.
-
It's worse than I thought. So far, Obamacare is basically just adding a ton of new enrollments to Medicaid, which is already the most unsustainable of our entitlement programs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/31/in-first-month-the-vast-majority-of-obamacare-sign-ups-are-in-medicaid/?hpid=z3 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/31/in-first-month-the-vast-majority-of-obamacare-sign-ups-are-in-medicaid/?hpid=z3)
The first month of the new health law’s rollout reveals an unexpected pattern in several states: a crush of people applying for an expansion of Medicaid and a trickle of sign-ups for private insurance.
This early imbalance — in some places, nine out of 10 enrollees are in Medicaid — has taken some experts by surprise. The Affordable Care Act, which expanded Medicaid to cover millions of the poorest Americans who couldn’t otherwise afford coverage, envisions a more even split with an expanded, robust private market.
“When we first saw the numbers, everyone’s eyes kind of bugged out,” said Matt Salo, who runs the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “Of the people walking through the door, 90 percent are on Medicaid. We’re thinking, what planet is this happening on?” [That's easy - it's Entitlement USA, Land of Dependency! We're hoping to add 15-30 million more soon!]
The yawning gap between public and private enrollment is handing Republicans yet another line of criticism against President Obama’s health overhaul — that the law is primarily becoming an expansion of a costly entitlement program.
Supporters, however, caution against reading too much into the early numbers. Some of the states that set up their own exchanges, including Maryland, are suffering Web site glitches similar to those of the national system, and that is delaying private plan enrollments.
But if this trend continues, experts say it could prove costly for states that will have to help pay for some of these new Medicaid enrollees. It would widen disparities between the states that opted to expand the entitlement program and those that have not. [Damn you Brownback! :shakesfist: Right, edn?]
Low enrollment in private insurance, meanwhile, could increase premiums as it would likely indicate that only sick people, who really need coverage, were signing up. [Unless you subscribe to Chum's version of "common sense."]
-
It's worse than I thought. So far, Obamacare is basically just adding a ton of new enrollments to Medicaid
You're surprised that people who are offered Medicaid, WHICH IS FREE, would sign up for Medicaid?
-
It's worse than I thought. So far, Obamacare is basically just adding a ton of new enrollments to Medicaid
You're surprised that people who are offered Medicaid, WHICH IS FREE, would sign up for Medicaid?
You're right. I shouldn't be surprised, but the Obamacare fallout just gets worse and worse. Get those voters on the dole!!!
-
It's worse than I thought. So far, Obamacare is basically just adding a ton of new enrollments to Medicaid
You're surprised that people who are offered Medicaid, WHICH IS FREE, would sign up for Medicaid?
You're right. I shouldn't be surprised, but the Obamacare fallout just gets worse and worse. Get those voters on the dole!!!
LOL. I think its just great you've stumbled upon what I've been talking about and yet you still don't understand how this program works.
-
Until the poorest states in America are actually voting democrat, this "get those voters on the dole" talking point is going to remain the single dumbest republican talking point.
-
Until the poorest states in America are actually voting democrat, this "get those voters on the dole" talking point is going to remain the single dumbest republican talking point.
Hint - there are plenty of people voting Democrat in even the "reddest" of states, "poorest" of states, "richest" of states, etc. If you're suggesting that doling out welfare doesn't help the party of welfare to buy votes, I can't help you. That doesn't mean that everyone on welfare votes Democrat.
-
Until the poorest states in America are actually voting democrat, this "get those voters on the dole" talking point is going to remain the single dumbest republican talking point.
Hint - there are plenty of people voting Democrat in even the "reddest" of states, "poorest" of states, "richest" of states, etc. If you're suggesting that doling out welfare doesn't help the party of welfare to buy votes, I can't help you. That doesn't mean that everyone on welfare votes Democrat.
:blank:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FM2nfjXa.jpg&hash=4931236da37f6be961f5ce74dacd73c2b3cf5ffc)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FM2nfjXa.jpg&hash=4931236da37f6be961f5ce74dacd73c2b3cf5ffc)
You think its a copy of Oregon Trail they're getting ready to play??
-
Question for chum:
As an Obama care "navigator" are you required to spew unsubstantiated and patently false propaganda, or is it only encouraged?
-
Well, Edna just made it abundantly clear he doesn't know jack crap about the implementation of the law.
-
:Rusty:
Question for chum:
As an Obama care "navigator" are you required to spew unsubstantiated and patently false propaganda, or is it only encouraged?
Any answer I give to that question will be unsubstantiated and patently false.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FM2nfjXa.jpg&hash=4931236da37f6be961f5ce74dacd73c2b3cf5ffc)
You think its a copy of Oregon Trail they're getting ready to play??
I don't know but the monitor isn't plugged in so that could be a problem.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FBYA1XZfCEAAZdEi.jpg&hash=42bedef3e0b8ee68396f432bf781c2d3141f16d1)
:lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FBYA1XZfCEAAZdEi.jpg&hash=42bedef3e0b8ee68396f432bf781c2d3141f16d1)
:lol:
Is that real? If not, clever. If so, amazing. :love:
-
Is that real? If not, clever. If so, amazing. :love:
http://www.businessinsider.com/kathleen-sebelius-websites-for-dummies-obamacare-healthcare-gov-tennessee-brian-kelsey-2013-11 (http://www.businessinsider.com/kathleen-sebelius-websites-for-dummies-obamacare-healthcare-gov-tennessee-brian-kelsey-2013-11)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F11%2FKeep-Your-Plan-copy.jpg&hash=6e0eefe13ceb9e9a7dc3793b84bfce9b654be3a7)
-
So is the NSA now lending a hand to Obamacare? Weird story... http://twitchy.com/2013/11/02/jim-angle-shares-disturbing-experience-with-obamacare-800-number/ (http://twitchy.com/2013/11/02/jim-angle-shares-disturbing-experience-with-obamacare-800-number/)
The helpline is now screening out media inquiries, but how did they know?
-
You also can't keep your doctor. Another Obamacare loser speaks out. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446)
-
You also can't keep your doctor. Another Obamacare loser speaks out. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446 (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446)
UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan.
Can somebody explain why this would be the case?
-
UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan.
Can somebody explain why this would be the case?
Because doctors are generally worried / uncertain about reimbursement rates of the new exchange health plans. In many instances, insurers have decided that the only way to make the Obamacare plans financially viable is to cut reimbursement rates.
http://nypost.com/2013/10/29/docs-resisting-obamacare/ (http://nypost.com/2013/10/29/docs-resisting-obamacare/)
New York doctors are treating ObamaCare like the plague, a new survey reveals.
A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s new health-care plan.
Another 33 percent say they’re still not sure whether to become ObamaCare providers.
Only 23 percent of the 409 physicians queried said they’re taking patients who signed up through health exchanges.
“This is so poorly designed that a lot of doctors are afraid to participate,” said Dr. Sam Unterricht, president of the 29,000-member organization. “There’s a lot of resistance. Doctors don’t know what they’re going to get paid.”
Three out of four doctors who are participating in the program said they “had to participate” because of existing contractual obligations with an insurer or medical provider, not because they wanted to. Only one in four “affirmatively” chose to sign up for the exchanges.
Nearly eight in 10 — 77 percent — said they had not been given a fee schedule to show much they’ll get paid if they sign up.
The survey invited doctors to anonymously share opinions about the new health care law, and many took time out of their busy days to vent.
“Obama Care wants to start right away, but who see all these new patients???? Not me,” e-mailed one doc.
Another said, “I plan to retire if this disaster is implemented. This is a train wreck.”
“I refuse to participate in the exchange plans! I am completely opposed to this new law,” said a third respondent.
One doctor recycled the mantra used to attack addictions: “The solution is simple: Just say no.”
One physician was so disgusted, he threatened to taken only cash patients going forward.
“I am seriously considering opting out of all insurance plans including Medicare because of [ObamaCare].”
Some physicians said the pressure on insurance carriers to control costs is leading to rationed care.
“OBAMACARE is a disaster. I have already seen denial of medication, denial of referrals,” one doc said.
And they worry that stingy payments for medical services offered by insurers could put some doctors out of business and force others into retirement.
“Any doctor who accepts the exchange is just a bad businessman/woman. Pays terrible,” argued one doctor.
Said another MD, “Can’t imagine any doctors would be willing to work for so little money? All doctors should boycott.”
Doctors complained they’ve gotten the shaft for years even before ObamaCare.
“I get screwed from insurance companies already. I refuse to get screwed any longer,” one doctor said.
Others said they don’t have enough information to make an informed choice.
“This is a joke. We are flying blind,” said one doctor.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/health/obamacare-doctors-limited/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/health/obamacare-doctors-limited/)
Concord's one hospital won't accept any policies offered by the marketplaces. To see a doctor, specialist or primary care provider affiliated with the hospital, patients on these Obamacare plans will have to pay out of their own pocket. The closest in-network hospital is in Manchester.
"Can you imagine having to go 25 miles away to Manchester to get access to a health care provider that is covered by your insurance?" Harte asked. "Right now, Concord is one big black hole of health care for people buying these plans."
And it's not just Concord. Nationally, consumers are learning a number of well-known hospitals won't accept insurance offered through the marketplaces.
In New York, NYU will accept only a minority of the plans. In Los Angeles, UCLA medical centers will accept a couple. In Atlanta, Emory has limited the number of plans it will take. Academic medical centers are often pricier because they tackle the more complex cases.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare)
Regulations driven by the Obama White House have indeed made insurance more affordable – if, like Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, you're looking only at price. But responding to Obamacare caps on premiums, many insurers will, in turn, simply offer top-tier doctors and hospitals far less cash for services rendered.
Watchdog.org looked at the top 18 hospitals nationwide as ranked by U.S. News and World Report for 2013-2014. We contacted each hospital to determine their contracts and talked to several insurance companies, as well.
The result of our investigation: Many top hospitals are simply opting out of Obamacare.
Many conservatives warned this would happen (I think even I did if I go back to posts here back in 2010). Think of it this way: Obamacare is effectively a massive expansion of Medicaid, for two reasons: (1) One component of the law literally expands Medicaid above the poverty line, (2) many of the plans sold on the exchanges will be quite similar to Medicaid due to the shitty reimbursement rates. Fewer and fewer doctors accept Medicaid, both because of the low reimbursement rates and because of the clientele typically associated with Medicaid.
Just one more reason Obamacare is a complete, unmitigated disaster.
-
What would a doctor working only on medicaid patients earn in a year?
-
What would a doctor working only on medicaid patients earn in a year?
If the answer is "less than a doctor that doesn't work on medicaid patients" then there's a potential problem.
-
So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it? There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.
-
What would a doctor working only on medicaid patients earn in a year?
If the answer is "less than a doctor that doesn't work on medicaid patients" then there's a potential problem.
only if there's a shortage of doctors.
-
So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it? There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.
No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.
*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.
-
Hopefully Obama lied about the death panel, too. Maybe at least some good will come out of this bill.
-
What would a doctor working only on medicaid patients earn in a year?
If the answer is "less than a doctor that doesn't work on medicaid patients" then there's a potential problem.
only if there's a shortage of doctors.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/health/obamacare-doctor-shortage/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323393804578555741780608174
-
Hopefully Obama lied about the death panel, too. Maybe at least some good will come out of this bill.
There will be "death panels". Even Thomas Friedman admitted that it won't work without them. They call it "end of life care" as they decide to cut off medical treatments. I'm not passing judgement at this point, but it was just another lie that they knew had to be true.
-
Hopefully Obama lied about the death panel, too. Maybe at least some good will come out of this bill.
There will be "death panels". Even Thomas Friedman admitted that it won't work without them. They call it "end of life care" as they decide to cut off medical treatments. I'm not passing judgement at this point, but it was just another lie that they knew had to be true.
Well, that's good. Maybe we can work on getting rid of everything else but still keeping the death panels.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/02/health/obamacare-doctor-shortage/
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304506904575180331528424238
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323393804578555741780608174
yeah, i know.
-
:facepalm: (my bad)
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/for-consumers-whose-health-premiums-will-go-up-under-new-law-sticker-shock-leads-to-anger/2013/11/03/d858dd28-44a9-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story_1.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/for-consumers-whose-health-premiums-will-go-up-under-new-law-sticker-shock-leads-to-anger/2013/11/03/d858dd28-44a9-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story_1.html)
Americans who face higher insurance costs under President Obama’s health-care law are angrily complaining about “sticker shock,” threatening to become a new political force opposing the law even as the White House struggles to convince other consumers that they will benefit from it.
The growing backlash involves people whose plans are being discontinued because the policies don’t meet the law’s more-stringent standards. They’re finding that many alternative policies come with higher premiums and deductibles.
After receiving a letter from her insurer that her plan was being discontinued, Deborah Persico, a 58-year-old lawyer in the District, found a comparable plan on the city’s new health insurance exchange. But her monthly premium, now $297, would be $165 higher, and her maximum out-of-pocket costs would double.
That means she could end up paying at least $5,000 more a year than she does now. “That’s just not fair,” said Persico, who represents indigent criminal defendants. “This is ridiculous.”
If the poor, sick and uninsured are the winners under the Affordable Care Act, the losers appear to include some relatively healthy middle-income small-business owners, consultants, lawyers and other self-employed workers who buy their own insurance. Many make too much to qualify for new federal subsidies provided by the law but not enough to absorb the rising costs without hardship. Some are too old to go without insurance because they have children or have minor health issues, but they are too young for Medicare.
Others are upset because they don’t want coverage for services they’ll never need or their doctors don’t participate in any of their new insurance options.
...
The disruptions being caused by the new law have been especially jolting for those who support the ideals of the health-care overhaul.
Marlys Dietrick, a 60-year-old artist from San Antonio, said she had high hopes that the new law would help many of her friends who are chefs, actors or photographers get insured. But she said they have been turned off by high premiums and deductibles and would rather pay the fine.
“I am one of those Democrats who wanted it to be better than this,” she said.
Her insurer, Humana, informed her that her plan was being canceled and that the rate for herself and her 21-year-old son for a plan compliant with the new law would rise from $300 to $705. On the federal Web site, she found a comparable plan for $623 a month. Because her annual income is about $80,000, she doesn’t qualify for subsidies.
A cheaper alternative on the federal exchange, she said, had a premium of $490 a month — but it was an HMO plan rather than the PPO plan she currently has. “I wouldn’t be able to go to the doctor I’ve been going to for years,” she said. “That is not a deal.”
And both the HMO and PPO exchange plans she examined had family deductibles of $12,700, compared with her current $7,000.
Robert Laszewski, an industry consultant, said he thinks the rise in rates was inevitable. The new law, he said, has resulted in an estimated 30 to 50 percent increase in baseline costs for insurers.
“We’ve got increased access for sick people and an increase in the span of benefits, so something’s got to give,” he said.
Beginning Jan. 1, the new plans must cover 10 essential benefits including pediatric care, prescription drugs, mental-health services and maternity care. In general, policies that don’t offer those can’t be sold after 2013. (Plans that were in place before March 2010 and essentially haven’t changed are “grandfathered” and allowed to continue.) Critics, such as Obama, say that the discontinued policies are too skimpy to offer real protections, but some consumers contend the plans meet their needs.
David Prestin, 48, who operates a gas station and diner at a truck stop in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, was unhappy to learn recently that his premiums are slated to rise from $923 to $1,283 next year under Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The insurer said it needed to add maternity care to comply with the Affordable Care Act.
The issue of maternity coverage is a sensitive one for Prestin and his wife, Kathie. They had one child seven years ago, but after she had five miscarriages, they discovered she had an immune issue that prevented her from successfully completing a pregnancy.
At the same time, Prestin said, the new plan would reduce coverage for things he and Kathie need, such as free annual checkups.
The Prestins explored HealthCare.gov. They are not eligible for subsidies, but they found a cheaper plan than the one being offered by their insurer. However, there was another problem: It would have required the couple to switch from the doctors they have seen for more than 16 years and travel more than 100 miles from their home to the nearest major hospital center for treatment — in Green Bay, Wis.
“I pay my taxes. I’m assistant chief of the volunteer fire department here in Cedar River and a first responder for Mid-County Rescue,” Prestin said. “You try to be personally accountable and play by the rules, but the more you play by the rules, the more you get beat up on.” [THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULDN'T ELECT LIBERALS]
-
So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it? There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.
No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.
*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.
I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.
-
So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it? There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.
No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.
*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.
I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.
9 million people is a lot of people
-
What would a doctor working only on medicaid patients earn in a year?
If the answer is "less than a doctor that doesn't work on medicaid patients" then there's a potential problem.
only if there's a shortage of doctors.
The assumption that doctors maximize is surely no better than the one that "rational" consumers maximize in economic theory. If it was true, there would be zero Medicaid doctors, which is far from true.
-
What would a doctor working only on medicaid patients earn in a year?
If the answer is "less than a doctor that doesn't work on medicaid patients" then there's a potential problem.
only if there's a shortage of doctors.
The assumption that doctors maximize is surely no better than the one that "rational" consumers maximize in economic theory. If it was true, there would be zero Medicaid doctors, which is far from true.
Some doctors live in areas where if they didn't take Medicaid they couldn't fill their day. Rural America, basically.
-
So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it? There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.
No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.
*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.
I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.
9 million people is a lot of people
To what degree are they affected, though? The reasoning that their rates will go way up due to new mandates regarding benefits doesn't hold water because almost all of these mandates already went into effect. In one of those links, there was a guy who said something like his premium is going from $200 to $1000. That crap just doesn't make sense.
-
So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it? There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.
No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.
*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.
I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.
9 million people is a lot of people
To what degree are they affected, though? The reasoning that their rates will go way up due to new mandates regarding benefits doesn't hold water because almost all of these mandates already went into effect. In one of those links, there was a guy who said something like his premium is going from $200 to $1000. That crap just doesn't make sense.
I really just care that he "misspoke" dozens of times.
-
So, now we're complaining that people with free coverage don't get as much as people who pay for it? There are plenty of doctors who see lowlifes on Medicaid, UNFORTUNATELY.
No, this is not about the people getting "free" coverage under Obamacare. This discussion pertains to the millions of people who were paying for individual policies, but the policies are now being cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") because they don't comply with the Obamacare mandates. They now have to find new policies, and many of those policies will not be "free" - many of them will be more expensive than what they were already paying.* And, as evidenced above, there will likely also be significant limitations on the number of healthcare providers that even accept the new insurance. These people played by the rules, and they're now being screwed by the redistribution under Obamacare.
*I'm guessing that "many" will actually be a majority, though I've seen no hard evidence on that. It seems likely to me that the majority of people who were already purchasing individual policies probably earn enough money that they won't qualify for much of a subsidy, if any.
I keep forgetting that you're calling something that affects some unspecified number that's less than 3% of the population to a dubiously unspecified degree a complete disaster.
9 million people is a lot of people
To what degree are they affected, though? The reasoning that their rates will go way up due to new mandates regarding benefits doesn't hold water because almost all of these mandates already went into effect. In one of those links, there was a guy who said something like his premium is going from $200 to $1000. That crap just doesn't make sense.
I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, and I'm sorry you're still beating the drum about Obamacare not causing these increases and cancellations, regardless of the dozens of articles (from very reputable publications) I've linked to the contrary. Believe what you want. Also, the only reason we're "only" talking about a few million people getting screwed at this time is because the employer mandate has been delayed by a year. Stay tuned. Obamacare is a crap cornucopia.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
-
I have no doubt that guy sincerely thought his rates would necessarily increase that much and that the newspeople covering it quoted him correctly. I'm just saying it makes about as much sense as someone testifying that McDonald's just charged them $50 for a cheeseburger.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.
I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.
I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.
Even if you're not the one getting taxed?
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.
I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.
Even if you're not the one getting taxed?
All business tax increases get pushed to consumers.
-
:Chirp:
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.
I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.
Even if you're not the one getting taxed?
All business tax increases get pushed to consumers.
And you consider them all to be increases to the cost of your healthcare premiums?
-
:Chirp:What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.
I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.
Even if you're not the one getting taxed?
All business tax increases get pushed to consumers.
And you consider them all to be increases to the cost of your healthcare premiums?
Yes. Any additional cost to me associated with this bill is an increase to my health care costs.
-
:Chirp:What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.
I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.
Even if you're not the one getting taxed?
All business tax increases get pushed to consumers.
And you consider them all to be increases to the cost of your healthcare premiums?
Yes. Any additional cost to me associated with this bill is an increase to my health care costs.
But only indirectly affects your pizza budget?
-
Man, people had to pay a shitload for health insurance before Obamacare.
-
:Chirp:What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
I thought subsidies were paid by the federal government and funded with a variety of new taxes.
I would consider any new tax associated with obamacare as an increase in my premiums, but that's probably just me.
Even if you're not the one getting taxed?
All business tax increases get pushed to consumers.
And you consider them all to be increases to the cost of your healthcare premiums?
Yes. Any additional cost to me associated with this bill is an increase to my health care costs.
But only indirectly affects your pizza budget?
It will probably affect the pizza budget directly. Did Pizza Hut and Domino's get exceptions?
-
So the pres is denying he ever said you can keep your plan LOL, watch the video.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-on-obamacare-if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it-2013-10 (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-on-obamacare-if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it-2013-10)
-
I worked in health insurance for 15 years and never met anybody with an individual plan that they "liked". If they liked the cost, they certainly didn't like the coverage and vice versa. In most cases, they didn't like either.
-
At the time, I thought he was merely addressing rampant single payer fears.
-
So the pres is denying he ever said you can keep your plan LOL, watch the video.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-on-obamacare-if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it-2013-10 (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-on-obamacare-if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it-2013-10)
Well he certainly is "audacious." The NYT says Obama "misspoke." :lol: This isn't about saying something that turned out to be untrue - NBC has already demonstrated that Obama damned-well knew he wasn't telling the truth when he made this promise something like 29 different times.
-
I worked in health insurance for 15 years and never met anybody with an individual plan that they "liked". If they liked the cost, they certainly didn't like the coverage and vice versa. In most cases, they didn't like either.
Funny, I've never met anyone who "liked" paying for insurance, period. That's not the point, of course. The question is whether people liked their policies in comparison to what else is available. And the answer, apparently, for many Americans is that they don't like the alternatives to their now-cancelled plans. Hence, Obama lied when he said that if you like your policy, you can keep it. And that lie is a pretty big deal if you're one of those people getting screwed.
-
I worked in health insurance for 15 years and never met anybody with an individual plan that they "liked". If they liked the cost, they certainly didn't like the coverage and vice versa. In most cases, they didn't like either.
I like my current plan, both cost and coverage.
-
I worked in health insurance for 15 years and never met anybody with an individual plan that they "liked". If they liked the cost, they certainly didn't like the coverage and vice versa. In most cases, they didn't like either.
I like my current plan, both cost and coverage.
Ok. Sorry you're losing your plan.
And touche' to K-S-U's point, I don't think anybody likes paying for insurance.
-
I worked in health insurance for 15 years and never met anybody with an individual plan that they "liked". If they liked the cost, they certainly didn't like the coverage and vice versa. In most cases, they didn't like either.
I like my current plan, both cost and coverage.
Ok. Sorry you're losing your plan.
And touche' to K-S-U's point, I don't think anybody likes paying for insurance.
I'm not sure if I'm losing it or not, but I really hope not because I know it will have a much higher deductible and cost to either myself or employer.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
I was. When the employer mandate goes into effect, employer-based plans will be subject to the same minimum coverage mandates, and many will be cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") as Kooky Kathleen admitted today (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/11/06/sebelius-bombshell-employer-based-plans-will-face-same-grandfathering-caveats-as-lost-plans-n1740097?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm).
How many will be cancelled? It's funny, the Obama administration provided its own estimate, tucked away in the regs, all the way back in 2010 (the same time Obama was spouting his lies about how "if you like your plan, you can keep it.") Here's what the administration had to say: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/)
“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.
...
How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.
And when those policies are cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") and the new coverage mandates are imposed, which way do you think premiums will go? up, Up, UP!!! And do you really believe those higher premiums won't be passed along to employees and customers?
I really can't think of a single piece of legislation in the history of the United States more foolish and destructive than the "Affordable" Care Act. I think a lot of Democrats are going to lose their jobs over this by the time the dust settles.
-
Stories like this warm my heart. More big time Obama supporters loses their health coverage. http://www.propublica.org/article/loyal-obama-supporters-canceled-by-obamacare (http://www.propublica.org/article/loyal-obama-supporters-canceled-by-obamacare)
San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.
...
The couple — Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 — have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage — a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.
“From all of the sob stories I’ve heard and read, ours is the most extreme,” Lee told me in an email last week.
I’ve been skeptical about media stories featuring those who claimed they would be worse off because their insurance policies were being canceled on account of the ACA. In many cases, it turns out, the consumers could have found cheaper coverage through the new health insurance marketplaces, or their plans weren’t very good to begin with. Some didn’t know they could qualify for subsidies that would lower their insurance premiums.
So I tried to find flaws in what Hammack told me. I couldn’t find any.
- The couple’s existing Kaiser plan was a good one.
- Their new options were indeed more expensive, and the benefits didn’t seem any better.
- They do not qualify for premium subsidies because they make more than four times the federal poverty level, though Hammack says not by much.
Hammack recalled his reaction when he and his wife received a letters from Kaiser in September informing him their coverage was being canceled. “I work downstairs and my wife had a clear look of shock on her face,” he said. “Our first reaction was clearly there’s got to be some mistake. This was before the exchanges opened up. We quickly calmed down. We were confident that this would all be straightened out. But it wasn’t.”
I asked Hammack to send me details of his current plan. It carried a $4,000 deductible per person, a $40 copay for doctor visits, a $150 emergency room visit fee and 30 percent coinsurance for hospital stays after the deductible. The out-of-pocket maximum was $5,600.
This plan was ending, Kaiser’s letters told them, because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. “Everything is taken care of,” the letters said. “There’s nothing you need to do.”
The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 a month for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year).
And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.
When they shopped around and looked for a different plan on California's new health insurance marketplace, Covered California, the cheapest one was $975, with hefty deductibles and copays.
...
“In a few cases, we are able to find coverage for them that is less expensive, but in most cases, we’re not because, in sort of pure economic terms, they are people who benefited from the current system ... Now that the market rules are changing, there will be different people who benefit and different people who don’t.”
“There’s an aspect of market disruption here that I think was not clear to people,” Stenrud acknowledged. “In many respects it has been theory rather than practice for the first three years of the law; folks are seeing the breadth of change that we’re talking about here.”
That’s little comfort to Hammack. He’s written to California’s senators and his representative, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., asking for help.
“We believe that the Act is good for health care, the economy, & the future of our nation. However, ACA options for middle income individuals ages 59 & 60 are unaffordable. We’re learning that many others are similarly affected. In that spirit we ask that you fix this, for all of our sakes,” he and Brothers wrote. :lol: :lol: :lol:
...
So what is Hammack going to do? If his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as low as zero. If he makes even one dollar more, he gets nothing.
That’s what he’s leaning toward — lowering his salary or shifting more money toward a retirement account and applying for a subsidy. [That's the ticket - JUST EARN LESS! :lol:]
“We’re not changing our views because of this situation, but it hurt to hear Obama saying, just the other day, that if our plan has been dropped it’s because it wasn’t any good, and our costs would go up only slightly,” he said. :lol: :lol: :lol: “We’re gratified that the press is on the case, but frustrated that the stewards of the ACA don’t seem to have heard.”
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
I was. When the employer mandate goes into effect, employer-based plans will be subject to the same minimum coverage mandates, and many will be cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") as Kooky Kathleen admitted today (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/11/06/sebelius-bombshell-employer-based-plans-will-face-same-grandfathering-caveats-as-lost-plans-n1740097?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm).
How many will be cancelled? It's funny, the Obama administration provided its own estimate, tucked away in the regs, all the way back in 2010 (the same time Obama was spouting his lies about how "if you like your plan, you can keep it.") Here's what the administration had to say: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/)
“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.
...
How many people are exposed to these problems? 60 percent of Americans have private-sector health insurance—precisely the number that Jay Carney dismissed. As to the number of people facing cancellations, 51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.
And when those policies are cancelled (sorry - "not renewed") and the new coverage mandates are imposed, which way do you think premiums will go? up, Up, UP!!! And do you really believe those higher premiums won't be passed along to employees and customers?
I really can't think of a single piece of legislation in the history of the United States more foolish and destructive than the "Affordable" Care Act. I think a lot of Democrats are going to lose their jobs over this by the time the dust settles.
This seems entirely different from the employer mandate that you had me google. In any case, I know lots of grandfathered plans (which is a term that shouldn't be used interchangeably with "emoloyer based plans") have already implemented Obamacare minimum coverage in anticipation of this. They'd be stupid not to! So maybe we'll be able to dodge yet another bullet. Let's cross our fingers!
-
FYI, nobody, not even the shitbags who voted for this crap law, is defending it anymore, NOBODY. It's full on damage control and scapegoating at this point.
So, [email protected], you can stop now.
Your Pal,
Sugar Dick
/thread/
-
I'm not defending the law. I don't give a crap about politics, government, or healthcare one way or another.
-
I'm not defending the law. I don't give a crap about politics, government, or healthcare one way or another.
Much better
-
There's a show on my tv right now called "Finding Bigfoot"
I'm pretty sure its a parity of the Obama administration. The one called Bobo is clearly Biden. The one called Rene is clearly Obama. I cant put my finger on Cliff and Matt yet. Bigfoot obviously symbolizes so many different things, this is just amazing.
-
Got it, Cliff is Paul Krugman
-
Matt seems to be the leader, so I think he symbolizes Valerie Jarrett.
-
no surprise that you two watch mouthbreather television also.
:buh-bye:
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
just wanted to point this as a flat out lie
-
I'm not defending the law. I don't give a crap about politics, government, or healthcare one way or another.
Much better
The criticisms of the law presented here aren't any less stupid because of my view, though, right? I'm also not saying that I dislike it.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
just wanted to point this as a flat out lie
No, it's not, and please just stop until you have something intelligent to offer. Many employers already cancelled health insurance policies before the employer mandate was delayed. When the employer mandate is implemented, many more employers will either elect to pay the penalty or finagle with hours so they don't meet the threshold for the mandate, which in either event will result in employees having to purchase health insurance on their own. Of course, most of these employees will qualify for substantial subsidies, but again, this is just shifting more Americans onto government-subsidized Medicaid-esque insurance - a model that is already unsustainable. This really isn't that hard to understand. Why do you think Obama decided to unilaterally (because, after all, the law is whatever he wants it to be) delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections?!
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
just wanted to point this as a flat out lie
No, it's not, and please just stop until you have something intelligent to offer. Many employers already cancelled health insurance policies before the employer mandate was delayed. When the employer mandate is implemented, many more employers will either elect to pay the penalty or finagle with hours so they don't meet the threshold for the mandate, which in either event will result in employees having to purchase health insurance on their own. Of course, most of these employees will qualify for substantial subsidies, but again, this is just shifting more Americans onto government-subsidized Medicaid-esque insurance - a model that is already unsustainable. This really isn't that hard to understand. Why do you think Obama decided to unilaterally (because, after all, the law is whatever he wants it to be) delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections?!
Not to mention there are many employers with fewer than 50 employees that were offering health benefits that will no longer be able to afford to do so, and they will simply say screw it and send them to the exchanges.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
just wanted to point this as a flat out lie
No, it's not, and please just stop until you have something intelligent to offer. Many employers already cancelled health insurance policies before the employer mandate was delayed. When the employer mandate is implemented, many more employers will either elect to pay the penalty or finagle with hours so they don't meet the threshold for the mandate, which in either event will result in employees having to purchase health insurance on their own. Of course, most of these employees will qualify for substantial subsidies, but again, this is just shifting more Americans onto government-subsidized Medicaid-esque insurance - a model that is already unsustainable. This really isn't that hard to understand. Why do you think Obama decided to unilaterally (because, after all, the law is whatever he wants it to be) delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections?!
Not to mention there are many employers with fewer than 50 employees that were offering health benefits that will no longer be able to afford to do so, and they will simply say screw it and send them to the exchanges.
I work(ed) part time at a hobby kind of shop and that's what they've decided to do/did.
-
well, that's one benefit of the law, then.
-
At least he apologized
-
Not to be a waffler but it would appear that ACA is pretty crappy. It will likely be repealed if the GOP doesn't absolutely butcher the next election, right?
-
Not to be a waffler but it would appear that ACA is pretty crappy. It will likely be repealed if the GOP doesn't absolutely butcher the next election, right?
pretty unlikely, limestone. pubs would have to take the senate.
-
Not to be a waffler but it would appear that ACA is pretty crappy. It will likely be repealed if the GOP doesn't absolutely butcher the next election, right?
pretty unlikely, limestone. pubs would have to take the senate.
Won't at least some of the dems get pressure from their constituents to boot it?
-
Won't at least some of the dems get pressure from their constituents to boot it?
the election is a year away. a lot of things happen in a year.
-
I definitely enjoy how pissed off some people are about this. I'm not sure how many people actually care all that much, though, even if they think it's a shitty law. The critics here represent literally no one that I interact with IRL.
-
I definitely enjoy how pissed off some people are about this. I'm not sure how many people actually care all that much, though, even if they think it's a shitty law. The critics here represent literally no one that I interact with IRL.
It's called apathy.
-
I would guess that the only people who don't care are people like me whose healthcare plan is completely unaffected by obamacare.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
just wanted to point this as a flat out lie
No, it's not, and please just stop until you have something intelligent to offer. Many employers already cancelled health insurance policies before the employer mandate was delayed. When the employer mandate is implemented, many more employers will either elect to pay the penalty or finagle with hours so they don't meet the threshold for the mandate, which in either event will result in employees having to purchase health insurance on their own. Of course, most of these employees will qualify for substantial subsidies, but again, this is just shifting more Americans onto government-subsidized Medicaid-esque insurance - a model that is already unsustainable. This really isn't that hard to understand. Why do you think Obama decided to unilaterally (because, after all, the law is whatever he wants it to be) delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections?!
Not to mention there are many employers with fewer than 50 employees that were offering health benefits that will no longer be able to afford to do so, and they will simply say screw it and send them to the exchanges.
well lets see
lie number 1) No one is forcing employers to cancel plans
lie number 2) Subsidies aren't covered through higher premiums
lie number 3) Long term unsustainability, now at this point we really can't say what the course will be. As designed the ACA will bring in money to the government. But with the horrid roll out there is no way to know how well this law will work until at least the end of the first quarter 2014. To say otherwise is, as noted, a lie.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
just wanted to point this as a flat out lie
No, it's not, and please just stop until you have something intelligent to offer. Many employers already cancelled health insurance policies before the employer mandate was delayed. When the employer mandate is implemented, many more employers will either elect to pay the penalty or finagle with hours so they don't meet the threshold for the mandate, which in either event will result in employees having to purchase health insurance on their own. Of course, most of these employees will qualify for substantial subsidies, but again, this is just shifting more Americans onto government-subsidized Medicaid-esque insurance - a model that is already unsustainable. This really isn't that hard to understand. Why do you think Obama decided to unilaterally (because, after all, the law is whatever he wants it to be) delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections?!
Not to mention there are many employers with fewer than 50 employees that were offering health benefits that will no longer be able to afford to do so, and they will simply say screw it and send them to the exchanges.
well lets see
lie number 1) No one is forcing employers to cancel plans
lie number 2) Subsidies aren't covered through higher premiums
lie number 3) Long term unsustainability, now at this point we really can't say what the course will be. As designed the ACA will bring in money to the government. But with the horrid roll out there is no way to know how well this law will work until at least the end of the first quarter 2014. To say otherwise is, as noted, a lie.
Ed is basically right, no one is forcing employers to cancel plans, economics are (damn economics). Subsidies aren't covered through higher premiums,
fairy pixies pay for that. As far as long term unsustainability, well that is gonna be fine, you see we put a trillion on the 4th horse in the fifth race.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
just wanted to point this as a flat out lie
No, it's not, and please just stop until you have something intelligent to offer. Many employers already cancelled health insurance policies before the employer mandate was delayed. When the employer mandate is implemented, many more employers will either elect to pay the penalty or finagle with hours so they don't meet the threshold for the mandate, which in either event will result in employees having to purchase health insurance on their own. Of course, most of these employees will qualify for substantial subsidies, but again, this is just shifting more Americans onto government-subsidized Medicaid-esque insurance - a model that is already unsustainable. This really isn't that hard to understand. Why do you think Obama decided to unilaterally (because, after all, the law is whatever he wants it to be) delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections?!
Not to mention there are many employers with fewer than 50 employees that were offering health benefits that will no longer be able to afford to do so, and they will simply say screw it and send them to the exchanges.
well lets see
lie number 1) No one is forcing employers to cancel plans
lie number 2) Subsidies aren't covered through higher premiums
lie number 3) Long term unsustainability, now at this point we really can't say what the course will be. As designed the ACA will bring in money to the government. But with the horrid roll out there is no way to know how well this law will work until at least the end of the first quarter 2014. To say otherwise is, as noted, a lie.
Ed is basically right, no one is forcing employers to cancel plans, economics are (damn economics). Subsidies aren't covered through higher premiums,
fairy pixies pay for that. As far as long term unsustainability, well that is gonna be fine, you see we put a trillion on the 4th horse in the fifth race.
:lol: You're not going to bring Ed around - he takes libtard to the next level. He's like an emaw version of Beems. To the credit of most libtards on this board, they're not even trying to defend this turd anymore.
-
I would guess that the only people who don't care are people like me whose healthcare plan is completely unaffected by obamacare.
So, 85% of the country?
-
I would guess that the only people who don't care are people like me whose healthcare plan is completely unaffected by obamacare.
So, 85% of the country?
Until next year when the employer mandate (which Obama delayed, because it's going to suck) kicks in.
-
hopefully this will make everyone realize that moving to single payer would be the best.
-
hopefully this will make everyone realize that moving to single payer would be the best.
This is why Obama has been lying about the plan from day one.
-
hopefully this will make everyone realize that moving to single payer would be the best.
Dood, they can't pull off a website and you think that's the next logical step?
Setting aside the waivers bullshit, I'm not sure the 85% is prepared to have shittier healthcare for the greater good.
-
hopefully this will make everyone realize that moving to single payer would be the best.
Right. Obamacare is perfect example of why we need the government to just take the whole thing over. :lol: Wait... there's probably about half the county (maybe more?) who actually believes this. :facepalm:
-
Some people are getting screwed by the new system (very few) because they were in health groups that included mostly people without pre-existing conditions. Basically their pool was all healthy people, so premiums were low. Now they're finding out they can't just exclude all the sick people from their pool and their expense is going up. This is for the individual market only, of course.
So the result is that a few people are ending up losers in this new system. Now if we had moved to a single payer system, everyone would be getting treated the same way. The pool would be the entire United States (including fat people in the South), and we'd just pay a health tax. You may end up paying a lot more this way than you do now, but it would be hard to complain since it would be "fair."
I think the ACA may end up being better than a single payer if we can get past this whining stage. We still have private insurers who are motivated to keep people healthy and run things efficiently, etc, but we also are covering people who couldn't get insurance before.
-
Some people are getting screwed by the new system (very few) because they were in health groups that included mostly people without pre-existing conditions. Basically their pool was all healthy people, so premiums were low. Now they're finding out they can't just exclude all the sick people from their pool and their expense is going up. This is for the individual market only, of course.
So the result is that a few people are ending up losers in this new system. Now if we had moved to a single payer system, everyone would be getting treated the same way. The pool would be the entire United States (including fat people in the South), and we'd just pay a health tax. You may end up paying a lot more this way than you do now, but it would be hard to complain since it would be "fair."
I think the ACA may end up being better than a single payer if we can get past this whining stage. We still have private insurers who are motivated to keep people healthy and run things efficiently, etc, but we also are covering people who couldn't get insurance before.
There are currently 68 million people on group plans that will need new government approved plans once the employer mandate exception expires. They will all be paying more. This is a job killing fiasco. We are Greece.
-
What's the employer mandate? Never heard if it.
:facepalm: Google it.
Oh. I thought we were talking about things that affect premiums.
It will force many more employees into the exchanges where many will qualify for subsidies that their employer previously covered. Those subsidies will need to be covered through higher premiums.
just wanted to point this as a flat out lie
No, it's not, and please just stop until you have something intelligent to offer. Many employers already cancelled health insurance policies before the employer mandate was delayed. When the employer mandate is implemented, many more employers will either elect to pay the penalty or finagle with hours so they don't meet the threshold for the mandate, which in either event will result in employees having to purchase health insurance on their own. Of course, most of these employees will qualify for substantial subsidies, but again, this is just shifting more Americans onto government-subsidized Medicaid-esque insurance - a model that is already unsustainable. This really isn't that hard to understand. Why do you think Obama decided to unilaterally (because, after all, the law is whatever he wants it to be) delay the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections?!
Not to mention there are many employers with fewer than 50 employees that were offering health benefits that will no longer be able to afford to do so, and they will simply say screw it and send them to the exchanges.
well lets see
lie number 1) No one is forcing employers to cancel plans
lie number 2) Subsidies aren't covered through higher premiums
lie number 3) Long term unsustainability, now at this point we really can't say what the course will be. As designed the ACA will bring in money to the government. But with the horrid roll out there is no way to know how well this law will work until at least the end of the first quarter 2014. To say otherwise is, as noted, a lie.
Ed is basically right, no one is forcing employers to cancel plans, economics are (damn economics). Subsidies aren't covered through higher premiums,
fairy pixies pay for that. As far as long term unsustainability, well that is gonna be fine, you see we put a trillion on the 4th horse in the fifth race.
:lol: You're not going to bring Ed around - he takes libtard to the next level. He's like an emaw version of Beems. To the credit of most libtards on this board, they're not even trying to defend this turd anymore.
Hey dumbass, wanting you to be factually accurate in your criticism of a law isn't defending the law. Its defending the truth.
-
This is great. These dudes (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/11/three-guys-built-better-healthcaregov/71195/) put a health care site together that works.
http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/ (http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/)
Meet the Health Sherpa, the website HealthCare.gov probably should have been. George Kalogeropoulos, Ning Liang and Michael Wasser saw the troubled launch and decided they could do a better health care enrolment website better than the government and, by golly, they succeeded. The Health Sherpa makes it ridiculously easy for anyone to compare health care plans covered under Obamacare in 34 states. (They left out the 16 states with existing marketplace sites, though it seems support for those states is coming soon.) The result is a simple, beautiful, remarkably responsive website that anyone could use.
-
Weird question but does this all come down to whether or not your existence on earth should depend on how much money you make?
-
Weird question but does this all come down to whether or not your existence on earth should depend on how much money you make?
;)
-
Existence on earth is a right, not a privilege.
-
This is great. These dudes (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/11/three-guys-built-better-healthcaregov/71195/) put a health care site together that works.
http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/ (http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/)
Meet the Health Sherpa, the website HealthCare.gov probably should have been. George Kalogeropoulos, Ning Liang and Michael Wasser saw the troubled launch and decided they could do a better health care enrolment website better than the government and, by golly, they succeeded. The Health Sherpa makes it ridiculously easy for anyone to compare health care plans covered under Obamacare in 34 states. (They left out the 16 states with existing marketplace sites, though it seems support for those states is coming soon.) The result is a simple, beautiful, remarkably responsive website that anyone could use.
I can't get Platinum coverage in Kansas? Seriously?
-
This is great. These dudes (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/11/three-guys-built-better-healthcaregov/71195/) put a health care site together that works.
http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/ (http://www.thehealthsherpa.com/)
Meet the Health Sherpa, the website HealthCare.gov probably should have been. George Kalogeropoulos, Ning Liang and Michael Wasser saw the troubled launch and decided they could do a better health care enrolment website better than the government and, by golly, they succeeded. The Health Sherpa makes it ridiculously easy for anyone to compare health care plans covered under Obamacare in 34 states. (They left out the 16 states with existing marketplace sites, though it seems support for those states is coming soon.) The result is a simple, beautiful, remarkably responsive website that anyone could use.
I can't get Platinum coverage in Kansas? Seriously?
You can get platinum coverage if you go to page 9 of the plans.
-
Sure you can. BCBS PPO.
-
Filter must not work. If I use the button selector for Platinum only I get 0 options.
-
Filter must not work. If I use the button selector for Platinum only I get 0 options.
I tried 2 different zip codes with the platinum selector and had 2 options. No platinum in some zip codes?
-
Its a Johnson County zip. 66215
-
IMPEACH THE HEALTH SHERPA!
-
IMPEACH THE HEALTH SHERPA!
I'd cut the Sherpa a break since they did it for free in about 2 weeks.
We fought WWII in less time than the admin has had to get their website working, not to mention a 200 million dollar budget.
-
Filter must not work. If I use the button selector for Platinum only I get 0 options.
Use 66046 Douglas county and it will give you a close estimate.
-
IMPEACH THE HEALTH SHERPA!
I'd cut the Sherpa a break since they did it for free in about 2 weeks.
We fought WWII in less time than the admin has had to get their website working, not to mention a 200 million dollar budget.
I think the government should probably sue their contractor.
-
IMPEACH THE HEALTH SHERPA!
I'd cut the Sherpa a break since they did it for free in about 2 weeks.
We fought WWII in less time than the admin has had to get their website working, not to mention a 200 million dollar budget.
I think the government should probably sue their contractor.
If it's like everything else the administration has done, it will boil down to a favor paid off for a campaign contribution, so there will be no retribution or lawsuits.
-
I have 189 out of pocket and 1500 deductible this year.
Thanks Obama
-
I have 189 out of pocket and 1500 deductible this year.
Thanks Obama
ouch!
-
By the way the health sherpa doesn't do anything more than the Kaiser Family FOundation's page which health.gov has linked to for a long time.
Also its less accurate than kff.org.
-
By the way, people were so excited to sign up for health insurance that like less than 1% of the 45 million people that couldn't get insurance before, and desperately wanted it, signed up for it last month. So, if you still aren't sure what a clusterfuck this law is, you're a troglodyte.
Meanwhile businesses between the size of 40-100 are making a calculated decision not to hire people, to cut full time work, and hire more part time people. So, the middle class is makikg less and now on the hook for their own insurance, meaning they either have even less discretionary income or are choosing to be uninsured.
Slow clap.
-
By the way, people were so excited to sign up for health insurance that like less than 1% of the 45 million people that couldn't get insurance before, and desperately wanted it, signed up for it last month. So, if you still aren't sure what a clusterfuck this law is, you're a troglodyte.
Meanwhile businesses between the size of 40-100 are making a calculated decision not to hire people, to cut full time work, and hire more part time people. So, the middle class is makikg less and now on the hook for their own insurance, meaning they either have even less discretionary income or are choosing to be uninsured.
Slow clap.
just keep doubling down on your lies
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/
-
By the way, people were so excited to sign up for health insurance that like less than 1% of the 45 million people that couldn't get insurance before, and desperately wanted it, signed up for it last month. So, if you still aren't sure what a clusterfuck this law is, you're a troglodyte.
Meanwhile businesses between the size of 40-100 are making a calculated decision not to hire people, to cut full time work, and hire more part time people. So, the middle class is makikg less and now on the hook for their own insurance, meaning they either have even less discretionary income or are choosing to be uninsured.
Slow clap.
I don't think the people who are getting cut back to part time were ever in the middle class to begin with, but yeah, it sucks for them.
-
By the way, people were so excited to sign up for health insurance that like less than 1% of the 45 million people that couldn't get insurance before, and desperately wanted it, signed up for it last month. So, if you still aren't sure what a clusterfuck this law is, you're a troglodyte.
Meanwhile businesses between the size of 40-100 are making a calculated decision not to hire people, to cut full time work, and hire more part time people. So, the middle class is makikg less and now on the hook for their own insurance, meaning they either have even less discretionary income or are choosing to be uninsured.
Slow clap.
just keep doubling down on your lies
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/
Well there you have it, FSD, a "fact check" from 2011! Boom. Case closed.
-
Sorry guys, been slammed at work lately, but there's still plenty of crap news emerging about America's Biggest Mistake. How bout those enrollment numbers? :lol:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/13/Obamacare-enrollment-numbers-shockingly-low (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/13/Obamacare-enrollment-numbers-shockingly-low) Looks like the losers are going to way outnumber the winners, but that's libtardism for ya!
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/nancy-pelosi-obamacare-problems-99859.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/nancy-pelosi-obamacare-problems-99859.html)
A fix is coming!!!! Yes, this should work - we'll just change the regs so everyone can keep their existing insurance (and ignore the fact that ObamaCare needs these people to pay more for coverage they don't need to subsidize the guaranteed issue for sick people.) :whistle1: :lol:
-
This had to happen
The Associated Press ?@AP 1m
BREAKING: President Obama says states and insurers can extend current policies canceled under health law for 1 year.
-
How can Obama unilaterally go against a bill that's signed into law?
-
How can Obama unilaterally go against a bill that's signed into law?
You mean kind of like how he unilaterally delayed the employer mandate by a year, or exempted congress? That's easy. The law is whatever he says it is, period.
-
This extension sounds like a huge win for the people who are super pissed about Obamacare.
-
http://m.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/news-wire/2013/11/13/survey-obamacare-leading-many.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2013-11-13&r=full
By the way, people were so excited to sign up for health insurance that like less than 1% of the 45 million people that couldn't get insurance before, and desperately wanted it, signed up for it last month. So, if you still aren't sure what a clusterfuck this law is, you're a troglodyte.
Meanwhile businesses between the size of 40-100 are making a calculated decision not to hire people, to cut full time work, and hire more part time people. So, the middle class is makikg less and now on the hook for their own insurance, meaning they either have even less discretionary income or are choosing to be uninsured.
Slow clap.
just keep doubling down on your lies
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-job-killing-law/
If you don't think this hurts jobs, the economy, the middle class, you are insane, obtuse, delusional, so on and so forth.
As to the "lies", you can read the link.
Also, a 40 hour a ween person with benefits is very likely middle class.
-
The silver lining to this god awful debacle is that it will likely get rid of a lot of democrats.
-
This extension sounds like a huge win for the people who are super pissed about Obamacare.
Yup. It's just another nail in the coffin. At this point, Obama's whole strategy appears to be to stave off as many consequences of this turd as he can until he gets out of office, or at least past the midterms. You realize this new exception directly undermines the whole framework for ObamaCare right?
-
The silver lining to this god awful debacle is that it will likely get rid of a lot of democrats.
Except for the fact that the Republicans continue to try and one up the Democrats on things to drive voters away from their party. The past 12 years are more likely to drive people away from every party.
-
This extension sounds like a huge win for the people who are super pissed about Obamacare.
Yup. It's just another nail in the coffin. At this point, Obama's whole strategy appears to be to stave off as many consequences of this turd as he can until he gets out of office, or at least past the midterms. You realize this new exception directly undermines the whole framework for ObamaCare right?
What coffin? How is the whole framework for Obamacare undermined?
-
This extension sounds like a huge win for the people who are super pissed about Obamacare.
Yup. It's just another nail in the coffin. At this point, Obama's whole strategy appears to be to stave off as many consequences of this turd as he can until he gets out of office, or at least past the midterms. You realize this new exception directly undermines the whole framework for ObamaCare right?
What coffin? How is the whole framework for Obamacare undermined?
because he keeps delaying crap because the law is so shitty
-
This extension sounds like a huge win for the people who are super pissed about Obamacare.
Yup. It's just another nail in the coffin. At this point, Obama's whole strategy appears to be to stave off as many consequences of this turd as he can until he gets out of office, or at least past the midterms. You realize this new exception directly undermines the whole framework for ObamaCare right?
What coffin? How is the whole framework for Obamacare undermined?
because he keeps delaying crap because the law is so shitty
How does the delay undermine the whole framework?
-
This extension sounds like a huge win for the people who are super pissed about Obamacare.
Yup. It's just another nail in the coffin. At this point, Obama's whole strategy appears to be to stave off as many consequences of this turd as he can until he gets out of office, or at least past the midterms. You realize this new exception directly undermines the whole framework for ObamaCare right?
What coffin? How is the whole framework for Obamacare undermined?
because he keeps delaying crap because the law is so shitty
How does the delay undermine the whole framework?
Because they wouldn't have to delay anything if it didn't totally suck
-
:lol:
-
This extension sounds like a huge win for the people who are super pissed about Obamacare.
Yup. It's just another nail in the coffin. At this point, Obama's whole strategy appears to be to stave off as many consequences of this turd as he can until he gets out of office, or at least past the midterms. You realize this new exception directly undermines the whole framework for ObamaCare right?
What coffin? How is the whole framework for Obamacare undermined?
Because ObamaCare was counting on young, healthy people being forced to buy more insurance than they actually needed in order to subsidize the sick people being added to the roles through guaranteed issue. This whole "problem" with people losing their insurance policies was never an unintended consequence - it was part of the plan.
You don't have to take my word for it - take it from one of ObamaCare's biggest cheerleaders - Eztard Klein: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/13/obamacare-is-in-much-more-trouble-than-it-was-one-week-ago/?hpid=z2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/13/obamacare-is-in-much-more-trouble-than-it-was-one-week-ago/?hpid=z2)
4. The bill Landrieu is offering [the sa,e thing Obama did today - allowing people to keep their old plans] could really harm the law. It would mean millions of people who would've left the individual insurance market and gone to the exchanges will stay right where they are. Assuming those people skew younger, healthier, and richer -- and they do -- Obamacare's premiums will rise. Meanwhile, many people who could've gotten better insurance on the exchanges will stay in bad plans that will leave them bankrupt when they get sick. "I think it would be a real substantive mistake to do the Landrieu bill," says MIT health economist Jon Gruber, a supporter of the Affordable Care Act.
5. Put simply, the Landrieu bill solves one of Obamacare's political problems at the cost of worsening its most serious policy problem: Adverse selection. Right now, the difficulty of signing up is deterring all but the most grimly determined enrollees. The most determined enrollees are, by and large, sicker and older. So the Web site's problems are leading to a sicker, older risk pool. Landrieu's bill will lead to a sicker, older risk pool. Obamacare has provisions meant to stop an out-of-control death spiral, but higher premiums are a real danger.
6. How much will premiums rise if Landrieu's bill passes? No one knows. "It sure would be good to know how bad that problem is," says Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "I don’t feel I know." Jon Gruber agrees. "I don’t know how much higher premiums go," he sighs. "I really don’t." I asked Landrieu's office whether they had any estimates. "We expect the impact to be very minimal as this bill is designed as a transitional fix," says a staffer.
7. It's useful to think of this in terms of who, on the margin, should be paying higher premiums: The people who've benefited from the various kinds of discrimination that undergird the current system, or the people who've been victimized by that discrimination? Bills like Landrieu's lower premiums for people who have benefited from the system at the cost of raising them for the people who've been locked out of the current system.
8. Insurers would also freak out. "Some insurers would end up pulling out [of the exchanges] for 2014 because they would say their premiums are now inadequate, and the rules have changed," said Larry Levitt, vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. They'd be right, of course.
The truth is, this "fix" isn't even going to work anyway, because most insurers probably can't revert back to the old policies for 2014 at this late date anyway and, again, even if they could, the premiums have to go up anyway to cover the sick people they have to add to the roles. Thus, what Obama is really trying to do is shift the blame to the insurance companies. He'll say "well, I tried to let you keep your old plans, but those greedy insurance companies won't let you have them." In truth, it is ObamaCare that mumped this all up.
-
I wonder how many insurance companies reinstate their cancelled plans
-
I wonder how many insurance companies reinstate their cancelled plans
Not many, if any. It's just not going to be possible. Here's a better explanation of what I tried to explain above.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/14/obama-admits-that-obamacare-is-unworkabl (http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/14/obama-admits-that-obamacare-is-unworkabl)
Today’s announcements gives Democrats a response to complaints about plan cancellations. The White House has heard their complaints, they can say, and is doing something about it.
What the administration is really doing, though, is attempting to shift the blame. Insurers have spent months if not years preparing for the changes and requirements enacted under Obamacare. They will have a difficult time turning on a dime and extending cancelled policies. They may not be able to in some or many cases. And state insurance regulators will have to sign off on reinstatements, creating an additional layer of insulation between plan upsets and the administration.
Now when asked about people losing their plans, the White House and its Democratic allies in Congress will be able to argue that this isn’t a result of their law. It’s the insurers fault. As one insurance industry source tells Buzzfeed, “This doesn’t change anything other than force insurers to be the political flack jackets for the administration. So now when we don’t offer these policies the White House can say it’s the insurers doing this and not being flexible.”
Yet this isn’t just a political fix. It’s also a major policy concession—and a potentially serious problem for the law’s operating scheme. Allowing healthy people to stay on their current low-cost health plans will mean that the pool of people who get insurance through Obamacare’s exchanges will be sicker and more expensive. This year’s premiums were set on the expectation that noncompliant plans would be cancelled, and that the cancellations, in combination with the mandate to purchase coverage, would create a market for plans sold in the exchanges.
So Obama is creating a long-term policy problem in order to solve a short-term political problem. Even if this temporarily reduces some of today’s political pressure, those long-term policy problems will rebound to create additional political problems as time goes by. Premiums will rise, and if consumer demand turns out to be lower than expected as a result, plans may withdraw from the market. At the same time, insurers, who have been targeted by the administration for blame and had their assurances about the state of the law (and thus their business plan) upended, will be less likely to cooperate with the administration. They are already frustrated with the administration, and this will hasten the break between them. The opposition of insurers will add a new layer of opposition that the administration must contend with in order to make the law—which is built around the goal of making insurance coverage accessible—work.
In summary, today's "fix" is just more bullshit. It's nothing more than an effort to shift blame. The only way to fix this - maybe - is to repeal Obamacare, guaranteed issue, and let people buy the coverage they actually want.
-
I wonder how many insurance companies reinstate their cancelled plans
As large as these companies are, I would imagine its procedurally impossible/cost prohibitive.
IMO, this is a really pathetic attempt by b.o. to try and shift blame. in a month or so when none of the bigs reinstate he'll be out there pounding the podium about how the insurance companies are bad actors. He's already saying he didn't know the website was a clusterfuck, so he can't be blamed for it.
Really his stupid mumped up law has left millions of people and an entire industry wondering what the eff to do next.
-
Wow
-
Add in the heavy regulatory oversight, actuary work and underwriting and there's just no way they can even do this. It takes years to roll out a product, its not like their selling pet rocks.
-
Washington state already says it won't certify the old plans because they would destabilize the market. Expect other states to follow suit. Insurance groups also saying this is a pipe dream.
-
Yeah, um, it would easily take less than a day's worth of work for an insurance company to renew an existing plan. Everything is already set up.
-
Yeah, um, it would easily take less than a day's worth of work for an insurance company to renew an existing plan. Everything is already set up.
That's not whats going on, dipshit
-
This extension sounds like a huge win for the people who are super pissed about Obamacare.
Yup. It's just another nail in the coffin. At this point, Obama's whole strategy appears to be to stave off as many consequences of this turd as he can until he gets out of office, or at least past the midterms. You realize this new exception directly undermines the whole framework for ObamaCare right?
What coffin? How is the whole framework for Obamacare undermined?
Because ObamaCare was counting on young, healthy people being forced to buy more insurance than they actually needed in order to subsidize the sick people being added to the roles through guaranteed issue. This whole "problem" with people losing their insurance policies was never an unintended consequence - it was part of the plan.
You don't have to take my word for it - take it from one of ObamaCare's biggest cheerleaders - Eztard Klein: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/13/obamacare-is-in-much-more-trouble-than-it-was-one-week-ago/?hpid=z2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/13/obamacare-is-in-much-more-trouble-than-it-was-one-week-ago/?hpid=z2)
4. The bill Landrieu is offering [the sa,e thing Obama did today - allowing people to keep their old plans] could really harm the law. It would mean millions of people who would've left the individual insurance market and gone to the exchanges will stay right where they are. Assuming those people skew younger, healthier, and richer -- and they do -- Obamacare's premiums will rise. Meanwhile, many people who could've gotten better insurance on the exchanges will stay in bad plans that will leave them bankrupt when they get sick. "I think it would be a real substantive mistake to do the Landrieu bill," says MIT health economist Jon Gruber, a supporter of the Affordable Care Act.
5. Put simply, the Landrieu bill solves one of Obamacare's political problems at the cost of worsening its most serious policy problem: Adverse selection. Right now, the difficulty of signing up is deterring all but the most grimly determined enrollees. The most determined enrollees are, by and large, sicker and older. So the Web site's problems are leading to a sicker, older risk pool. Landrieu's bill will lead to a sicker, older risk pool. Obamacare has provisions meant to stop an out-of-control death spiral, but higher premiums are a real danger.
6. How much will premiums rise if Landrieu's bill passes? No one knows. "It sure would be good to know how bad that problem is," says Drew Altman, president of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "I don’t feel I know." Jon Gruber agrees. "I don’t know how much higher premiums go," he sighs. "I really don’t." I asked Landrieu's office whether they had any estimates. "We expect the impact to be very minimal as this bill is designed as a transitional fix," says a staffer.
7. It's useful to think of this in terms of who, on the margin, should be paying higher premiums: The people who've benefited from the various kinds of discrimination that undergird the current system, or the people who've been victimized by that discrimination? Bills like Landrieu's lower premiums for people who have benefited from the system at the cost of raising them for the people who've been locked out of the current system.
8. Insurers would also freak out. "Some insurers would end up pulling out [of the exchanges] for 2014 because they would say their premiums are now inadequate, and the rules have changed," said Larry Levitt, vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. They'd be right, of course.
So, higher premiums are the final nail in the coffin? (Or are they the coffin?) What does this mean? What does it mean for the whole framework of Obamacare to be undermined? Does it just mean that you think it sucks?
-
Yeah, um, it would easily take less than a day's worth of work for an insurance company to renew an existing plan. Everything is already set up.
That's not whats going on, dipshit
What's going on?
-
It should take the federal government like 1 hour to set up a webpage, they already have the servers
-
It should take the federal government like 1 hour to set up a webpage, they already have the servers
Insurance companies renew existing plans on a daily basis. It basically amounts to flipping a switch.
-
The truth is, this "fix" isn't even going to work anyway, because most insurers probably can't revert back to the old policies for 2014 at this late date anyway and, again, even if they could, the premiums have to go up anyway to cover the sick people they have to add to the roles.
I'm sure you don't realize it due to some basic misunderstanding of how insurance works, but essentially what you're saying here is that insurance companies have enrolled sick people into plans that would begin in 2014 despite knowing that these plans would not exist in 2014.
-
It should take the federal government like 1 hour to set up a webpage, they already have the servers
NSA joke?
-
It should take the federal government like 1 hour to set up a webpage, they already have the servers
NSA joke?
Chum parity post
-
I don't understand the angst over all of this.
-
The truth is, this "fix" isn't even going to work anyway, because most insurers probably can't revert back to the old policies for 2014 at this late date anyway and, again, even if they could, the premiums have to go up anyway to cover the sick people they have to add to the roles.
I'm sure you don't realize it due to some basic misunderstanding of how insurance works, but essentially what you're saying here is that insurance companies have enrolled sick people into plans that would begin in 2014 despite knowing that these plans would not exist in 2014.
I guess we're back to the old "Chum knows better than the insurance companies" game. It's getting old, Chum. Here's the thing: reverting back to old policies is not like "flipping a switch." That's just stupid. It takes a lot of work to get policies certified by the state regulators. And, again, even if they could get them certified in time, they may not be able to offer the old policies at the old rates (at least, without more government subsidies), because the companies now have to pay for guaranteed issue. This really isn't that hard to understand. But again, you don't have to take my word for it - this is what the insurers are already saying (I know, they're either lying or wrong, right Chum? :lol:) Just as an example:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/14/208636/roiling-health-care-waters-obamas.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/14/208636/roiling-health-care-waters-obamas.html)
Insurance companies already have devised plans for next year, received the necessary approval from states and begun to sell policies. They aren’t required to continue to offer their existing policies and state insurance commissioners aren’t required to approve those 2013 plans.
“Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers,” Karen Ignagni, the president and CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents the industry.
Washington state’s insurance commissioner, Mike Kreidler, announced Thursday he won’t allow insurers to extend their policies, saying Washington’s state-based exchange was “up and running and successfully enrolling thousands of consumers.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/obamacare-fix-now-where-do-we-go-here-2D11599939 (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/obamacare-fix-now-where-do-we-go-here-2D11599939)
Can I get my policy back if it was canceled?
That’s complicated. :lol: It’s not so easy for an insurance company to reinstate policies it was planning to discontinue, because the firm must plan premiums and budget for expenses far in advance. Florida Blue said it would reinstate canceled plans, and Florida’s insurance commissioner, Kevin McCarty, said he’s working with any companies that wanted to go that route. A lot is up to state insurance commissioners — something that gives cover to both the White House and to the insurance companies.
What if everyone who got canceled decides to ask for their old policies back? Will this mess everything up?
Insurers and actuaries — the people who calculate insurance risk — think it could. “The NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners) has been clear from the beginning that allowing insurers to have different rules for different policies would be detrimental to the overall market and result in higher premiums,” says Louisiana's insurance commissioner, Jim Donelon, president of the NAIC.
“This decision continues different rules for different policies and threatens to undermine the new market, and may lead to higher premiums and market disruptions in 2014 and beyond.”
And the American Academy of Actuaries said in a letter sent to Congress that the decision could mess up what are called risk pools — basically, the idea that you need healthy people in any group of insurance policies to pay premiums and offset the costs of sick people.
They said people who have lower medical costs would want to stay in bare-bones plans that are being canceled by insurance companies, because they have lower premiums than the new plans that are required to cover more.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/190312-regulators-unclear-on-how-o-care-fix-can-work (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/190312-regulators-unclear-on-how-o-care-fix-can-work)
President Obama's proposed fix for ObamaCare may not work in practice, according to state insurance regulators who would help implement the policy.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) suggested Thursday that the plan to allow insurance companies to offer non-compliant health plans into 2014 is not logistically feasible.
"It is unclear how, as a practical matter, the changes proposed today by the president can be put into effect," said NAIC President Jim Donelon in a statement, noting that premium prices could also rise as a result.
"[We have] been clear from the beginning that allowing insurers to have different rules for different policies would be detrimental to the overall market."
Insurance commissioners are not the only skeptics of Obama's plan. The health insurance industry immediately blasted the move as a threat to market stability and premium prices.
-
No, it's easy. I see it happen all the time.
-
my policy got cancelled once because of a computer glitch at bcbs and they fixed it over the phone in 30 seconds. said I would be getting all the crap in the mail again etc.
-
Welcome to OBSTINANCE. Population Chum1Navigator
-
my policy got cancelled once because of a computer glitch at bcbs and they fixed it over the phone in 30 seconds. said I would be getting all the crap in the mail again etc.
BCBS doesn't offer the policiss in issue anymore because obamacare made them illegal 4 years ago. Then all of the sudden yesterday they were again, kind of, maybe.
You guys can't be this rough ridin' stupid,and I think you're probably trolling. An insurance policy isn't inventory you order from china like a slap bracelet. Its a complicated financial product based on pool participants, actuarial data and projections, burdensome regulatory approval, disclosure and oversight, and that requires a large well trained administrative staff to administer. What tbe eff do you think is inside of these enormous buildings dotting the skylines of america? On and off switches and money printers? Its not your kitchen faucet for god sakes.
-
If we're talking about renewals here, which we are, all of this crap you describe is already in place.
Also, it's ridiculous to suggest that having laws apply to some but not others is unfeasable. We've had that situation all along.
-
my policy got cancelled once because of a computer glitch at bcbs and they fixed it over the phone in 30 seconds. said I would be getting all the crap in the mail again etc.
BCBS doesn't offer the policiss in issue anymore because obamacare made them illegal 4 years ago. Then all of the sudden yesterday they were again, kind of, maybe.
You guys can't be this rough ridin' stupid,and I think you're probably trolling. An insurance policy isn't inventory you order from china like a slap bracelet. Its a complicated financial product based on pool participants, actuarial data and projections, burdensome regulatory approval, disclosure and oversight, and that requires a large well trained administrative staff to administer. What tbe eff do you think is inside of these enormous buildings dotting the skylines of america? On and off switches and money printers? Its not your kitchen faucet for god sakes.
Yeah, I think Chum may have been trolling us the whole time. Nobody could be this dumb. Well, libtards could, but not EMAWs. Good work! :Take the Bait:
-
And as expected, Obama didn't even consult with the insurers before his Thursday presser. :lol:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/business/after-meeting-health-insurers-question-proposals-workability.html?hp&_r=2& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/business/after-meeting-health-insurers-question-proposals-workability.html?hp&_r=2&)
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-insurance-commissioner-fired-a-day-after-questioning-obamacare-fix/2013/11/16/b88eaea0-4f17-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-insurance-commissioner-fired-a-day-after-questioning-obamacare-fix/2013/11/16/b88eaea0-4f17-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html)
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woman-hailed-president-obamacare-success-story-now-cant-afford-obamacare_767868.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woman-hailed-president-obamacare-success-story-now-cant-afford-obamacare_767868.html)
CNN reports that a woman the president hailed as an Obamacare success story just realized she won't be able to afford Obamacare because it's too expensive:
"Jessica Sanford was cited by the president as an Obamacare success story at a health care event he had here at the White House in the Rose Garden on October 21," says a reporter for CNN from the White House. "That of course being just last month. The 48-year-old single mom from Washington state purchased what she considered to be affordable health care, life-changing event, she said, on the Washington state health exchange. She decided she was so excited about this news, she wanted to write an e-mail to the president to say that this had really changed her life and that she was thankful for the Afforable Care Act. The president included her e-mail in his remarks to people on hand for the event. Here's a bit of what the president had to say."
The CNN report quotes President Obama as saying, "I recently received a letter from a woman named Jessica Sanford in Washington state. And here's what she wrote, I am a single mom, no child support, self-employed. and I haven't had insurance for 15 years because it's too expensive. I was crying the other day when I signed up, so much stress lifted."
"But days, just really three days after she was mentioned by the president, Jessica Sanford started having problems, she was receiving letters from the Washington state health exchange," reports CNN. "The first letter telling her that tax credit was reduced, therefore, increasing the cost of her health care plan and the, take a look at this, then she received a letter just last week telling her that her tax credit had been taken away all together. Show you another document here, showing what the tax credit worked out to be... zero dollars according to this document that was provided to us by Jessica Sanford. She describes all of this as a roller coaster ride. Now she says she can't afford insurance in Washington state because of the new developments."
Sanford tells CNN that she's embarrassed. "It was a huge disappointment, especially since I had, you know, my story had been shared by the president. I felt like, you know, I just felt really embarrassed that, you know, he quoted my story and then come to find that the Washington health plan finder, the website here in our state, had grossly miscalculated or they're having a problem figuring their tax credits. and so at least for right now, I don't -- I'm not going to be getting insurance," she says.
Anyone want to guess how many people will have actually enrolled by the end of November? I'm guessing 150k.
-
If you make enough money to not qualify for the tax credit, then you make enough money to pay for insurance. The fine for not being insured is just way too low.
-
If you make enough money to not qualify for the tax credit, then you make enough money to pay for insurance. The fine for not being insured is just way too low.
:lol: Good, you just go ahead and tell that to no-child-support-single-mom-living-on-the-west-coast. "Quit your bitching - you obviously make enough money to pay for insurance!" While you're at it, you should tell her "Sure, the insurance you have to purchase probably costs a lot more now, but that's only because it's better." Sell it, Nuts!
-
"joe the single mother"
-
If you make enough money to not qualify for the tax credit, then you make enough money to pay for insurance. The fine for not being insured is just way too low.
:lol: Good, you just go ahead and tell that to no-child-support-single-mom-living-on-the-west-coast. "Quit your bitching - you obviously make enough money to pay for insurance!" While you're at it, you should tell her "Sure, the insurance you have to purchase probably costs a lot more now, but that's only because it's better." Sell it, Nuts!
She didn't even have insurance before. She is irresponsible, and only was interested in insuring herself and her family when she thought the government was going to pay for it.
-
If you make enough money to not qualify for the tax credit, then you make enough money to pay for insurance. The fine for not being insured is just way too low.
:lol: Good, you just go ahead and tell that to no-child-support-single-mom-living-on-the-west-coast. "Quit your bitching - you obviously make enough money to pay for insurance!" While you're at it, you should tell her "Sure, the insurance you have to purchase probably costs a lot more now, but that's only because it's better." Sell it, Nuts!
She didn't even have insurance before. She is irresponsible, and only was interested in insuring herself and her family when she thought the government was going to pay for it.
You may be right about this - I just find it ironic that Obamacare has made insurance even more expensive now for people like this. I think the reason is pretty obvious. Obama hates women.
-
If you make enough money to not qualify for the tax credit, then you make enough money to pay for insurance. The fine for not being insured is just way too low.
:lol: Good, you just go ahead and tell that to no-child-support-single-mom-living-on-the-west-coast. "Quit your bitching - you obviously make enough money to pay for insurance!" While you're at it, you should tell her "Sure, the insurance you have to purchase probably costs a lot more now, but that's only because it's better." Sell it, Nuts!
She didn't even have insurance before. She is irresponsible, and only was interested in insuring herself and her family when she thought the government was going to pay for it.
You may be right about this - I just find it ironic that Obamacare has made insurance even more expensive now for people like this. I think the reason is pretty obvious. Obama hates women.
How long do you think the death panel will have to deliberate this woman's fate?
-
If you make enough money to not qualify for the tax credit, then you make enough money to pay for insurance. The fine for not being insured is just way too low.
:lol: Good, you just go ahead and tell that to no-child-support-single-mom-living-on-the-west-coast. "Quit your bitching - you obviously make enough money to pay for insurance!" While you're at it, you should tell her "Sure, the insurance you have to purchase probably costs a lot more now, but that's only because it's better." Sell it, Nuts!
She didn't even have insurance before. She is irresponsible, and only was interested in insuring herself and her family when she thought the government was going to pay for it.
You may be right about this - I just find it ironic that Obamacare has made insurance even more expensive now for people like this. I think the reason is pretty obvious. Obama hates women.
I thought insurance was only cheaper for people who didn't have to pay for things they won't ever need like mammograms and pregnancies. Health care is expensive. I'm sure it would be a significant burden for this self-employed middle class woman to insure her kids. It's not like she can't afford it, though. She isn't even poor enough to qualify for a subsidy as a single parent.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-insurance-commissioner-fired-a-day-after-questioning-obamacare-fix/2013/11/16/b88eaea0-4f17-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-insurance-commissioner-fired-a-day-after-questioning-obamacare-fix/2013/11/16/b88eaea0-4f17-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html)
See Obama does hold people accountable
-
If you make enough money to not qualify for the tax credit, then you make enough money to pay for insurance. The fine for not being insured is just way too low.
:lol: Good, you just go ahead and tell that to no-child-support-single-mom-living-on-the-west-coast. "Quit your bitching - you obviously make enough money to pay for insurance!" While you're at it, you should tell her "Sure, the insurance you have to purchase probably costs a lot more now, but that's only because it's better." Sell it, Nuts!
She didn't even have insurance before. She is irresponsible, and only was interested in insuring herself and her family when she thought the government was going to pay for it.
You may be right about this - I just find it ironic that Obamacare has made insurance even more expensive now for people like this. I think the reason is pretty obvious. Obama hates women.
I thought insurance was only cheaper for people who didn't have to pay for things they won't ever need like mammograms and pregnancies. Health care is expensive. I'm sure it would be a significant burden for this self-employed middle class woman to insure her kids. It's not like she can't afford it, though. She isn't even poor enough to qualify for a subsidy as a single parent.
Self employment taxes are killers. I'm not sure how they figure your income for the subsidy, but if it's before taxes I can see how she wouldn't be able to afford it even if she doesn't qualify for any.
-
I like how this lady went from Posterwoman of the good that is the ACA to stupid bitch who can't manage her finances.
libtards are so vile and two-faced.
In case you missed this, the ACA is a rough ridin' train wreck captained by a lying bumblefuck named B.O.
-
Holy eff, what a lying POS (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2509715/Obama-flubs-health-care-conference-community-organizers-More-100-million-Americans-successfully-enrolled.html).
He just told 200,000 obamabots that 100 million people have signed up for obamacare. Those idiots are going to parrot that lie around for eternity.
-
quit being racist, you guys.
-
You know, one of the major PR blunders of Obamacare is that a lot of the self-insured who are getting screwed happen to be journalists. Oops.
Another liberal gets a face full of reality: http://observer.com/2013/11/my-obamacare-cancellation/ (http://observer.com/2013/11/my-obamacare-cancellation/)
"Seething at a President I helped elect."
By oscar Barcott
We received the letter in the mail a couple months ago. The good people at Regence Bluecross Blueshield were pleased to inform us that due to Obamacare our current low-monthly premium, comically-high deductible medical policy would no longer exist come January 1, 2014. Pleased, because a new and better plan would be offered in its place. Old monthly premium: $578 for a family of four (non-smoking, helmet-wearing, and paternally snipped). New premium: $1,123. A 94% increase.
Once the sound of boiling blood dissipated, in my head I heard my Republican friends chuckling at the sight of a liberal Democrat hoisted ten stories high on his own petard. How’s the view up there, Obamacare Ollie?
For the past 15 years my wife and I have made our living as freelance writers. (To young readers, I say: Do not do this. Your bliss is marvelous, but its following will need to be supported by a banker, plumber, union machinist or tenured faculty member.) As such, our health insurance is our own concern. Over the years we’ve held on to our coverage by letting our co-pay and deductible rise and our covered procedures fall. You may be aware that the three-tiered state exchange policies are labeled Gold, Silver, and Bronze, reflecting their price and level of coverage. If our policy still existed it would fall into the column of Wood.
But Wood we had—and Wood we liked. No more. O.K., into the state exchange we go. I voted for it. Fair enough. :thumbsup:
...Back to the exchange website. Enter birth dates, zip code, tobacco use, yadda yadda, monthly income. Stop. Ponder.
Which month, brother? For that matter, which year? Do you want gross, net, before SE (self-employment tax, a k a Social Security payments) or after? AGI (adjusted gross income) from last year’s 1040?
For every business futurist who hails the coming of the independent contracting economy, the future that is The Brand of You, there are thousands of us out here actually building The Brand of You. It ain’t an easy hustle. If you want to get an idea of our monthly and yearly incomes, imagine a sine wave drawn by a drunken sailor. Last year my wife and I, we made out all right. This year’s kinda lean. Which year did the exchange want? Unclear.
I went to a friend and colleague—let’s call him Peter—for advice. He also had his individual medical policy cancelled because of Obamacare. “I’m stuck on the same question—income,” he told me. Peter does a little writing, a little farming, a little this and that to keep the ship afloat. “I got through to the exchange, and the woman there told me to just estimate what my income would be this year.” In other words: Make it up. If he overestimated, he’d be screwing himself out of a subsidy, Peter said. If he underestimated, he’d be hit with a big fat bill. He wasn’t sure he wouldn’t also be accused of fraud. So he called his accountant, who’s also a lawyer.
That only got him so far. At a certain point in the conversation, the accountant/lawyer had to get off the phone. “I have to stop answering your questions,” he told Peter. “I can’t ethically advise you, because honestly I don’t know the right thing to do. Nobody does. There are no answers. Right now it’s a complete clusterfuck.” :lol:
Last week the frustration of people like Peter and me—Obamacare supporters who lost their current plans—was heard by the White House, which promptly panicked. On Thursday, President Obama announced a policy change that would allow insurance companies like Regence to keep customers like me on the old Wood plan for one more year. To that I say: Hah! Thanks for nothing.
The idea that an insurer like Regence can, or will, spin on a dime and revive our ol’ $587 Woody within the next six weeks is absurd. It skews the market and undermines the entire premise of the Affordable Care Act – which is that by balancing the halt (allowing pre-existing conditions) and the hale (forcing robust young adults to get in the pool), the exchanges will over time produce a system that offers quality health care at a price my family can afford. :captainobvious:
-
"Obama lied, liberals don't care!" Until it affects them in the wallet. :Chirp:
-
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/96180-watch-kathleen-sebelius-obamacare-website-crashes-front-uh-oh/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/96180-watch-kathleen-sebelius-obamacare-website-crashes-front-uh-oh/) Uh Oh! :lol:
-
I like the law. The fact that people from both parties hate it tells me that its a good all around law that doesn't favor one side over the other, and as a moderate, thats what I strive for. Kudos to Obama (i'm being serious).
-
I like the law. The fact that people from both parties hate it tells me that its a good all around law that doesn't favor one side over the other, and as a moderate, thats what I strive for. Kudos to Obama (i'm being serious).
If both parties dislike it that means it's a bad law and never should have passed, and this one wouldn't have if the truth had been told. Nobody actually read and understood what it was, and still don't. A good law is one that gets at least a majority of both parties to vote yes after reading.
-
You know, one of the major PR blunders of Obamacare is that a lot of the self-insured who are getting screwed happen to be journalists. Oops.
Another liberal gets a face full of reality: http://observer.com/2013/11/my-obamacare-cancellation/ (http://observer.com/2013/11/my-obamacare-cancellation/)
"Seething at a President I helped elect."
By oscar Barcott
We received the letter in the mail a couple months ago. The good people at Regence Bluecross Blueshield were pleased to inform us that due to Obamacare our current low-monthly premium, comically-high deductible medical policy would no longer exist come January 1, 2014. Pleased, because a new and better plan would be offered in its place. Old monthly premium: $578 for a family of four (non-smoking, helmet-wearing, and paternally snipped). New premium: $1,123. A 94% increase.
Once the sound of boiling blood dissipated, in my head I heard my Republican friends chuckling at the sight of a liberal Democrat hoisted ten stories high on his own petard. How’s the view up there, Obamacare Ollie?
For the past 15 years my wife and I have made our living as freelance writers. (To young readers, I say: Do not do this. Your bliss is marvelous, but its following will need to be supported by a banker, plumber, union machinist or tenured faculty member.) As such, our health insurance is our own concern. Over the years we’ve held on to our coverage by letting our co-pay and deductible rise and our covered procedures fall. You may be aware that the three-tiered state exchange policies are labeled Gold, Silver, and Bronze, reflecting their price and level of coverage. If our policy still existed it would fall into the column of Wood.
But Wood we had—and Wood we liked. No more. O.K., into the state exchange we go. I voted for it. Fair enough. :thumbsup:
...Back to the exchange website. Enter birth dates, zip code, tobacco use, yadda yadda, monthly income. Stop. Ponder.
Which month, brother? For that matter, which year? Do you want gross, net, before SE (self-employment tax, a k a Social Security payments) or after? AGI (adjusted gross income) from last year’s 1040?
For every business futurist who hails the coming of the independent contracting economy, the future that is The Brand of You, there are thousands of us out here actually building The Brand of You. It ain’t an easy hustle. If you want to get an idea of our monthly and yearly incomes, imagine a sine wave drawn by a drunken sailor. Last year my wife and I, we made out all right. This year’s kinda lean. Which year did the exchange want? Unclear.
I went to a friend and colleague—let’s call him Peter—for advice. He also had his individual medical policy cancelled because of Obamacare. “I’m stuck on the same question—income,” he told me. Peter does a little writing, a little farming, a little this and that to keep the ship afloat. “I got through to the exchange, and the woman there told me to just estimate what my income would be this year.” In other words: Make it up. If he overestimated, he’d be screwing himself out of a subsidy, Peter said. If he underestimated, he’d be hit with a big fat bill. He wasn’t sure he wouldn’t also be accused of fraud. So he called his accountant, who’s also a lawyer.
That only got him so far. At a certain point in the conversation, the accountant/lawyer had to get off the phone. “I have to stop answering your questions,” he told Peter. “I can’t ethically advise you, because honestly I don’t know the right thing to do. Nobody does. There are no answers. Right now it’s a complete clusterfuck.” :lol:
Last week the frustration of people like Peter and me—Obamacare supporters who lost their current plans—was heard by the White House, which promptly panicked. On Thursday, President Obama announced a policy change that would allow insurance companies like Regence to keep customers like me on the old Wood plan for one more year. To that I say: Hah! Thanks for nothing.
The idea that an insurer like Regence can, or will, spin on a dime and revive our ol’ $587 Woody within the next six weeks is absurd. It skews the market and undermines the entire premise of the Affordable Care Act – which is that by balancing the halt (allowing pre-existing conditions) and the hale (forcing robust young adults to get in the pool), the exchanges will over time produce a system that offers quality health care at a price my family can afford. :captainobvious:
Why wouldn't they just go off your reported income from the previous year? That would be the only figure that makes any sense whatsoever.
-
I like the law. The fact that people from both parties hate it tells me that its a good all around law that doesn't favor one side over the other, and as a moderate, thats what I strive for. Kudos to Obama (i'm being serious).
If both parties dislike it that means it's a bad law and never should have passed, and this one wouldn't have if the truth had been told. Nobody actually read and understood what it was, and still don't. A good law is one that gets at least a majority of both parties to vote yes after reading.
i dunno... everyone hates speed limits, but they are probably pretty good to have.
-
I like the law. The fact that people from both parties hate it tells me that its a good all around law that doesn't favor one side over the other, and as a moderate, thats what I strive for. Kudos to Obama (i'm being serious).
If both parties dislike it that means it's a bad law and never should have passed, and this one wouldn't have if the truth had been told. Nobody actually read and understood what it was, and still don't. A good law is one that gets at least a majority of both parties to vote yes after reading.
i dunno... everyone hates speed limits, but they are probably pretty good to have.
Are speed limits voted on? I would try another analogy.
-
I like the law. The fact that people from both parties hate it tells me that its a good all around law that doesn't favor one side over the other, and as a moderate, thats what I strive for. Kudos to Obama (i'm being serious).
If both parties dislike it that means it's a bad law and never should have passed, and this one wouldn't have if the truth had been told. Nobody actually read and understood what it was, and still don't. A good law is one that gets at least a majority of both parties to vote yes after reading.
i dunno... everyone hates speed limits, but they are probably pretty good to have.
Are speed limits voted on? I would try another analogy.
U smell, how is that for an analogy you conservative nut job
-
I like the law. The fact that people from both parties hate it tells me that its a good all around law that doesn't favor one side over the other, and as a moderate, thats what I strive for. Kudos to Obama (i'm being serious).
If both parties dislike it that means it's a bad law and never should have passed, and this one wouldn't have if the truth had been told. Nobody actually read and understood what it was, and still don't. A good law is one that gets at least a majority of both parties to vote yes after reading.
i dunno... everyone hates speed limits, but they are probably pretty good to have.
Are speed limits voted on? I would try another analogy.
U smell, how is that for an analogy you conservative nut job
:D
-
:lol:
-
California says "no" to "the fix." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/covered-california-obamacare-fix-decision (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/covered-california-obamacare-fix-decision)
Seems like the blue states are generally balking at the fix because it undermines Obamacare, while the redder states are more inclined to at least try to accommodate the fix... because it undermines Obamacare. For example, Missouri's insurance commissioner announced that it will allow its insurers to keep offering their old plan - whether they can or will is another matter.
-
California says "no" to "the fix." http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/covered-california-obamacare-fix-decision (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/covered-california-obamacare-fix-decision)
Seems like the blue states are generally balking at the fix because it undermines Obamacare, while the redder states are more inclined to at least try to accommodate the fix... because it undermines Obamacare. For example, Missouri's insurance commissioner announced that it will allow its insurers to keep offering their old plan - whether they can or will is another matter.
:facepalm: @ the red states
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
Maybe we should just get rid of insurance altogether.
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
Maybe we should just get rid of insurance altogether.
survival of the fittest, i like where you are going with this.
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
Maybe we should just get rid of insurance altogether.
it's mind blowing that health insurance is even a thing.
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
Maybe we should just get rid of insurance altogether.
it's mind blowing that health insurance is even a thing.
Totally, right? Healthcare should be free for all.
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
Maybe we should just get rid of insurance altogether.
it's mind blowing that health insurance is even a thing.
Totally, right? Healthcare should be free for all.
Maybe it just shouldn't cost as much as it does.
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
Maybe we should just get rid of insurance altogether.
it's mind blowing that health insurance is even a thing.
Totally, right? Healthcare should be free for all.
It makes even more sense that auto insurance be free for all since you have no control over other cars.
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
Maybe we should just get rid of insurance altogether.
it's mind blowing that health insurance is even a thing.
Totally, right? Healthcare should be free for all.
It makes even more sense that auto insurance be free for all since you have no control over other cars.
So you have complete control over your health? Why do we have emergency rooms?
-
God, idiots. If you make getting sick illegal nobody needs insurance. Clearly the solution here is more government intervention, e.g. making it illegal to get sick.
-
I mean, its illegal to get in a car wreck and as a result we have none of those. If getting sick were illegal only criminals would get sick and who cares if a criminal dies.
-
Serious responses only, FSD. :dubious:
-
How is my response any less serious than the subject of the OP?
-
How is my response any less serious than the subject of the OP?
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you actually wanted to criminalize getting sick.
-
How is my response any less serious than the subject of the OP?
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you actually wanted to criminalize getting sick.
Seems like a practical alternative to criminalizing not buying insurance.
-
How is my response any less serious than the subject of the OP?
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you actually wanted to criminalize getting sick.
Seems like a practical alternative to criminalizing not buying insurance.
Maybe in your mind it does.
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
Maybe we should just get rid of insurance altogether.
it's mind blowing that health insurance is even a thing.
Totally, right? Healthcare should be free for all.
It makes even more sense that auto insurance be free for all since you have no control over other cars.
So you have complete control over your health? Why do we have emergency rooms?
That's what I'm saying. If health care should be free, so should auto insurance. Some things you just have no control over.
-
We need to pass a law that makes it illegal for insurance to be expensive.
Maybe we should just get rid of insurance altogether.
it's mind blowing that health insurance is even a thing.
Totally, right? Healthcare should be free for all.
It makes even more sense that auto insurance be free for all since you have no control over other cars.
So you have complete control over your health? Why do we have emergency rooms?
That's what I'm saying. If health care should be free, so should auto insurance. Some things you just have no control over.
I would be fine with health care costing a similar amount to what I pay for automobiles + auto insurance.
-
insurance is for property. your health isn't property.
the car insurance comparison is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), and all of you know that.
-
insurance is for property. your health isn't property.
the car insurance comparison is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), and all of you know that.
No, it's to protect your other property (eg, personal liability from unpaid medical bill). Auto insurance (liability portion) is the same.
Not surprised that the libtards don't know what insurance is for.
-
insurance is for property. your health isn't property.
Why is that distinction relevant? Some people take care of their cars / health - others don't. Some people drive responsibly / make healthy choices - others don't.
Let's just cut to the chase here. I know you're not stupid enough to believe that healthcare should be "free" - somebody's got to pay for it - you just don't like the idea of health insurance. Why?
There's nothing wrong with people purchasing insurance to protect themselves against calamitous health problems, just like any other unexpected occurrence (fire, flood, etc.). In fact, that's how insurance is supposed to work - you don't use it to pay for routine maintenance.
Your problem isn't with insurance per se, but that you don't think it's "fair" that some people have access to better healthcare than others because they can pay for it. It's a "human right" and all that bullshit. Your "solution" is a socialized healthcare system, where everyone is entitled to the same care, regardless of ability to pay for it. The only way this works, however, is for the government to (1) ration care, and (2) engage in a massive transfer of wealth from those who earn decent incomes and/or make good health decisions, to those who are poorer and/or did not make good health decisions (and yes, those truly unfortunate few who were born into poor health, etc.).
But as someone who works hard, both to earn a decent income and stay healthy, I say eff your socialism, and keep your grubby mits out of my pockets. If you want more/better healthcare, pay for it.
-
there is zero reason that free healthcare shouldn't be available to every american (paid for by taxes of course, since you republitards hurhurhur over the word free). there is also zero reason that if you wanted, you could see a private doctor at your own expense. no one is taking that right away from you.
you're just a selfish Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), that's all. own up to it.
-
there is zero reason that free healthcare shouldn't be available to every american (paid for by taxes of course, since you republitards hurhurhur over the word free). there is also zero reason that if you wanted, you could see a private doctor at your own expense. no one is taking that right away from you.
you're just a selfish Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), that's all. own up to it.
Yup, you just affirmed my suspicions above. And you're right - even a socialized system won't stop the "rich" from buying their own superior healthcare. Problem is, I'm not rich. I'm just better off than all the moochers. Move to Canada if you want socialized medicine. English speaking and you don't even need a plane ticket. And, if you ever need an operation or to see a specialist and you don't want to wait 6 months, you can always drive back down south!
-
there is zero reason that free healthcare shouldn't be available to every american (paid for by taxes of course, since you republitards hurhurhur over the word free). there is also zero reason that if you wanted, you could see a private doctor at your own expense. no one is taking that right away from you.
you're just a selfish Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), that's all. own up to it.
The retards are people that trust the government to do ANYTHING efficiently or properly. I challenge you to name just one thing that government does better than private enterprise. We used to be able to say "military", but that's not even true anymore. Government is a giant money pit that produces nothing.
-
maybe you should move, since free healthcare will be here within 20 years, and the country will be better because of it.
but maybe you should move because you hate america and are selfish prick.
-
there is zero reason that free healthcare shouldn't be available to every american (paid for by taxes of course, since you republitards hurhurhur over the word free). there is also zero reason that if you wanted, you could see a private doctor at your own expense. no one is taking that right away from you.
you're just a selfish respect, that's all. own up to it.
The retards are people that trust the government to do ANYTHING efficiently or properly. I challenge you to name just one thing that government does better than private enterprise. We used to be able to say "military", but that's not even true anymore. Government is a giant money pit that produces nothing.
this is a much more fair argument that "I WANT MY MONEY, eff OTHER PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (continue tantrum)".
-
maybe you should move, since free healthcare will be here within 20 years, and the country will be better because of it.
I guess I gave you too much credit - you really do appear to believe that socialized healthcare is "free." :lol:
Anway, why wait 20 years? Your socialized medicine paradise is available to you right now just a day's driving to the north! And, as I said, you'd still have the American system available as a lifeline if you ever need it. It's the best of both worlds for you Seven! Do you like hockey? Man, if you like hockey you're going be totally set!
-
see what i mean about republitards hurhurhuring over the word free?
you're a rough ridin' moron.
-
The Director of Operations at my company just sent out the benefits open enrollment email.
As expected, the price of health coverage increased this year but less than anticipated and much less than some of the 30-50% increases that some companies are seeing. The increase is approximately 6 percent and the company will absorb this cost for employee coverage.
-
Is there a country to which the people who don't like Obamacare or other forms of commie healthcare to move? What's the situation like in Sudan?
-
Is there a country to which the people who don't like Obamacare or other forms of commie healthcare to move? What's the situation like in Sudan?
Funny that you mention a third world country. Brings to mind what Henry Chao, Deputy CIO for the CMS, said about the Obamacare rollout back in March of 2013:
We are under 200 days from open enrollment, and I’m pretty nervous. ... Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.
:lol:
Anyway, poll after poll indicates that a majority of Americans disapprove of Obamacare if not favor outright repeal. Why should the majority have to move, especially when a bipartisan consensus is now emerging that this law is a turd? And if we move, who's going to pay for it?
-
see what i mean about republitards hurhurhuring over the word free?
you're a rough ridin' moron.
Good argument. You got me.
-
Is there a country to which the people who don't like Obamacare or other forms of commie healthcare to move? What's the situation like in Sudan?
Funny that you mention a third world country. Brings to mind what Henry Chao, Deputy CIO for the CMS, said about the Obamacare rollout back in March of 2013:
We are under 200 days from open enrollment, and I’m pretty nervous. ... Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.
:lol:
Anyway, poll after poll indicates that a majority of Americans disapprove of Obamacare if not favor outright repeal. Why should the majority have to move, especially when a bipartisan consensus is now emerging that this law is a turd? And if we move, who's going to pay for it?
I wouldn't tell anyone they should move. Just wondering about the corollary to the asinine remark that one should "move to Canada."
-
Is there a country to which the people who don't like Obamacare or other forms of commie healthcare to move? What's the situation like in Sudan?
Funny that you mention a third world country. Brings to mind what Henry Chao, Deputy CIO for the CMS, said about the Obamacare rollout back in March of 2013:
We are under 200 days from open enrollment, and I’m pretty nervous. ... Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.
:lol:
Anyway, poll after poll indicates that a majority of Americans disapprove of Obamacare if not favor outright repeal. Why should the majority have to move, especially when a bipartisan consensus is now emerging that this law is a turd? And if we move, who's going to pay for it?
I wouldn't tell anyone they should move. Just wondering about the corollary to the asinine remark that one should "move to Canada."
As I said, Canada is a great alternative. English speaking, easy distance, and still in easy reach if US if you need any specialized care. Just trying to help those who can't wait for that free healthcare!
-
Question to the "healthcare is a human right" neolibtards: why is this human right limited to the scourge of first world western civilization? Shouldn't it extend to all of man kind?
Even if we could pay for our existiting universal healthcare system(we cant by its own actuaries) and even if our feeble attempt at providing "access" to healthcare to a few million people wasn't an unmitigated disaster and enormous failure, why on earth would you want to impose and subject the overwhelming majority of this country to "free" healthcare as you imagine it?
If anyone is being selfish here, its seven, the other libtards and the poors who already get a ton of free crap for nothing and demand more. Nobody wants to be a part of your perverted social experiment you selfish dickwads.
Follow up question: why cant you understand how insurance works and what purpose it serves?
-
The complete misunderstanding of what insurance is for aside, how selfish is it to declare that everyone else should have to give away their money, and if the resist call themnselfish, just so you can have it for yourself in the form of yet another entitlement.
-
“Obamacare is horrible, and I found myself desperate for an extra boost,” Radel admitted in a statement released today. “Obviously I never would have turned to drugs had it not been for the way this legislation is destroying the very fabric of our great nation.”
-
“Obamacare is horrible, and I found myself desperate for an extra boost,” Radel admitted in a statement released today. “Obviously I never would have turned to drugs had it not been for the way this legislation is destroying the very fabric of our great nation.”
That is fantastic. :lol: Obamacare claims another victim.
-
This is real. From the administration that brought you "The Life of Julia (http://l.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/the-life-of-julia/)" and "Ask For a Donation to Obama 2012 In Lieu of Gifts (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/22/obama-campaign-suggests-political-donation-as-perfect-wedding-gift/)", now comes the eagerly anticipated third installment of batshit crazy creepy libtardedness, just in time for the Thanksgiving: http://www.barackobama.com/health-care-holidays/ (http://www.barackobama.com/health-care-holidays/)! Make sure to click the link and checkout the helpful video!
This holiday season, millions of Americans have a chance to get quality, affordable health insurance—many for the first time. If you have family members who are uninsured, you can play a big part in helping them find coverage that works for them. It might not always seem like it, but your family listens to you. So have the talk.
STEP 1: SEND A PACKING LIST
Are your family members traveling home for the holidays? There are a few things they’ll need to sign up for health coverage. Make sure they bring the following items with them before they head home.
1. Your Social Security Number
2. Information about your employer and income— either a pay stub or a copy of your most recent W-2 tax form
3. If you currently have health insurance, you’ll need your health insurance card or paperwork that includes a health policy number
STEP 2: PLANNING YOUR HEALTH CARE TALK
Make sure you have a plan for when, where, and how you’ll talk to your family about health insurance. Here are a few tips to help you prepare.
PICK A TIME
Start early: Don’t wait until the last minute—be sure to start the conversation early!
Integrate the talk into family time: Take advantage of downtime after meals or between holiday activities to start your talk.
CHOOSE A PLACE
Get creative: Think about what matters to your family member. Make it memorable!
Find a Quiet Place to Shop: You can start your conversation anywhere, but to shop for health coverage, you will want a more quiet, private place to make a phone call or use the internet.
THINK ABOUT HOW YOU’LL BRING IT UP
Make it personal: Be honest about your feelings and why this is important to you.
Be persistent, but keep it positive: Tell them you care about their health, and focus on the benefits that come from knowing that you have health insurance.
STEP 3: CONVERSATION TIPS
Start by asking: “Have you thought about signing up for health insurance on the new marketplace?”
Offer to walk them through it: “Would you like to take some time with me to sign up right now?”
Ask them to make a plan, and commit to it: “When do you plan on signing up?”
Don’t forget to follow up: “Have you signed up yet?”
STEP 4: PLEDGE TO HAVE THE TALK
Make a pledge to have a conversation with your family about health insurance this holiday season.
[enter your e-mail address here!]
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Makes you wonder who writes this stuff? I wonder if it was these ladies?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_FxwAAcmkxpk%2FSM8Z08M7paI%2FAAAAAAAAAOA%2Fk6Ly09t3FwA%2Fs400%2Fobama%2Bcampaign%2Bhq%2Bpicture.jpg&hash=10236d31e2942abd7fd927ed810eab47be4d3c11)
-
http://home.roadrunner.com/~pjrpole/ACA.html (http://home.roadrunner.com/~pjrpole/ACA.html)
this just got forwarded to me at work
Click apply now and see how messed up the website is
-
Just skimming through and saw the argument about the word "free". I don't think anyone is against free healthcare. That would be stupid.
-
Has anybody on here actually put their social security number and name into the obamacare website? I'm just curious.
-
Has anybody on here actually put their social security number and name into the obamacare website? I'm just curious.
I would if my work policy were to get cancelled or something.
-
Has anybody on here actually put their social security number and name into the obamacare website? I'm just curious.
I would if my work policy were to get cancelled or something.
Yeah, I like my policy so I'm going to keep it.
-
Has anybody on here actually put their social security number and name into the obamacare website? I'm just curious.
I would if my work policy were to get cancelled or something.
You are one trusting individual.
http://www.waff.com/story/23864518/only-on-10-midlands-man-has-personal-information-compromised-on-healthcaregov?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer0e078&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.waff.com/story/23864518/only-on-10-midlands-man-has-personal-information-compromised-on-healthcaregov?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer0e078&utm_medium=twitter)
About a month ago, attorney Tom Dougall logged on to healthcare.gov to browse for cheaper insurance for him and his wife.
On Friday, the last thing he expected to hear on his voicemail was a man from North Carolina who says he can access all of Tom's personal information.
Dougall says he thought it was a scam until he realized his privacy had been breached.
"I believe somehow the ACA, the Healthcare website has sent me your information, is what it looks like," said Justin Hadley, a North Carolina resident who could access Tom's information on healthcare.gov. "I think there's a problem with the wrong information getting to the wrong people."
-
Resorting to paying for positive obamacare stories. (http://capitolcityproject.com/non-partisan-group-paid-1-million-produce-positive-obamacare-stories-close-obama-administration-tied-enroll-america/)
With the roll out of Obamacare being as disastrous as possible for the Obama administration, one group was given a $1 million grant to help lead a rebranding effort with hopes of salvaging the law in the eyes of the American people.
Families USA (FUSA) — an organization that describes itself as a “national nonprofit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the achievement of high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans” — was given a $1.1 million grant by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on October 4, 2013, to gather “success stories” of Americans dealing with Obamacare and distribute them to the media who often refer to them as an “independent” group. This is part of a greater upcoming effort to bolster the perception of the lowly health care law.
-
i love reading the website name of any link a pub posts. they always have great names.
-
Heard a dumbass student today say she needs to get enrolled now before Obama is out of office. Why? Cause without him there will no longer be financial aid. :flush:
-
No security ever built into Obamacare site (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101225308)
"When you develop a website, you develop it with security in mind. And it doesn't appear to have happened this time," said David Kennedy, a so-called "white hat" hacker who tests online security by breaching websites. He testified on Capitol Hill about the flaws of HealthCare.gov last week.
"It's really hard to go back and fix the security around it because security wasn't built into it," said Kennedy, chief executive of TrustedSec. "We're talking multiple months to over a year to at least address some of the critical-to-high exposures on the website itself."
According to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversaw the implementation of the website, the components used to build the site are compliant with standards set by Federal security authorities.
"The privacy and security of consumers' personal information are a top priority for us. Security testing happens on an ongoing basis using industry best practices to appropriately safeguard consumers' personal information," said the spokesperson.
Another online security expert—who spoke at last week's House hearing and then on CNBC—said the federal Obamacare website needs to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch. Morgan Wright, CEO of Crowd Sourced Investigations said: "There's not a plan to fix this that meets the sniff test of being reasonable."
-
And as expected, insurers can't afford to let people keep their existing plans due to Obamacare's guaranteed issue, so the NYT is reporting today that the WH has come up with a solution: just fork over more tax dollars to the insurance companies! It's unclear where this money will come from without Congress, but I'm sure Obama will find a way. Maybe there's a slush fund or two tucked inside the ACA already...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/us/politics/insurers-are-offered-assistance-for-losses.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2& (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/us/politics/insurers-are-offered-assistance-for-losses.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&)
Obamacare just continues to hemorrhage tax dollars, just as predicted.
-
We need a gE drinking game. Every time K-S-U-Wildcats says "tax dollars", finish your drink!
-
We need a gE drinking game. Every time K-S-U-Wildcats says "tax dollars", finish your drink!
Yeah, I guess it's funny how the government wastes tax dollars if you're not paying a crap ton of taxes. Tax dollars.
-
Define "crap ton".
-
Define "crap ton".
My effective rate last year (all taxes divided by gross income) was 37%, and that's just the taxes I could quantify. Seems like a lot to me.
-
Define "crap ton".
My effective rate last year (all taxes divided by gross income) was 37%, and that's just the taxes I could quantify. Seems like a lot to me.
I would hire a new accountant if I were you.
-
Define "crap ton".
My effective rate last year (all taxes divided by gross income) was 37%, and that's just the taxes I could quantify. Seems like a lot to me.
I would hire a new accountant if I were you.
When you start paying taxes, you'll understand that you can't just "accountant" taxes away, especially if you own a business. Who do you think pays for all of this free government money?
-
Define "crap ton".
My effective rate last year (all taxes divided by gross income) was 37%, and that's just the taxes I could quantify. Seems like a lot to me.
I would hire a new accountant if I were you.
When you start paying taxes, you'll understand that you can't just "accountant" taxes away, especially if you own a business. Who do you think pays for all of this free government money?
37% income tax is pretty far above average.
-
Define "crap ton".
My effective rate last year (all taxes divided by gross income) was 37%, and that's just the taxes I could quantify. Seems like a lot to me.
I would hire a new accountant if I were you.
When you start paying taxes, you'll understand that you can't just "accountant" taxes away, especially if you own a business. Who do you think pays for all of this free government money?
37% income tax is pretty far above average.
Yeah. I was just giving some friendly advice because there is no way in hell anybody should be paying that tax rate on their federal income taxes.
-
Define "crap ton".
My effective rate last year (all taxes divided by gross income) was 37%, and that's just the taxes I could quantify. Seems like a lot to me.
I would hire a new accountant if I were you.
When you start paying taxes, you'll understand that you can't just "accountant" taxes away, especially if you own a business. Who do you think pays for all of this free government money?
37% income tax is pretty far above average.
His 37% includes property tax, state & federal income tax, and "estimated" sales tax.
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=22838.msg937289#msg937289
-
he's counting state and property taxesDefine "crap ton".
My effective rate last year (all taxes divided by gross income) was 37%, and that's just the taxes I could quantify. Seems like a lot to me.
I would hire a new accountant if I were you.
When you start paying taxes, you'll understand that you can't just "accountant" taxes away, especially if you own a business. Who do you think pays for all of this free government money?
37% income tax is pretty far above average.
His 37% includes property tax, state & federal income tax, and "estimated" sales tax.
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=22838.msg937289#msg937289
Oh, well that's just life then, K-S-U. Everybody pays a shitload of taxes if you include all of that.
-
he's counting state and property taxesDefine "crap ton".
My effective rate last year (all taxes divided by gross income) was 37%, and that's just the taxes I could quantify. Seems like a lot to me.
I would hire a new accountant if I were you.
When you start paying taxes, you'll understand that you can't just "accountant" taxes away, especially if you own a business. Who do you think pays for all of this free government money?
37% income tax is pretty far above average.
His 37% includes property tax, state & federal income tax, and "estimated" sales tax.
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=22838.msg937289#msg937289
Can you imagine if steve dave calculated what he spends on alcohol taxes? Talk about a crap ton.
-
and those hidden taxes that raise prices! holy crap, it's like we don't even get paid at all!
-
and those hidden taxes that raise prices! holy crap, it's like we don't even get paid at all!
13th Amendment bro
-
and those hidden taxes that raise prices! holy crap, it's like we don't even get paid at all!
When you add it all up, I probably pay 90%. The rest goes to investments that I have to pay taxes on later. What's going to happen when these new Obama taxes kick in? What then? Taxes, that's what.
-
When you really think about it, the illegals are destroying this country with their tax breaks. We just can't be truly great unless we can get rid of the freeloaders. First it was the good for nothing slaves that didn't pay a cent to earn their keep. Now, it's those border crossing, crotch grabbing illegals who just come over and freeload on my dime. And now they expect to be able to get medicine and other treatments they can't afford? This is the USA, not the USSA. When will this country figure it out?
-
Wow, there's a bigger dose of libtardedness around here than usual today.
-
When you really think about it, the illegals are destroying this country with their tax breaks. We just can't be truly great unless we can get rid of the freeloaders. First it was the good for nothing slaves that didn't pay a cent to earn their keep. Now, it's those border crossing, crotch grabbing illegals who just come over and freeload on my dime. And now they expect to be able to get medicine and other treatments they can't afford? This is the USA, not the USSA. When will this country figure it out?
What is this?
-
Was notified I can keep my BCBS policy for another year. Thanks Obama!
-
:kstategrad:
http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2013/11/21/obamacare-insurers-stocks/
Humana (HUM) and Cigna (CI) both hit all-time highs Thursday. WellPoint (WLP) is trading just shy of the record price it reached Wednesday. Aetna (AET) and UnitedHealth (UNH) are only about 2% below their peaks.
In fact, Goldman Sachs is recommending that investors buy shares in two big insurance companies — the UnitedHealth Group and Cigna — because the potential for profit is high.
-
:kstategrad:
http://buzz.money.cnn.com/2013/11/21/obamacare-insurers-stocks/
Humana (HUM) and Cigna (CI) both hit all-time highs Thursday. WellPoint (WLP) is trading just shy of the record price it reached Wednesday. Aetna (AET) and UnitedHealth (UNH) are only about 2% below their peaks.
In fact, Goldman Sachs is recommending that investors buy shares in two big insurance companies — the UnitedHealth Group and Cigna — because the potential for profit is high.
I'm ridin' this wave! 401K!
-
Not sure if this is a sadder indictment of liberal government or the delusional 20-something demographic that continues to vote for it. Both, I guess. http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/04/not-a-joke-video-called-forget-about-the-price-tag-wins-hhs-grand-prize-for-promoting-obamacare/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/04/not-a-joke-video-called-forget-about-the-price-tag-wins-hhs-grand-prize-for-promoting-obamacare/)
-
The Obama admin recently trumpeted that it "met its goal" in fixing the healthcare.gov website by December 1. It was another bullshit claim, as usual. Turns out, they have only mostly fixed (it only crashes 10% of the time now :lol:) the facade - the consumer interface. But the essential back-end interface between the portal and the insurers remains riddled with problems.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/obamacare-enrollment_n_4384820.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/obamacare-enrollment_n_4384820.html)
Unresolved technical problems on HealthCare.gov could lead to a rude surprise at the doctor's office next month for patients who think they successfully used the website to sign up for health insurance. They may find they're not insured after all.
HealthCare.gov, the federal online portal for health-insurance shopping in more than 30 states, has improved after more than a month of intense fixes, and enrollment is accelerating. But insurance companies are still getting information on their would-be customers that is garbled and incomplete, and in some cases they are getting no information at all. President Barack Obama's administration is scrambling to repair the faulty system, but scant time remains until the Dec. 23 deadline for consumers to choose a health plan that will be in place Jan. 1.
The result could be an untold number of consumers remaining uninsured despite completing the enrollment process -- another embarrassing chapter in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, Obama's signature health care reform law.
The Obama administration insists the enrollment glitches will be fixed in time to prevent any troubles next month, but won't disclose the extent of the problem. Nor will it guarantee that any patients who fall victim to these problems won't be exposed to medical bills if they get sick or injured.
-
They should have hired hemmy.
-
Define "crap ton".
My effective rate last year (all taxes divided by gross income) was 37%, and that's just the taxes I could quantify. Seems like a lot to me.
I would hire a new accountant if I were you.
[/quote
KSU doesn't understand what "free" healthcare would do to his company's overhead or bottom line so don't be surprised that he doesn't know how to do his taxes.
-
http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-architect-if-you-your-doctor-you-can-pay-more_769688.html (http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-architect-if-you-your-doctor-you-can-pay-more_769688.html) :lol:
So Obama didn't really lie when he said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Sure, your plan may be cancelled if it doesn't meet minimum coverage requirements, and sure, your doctor likely won't accept ObamaCare plans, but you can always buy an even more expensive policy your doctor will take. Maybe even pay them out of pocket!
Too bad people can't just keep the insurance and doctors they liked, huh? But you can't make a socialist omelette without rough ridin' a few people over, amiright?
-
I bet you'll never blame the insurance companies for implementing these policies, cancellations and such.
By all means give them back full control if you think it helps..
-
I'll bet you'll never blame the insurance companies for implementing these policies, cancellations and therefore.
By all means give them back full control if you think it helps..
Are you drunk? You're not even framing coherent sentences, let alone ideas.
-
HeadInjun, stop acting like such a dumbass, you racist pos.
-
I'll bet you'll never blame the insurance companies for implementing these policies, cancellations and therefore.
By all means give them back full control if you think it helps..
Are you drunk? You're not even framing coherent sentences, let alone ideas.
Yeah I rushed through that, but I'm sure you know it's the insurance companies who are mainly to blame for implementing the things you're bitching about considering you like to put yourself on a higher level of intelligence by throwing around the word tard every chance you get.
Throwing around "libtards" and posting second rate conservative blogs does nothing to provide a strong argument.
You sound more like a World Forum tuck. Maybe you and Todd should become friends.
-
HeadInjun, stop acting like such a dumbass, you racist pos.
Depth of thought noted.
Also why the hell do you care if I call my injun self an injun?
-
HeadInjun, stop acting like such a dumbass, you racist pos.
Depth of thought noted.
Also why the hell do you care if I call my injun self an injun?
I said stop being a Dumbass.
-
I'll bet you'll never blame the insurance companies for implementing these policies, cancellations and therefore.
By all means give them back full control if you think it helps..
Are you drunk? You're not even framing coherent sentences, let alone ideas.
Yeah I rushed through that, but I'm sure you know it's the insurance companies who are mainly to blame for implementing the things you're bitching about
Hmmm... no I don't know that. Please explain. I was talking about how ObamaCare minimum coverage mandates have resulted in cancellation of many policies (and will cause cancellations of many more), and people are now discovering a severe shortage of doctors who accept the new exchange plans (like Medicaid), thus putting the lie to Obama's claim. These are facts. Not sure how the evil insurance cos are to blame for this, except that many admittedly jumped into bed with Obama to help pass ObamaCare in exchange for the promise of many new policyholders.
-
I'll bet you'll never blame the insurance companies for implementing these policies, cancellations and therefore.
By all means give them back full control if you think it helps..
Are you drunk? You're not even framing coherent sentences, let alone ideas.
Yeah I rushed through that, but I'm sure you know it's the insurance companies who are mainly to blame for implementing the things you're bitching about
Hmmm... no I don't know that. Please explain. I was talking about how ObamaCare minimum coverage mandates have resulted in cancellation of many policies (and will cause cancellations of many more), and people are now discovering a severe shortage of doctors who accept the new exchange plans (like Medicaid), thus putting the lie to Obama's claim. These are facts. Not sure how the evil insurance cos are to blame for this, except that many admittedly jumped into bed with Obama to help pass ObamaCare in exchange for the promise of many new policyholders.
Insurance companies do decide what doctors, hospitals, and clinics they will cover thus removing people from their preferable choices of care...
Also doctors can also refuse to accept certain forms of insurance which is their choice and not the presidents.
These implementation troubles aren't solely caused by the new legislation as these type of practices by doctors and insurance companies would have happened anyway over time.
I know you're strictly anti-Obamacare, or anti-Obama for that matter, but you must recognize all the players involved who are causing you to be a paranoid schizophrenic twisted twit.
-
Disaster. 70% of CA doctors say they'll boycott exchange plans (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2540272#.UqLPd42Zl8I.twitter)
-
Disaster. 70% of CA doctors say they'll boycott exchange plans (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2540272#.UqLPd42Zl8I.twitter)
“We need some recognition that we’re doing a service to the community. But we can’t do it for free. And we can’t do it at a loss. No other business would do that,”
Why are these doctors such horrible people? :lol:
-
Disaster. 70% of CA doctors say they'll boycott exchange plans (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2540272#.UqLPd42Zl8I.twitter)
“We need some recognition that we’re doing a service to the community. But we can’t do it for free. And we can’t do it at a loss. No other business would do that,”
Why are these doctors such horrible people? :lol:
They're greedy assholes, is what they are. You know what we need? We need a law to make them treat everyone. It's not fair that they can choose to only treat the people who will pay them.
-
We should raise taxes to pay the doctors a better rate. But really, it's yet another argument for single player.
-
Disaster. 70% of CA doctors say they'll boycott exchange plans (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2540272#.UqLPd42Zl8I.twitter)
“We need some recognition that we’re doing a service to the community. But we can’t do it for free. And we can’t do it at a loss. No other business would do that,”
Why are these doctors such horrible people? :lol:
They're greedy assholes, is what they are. You know what we need? We need a law to make them treat everyone. It's not fair that they can choose to only treat the people who will pay them.
I think the market will sort it out.
-
This republican has a health care plan that makes a lot of sense. Maybe the party has a future after all.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/colin-powell-pitches-universal-healthcare-in-us/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/colin-powell-pitches-universal-healthcare-in-us/)
-
I'm all for public insurance and private care.
Let the doctors compete for public funds
-
I'm all for public insurance and private care.
Let the doctors compete for public funds
Yep, I bet the current Admin would do an amazing job running it and not shazbot! it up at all.
-
Good news everyone, a real feel good story about Obamacare!
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/i-just-instantly-burst-tears-medical-worker-finally-gets-insurance-2D11718146 (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/i-just-instantly-burst-tears-medical-worker-finally-gets-insurance-2D11718146)
I was also moved to tears when I read she and her husband are both covered for only $3.19 per month.
-
I'm all for public insurance and private care.
Let the doctors compete for public funds
Yep, I bet the current Admin would do an amazing job running it and not shazbot! it up at all.
If they were to get all complicated with it and not just expand the Medicare agency then yeah they probably would muck it up.
-
I would love it if the dems proposed a single payer system. Would be the most effective way to get rid of all those retards
-
Good news everyone, a real feel good story about Obamacare!
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/i-just-instantly-burst-tears-medical-worker-finally-gets-insurance-2D11718146 (http://www.nbcnews.com/health/i-just-instantly-burst-tears-medical-worker-finally-gets-insurance-2D11718146)
I was also moved to tears when I read she and her husband are both covered for only $3.19 per month.
Me too. It warms my heart to know that I'm subsidizing the healthcare of JoAnn, who for some reason is still working a job making $11.50/hour, and her unemployed husband (I wonder if he's on SS Disability?). Why should these people have to pay for healthcare? Oh wait - they're still going to pay a massive deductible for their "bronze coverage," so I guess fair is fair, huh? I suspect JoAnn is going to be crying a different kind of tears when she figures this out. They would have been much better off on Medicaid.
-
I'm all for public insurance and private care.
Let the doctors compete for public funds
"Public funds" has such a nice ring to it. Way more palatable than "tax dollars." Kind of like how PBS doesn't say it's being supported by "tax dollars," but by "the American people" and "viewer's like you."
The thing about socialized medicine, like all other welfare, is that it sounds great to the moochers, but not so great to the people who are already paying their own way. They'll have to stand in line for the doctor along with the moochers they're paying for. But hey, it's all about "fairness," "equality," "social justice," "human rights," etc., etc.
-
Latest enrollment numbers are in. Pravda proudly announces that "Today, just two months into the open enrollment, nearly 1.2 million Americans have selected a plan or have been determined eligible for Medicaid or CHIP." :lol: Hmmm, wonder what the breakdown is? According to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/11/hhs-announces-new-exchange-numbers/3960957/): about 365k people have signed up for Obamacare coverage, and a little 800k have signed up for Medicaid. I wonder if we could have just spent a few hundred million on an enrollment campaign to load up the already unsustainable Medicaid program rather than trashing the entire insurance industry?
Ok, so we're not exactly on pace to meet the CBO's sustainability goal of 7 million Obamacare enrollees. Not to worry though, as Eztard Klein helpfully (and accurately) points out, it's not the total number of enrollees that really matters, but the proportion of healthy versus sick enrollees. I wonder what that number is? We don't know this critical information, because the government doesn't ask! But common sense would dictate the breakdown as follows:
- Older and/or sicker enrollees: a crap ton%
- Young and/or healthy enrollees: not so much%
-
But hey, it's all about "fairness," "equality," "social justice," "human rights," etc., etc.
FINALLY, he gets it.
-
This republican has a health care plan that makes a lot of sense. Maybe the party has a future after all.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/colin-powell-pitches-universal-healthcare-in-us/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/colin-powell-pitches-universal-healthcare-in-us/)
You're such a dumbass
-
I'm all for public insurance and private care.
Let the doctors compete for public funds
"Public funds" has such a nice ring to it. Way more palatable than "tax dollars." Kind of like how PBS doesn't say it's being supported by "tax dollars," but by "the American people" and "viewer's like you."
The thing about socialized medicine, like all other welfare, is that it sounds great to the moochers, but not so great to the people who are already paying their own way. They'll have to stand in line for the doctor along with the moochers they're paying for. But hey, it's all about "fairness," "equality," "social justice," "human rights," etc., etc.
There might be a few moochers but that goes with everything. If the majority of this country is working then the majority would be contributing. Social Security could deduct a premium to even help out leaving your germ infested fat little sperm trophies as the moochers along with the no income to very low income trash.
I'd put up with a few moochers to make things a little more "fair" to the majority working class.
-
I'm all for public insurance and private care.
Let the doctors compete for public funds
"Public funds" has such a nice ring to it. Way more palatable than "tax dollars." Kind of like how PBS doesn't say it's being supported by "tax dollars," but by "the American people" and "viewer's like you."
The thing about socialized medicine, like all other welfare, is that it sounds great to the moochers, but not so great to the people who are already paying their own way. They'll have to stand in line for the doctor along with the moochers they're paying for. But hey, it's all about "fairness," "equality," "social justice," "human rights," etc., etc.
:drink: :drink:
-
I'm all for public insurance and private care.
Let the doctors compete for public funds
"Public funds" has such a nice ring to it. Way more palatable than "tax dollars." Kind of like how PBS doesn't say it's being supported by "tax dollars," but by "the American people" and "viewer's like you."
The thing about socialized medicine, like all other welfare, is that it sounds great to the moochers, but not so great to the people who are already paying their own way. They'll have to stand in line for the doctor along with the moochers they're paying for. But hey, it's all about "fairness," "equality," "social justice," "human rights," etc., etc.
:drink: :drink:
Thatsh nothin sheven, I'se been drunk for 5 years cause I take a drinks evary timesa lib says "fair share". :Ughhh:
-
I'm all for public insurance and private care.
Let the doctors compete for public funds
"Public funds" has such a nice ring to it. Way more palatable than "tax dollars." Kind of like how PBS doesn't say it's being supported by "tax dollars," but by "the American people" and "viewer's like you."
The thing about socialized medicine, like all other welfare, is that it sounds great to the moochers, but not so great to the people who are already paying their own way. They'll have to stand in line for the doctor along with the moochers they're paying for. But hey, it's all about "fairness," "equality," "social justice," "human rights," etc., etc.
:drink: :drink:
Thatsh nothin sheven, I'se been drunk for 5 years cause I take a drinks evary timesa lib says "fair share". :Ughhh:
what about everytime a pub says it? alcohol poisoning!!!!!! :sdeek:
-
Here are the terms of my aca policy for me, spouse, and two boys.
$531 per month
$6300 deductible
$6300 family deductible
531 x 12 mo. = $6,372 annual premium + $6300 individual ded. Means I will pay $12,672 out of my
Pocket before my insurance will pay a dime.
If I qualified for a large subsidy and only paid $1200 in annual premium and add the $6300 ded. That would be $7500 before insurance started paying claims.
I don't think the low to middle income people paying for this are going to like it at all.
-
Here are the terms of my aca policy for me, spouse, and two boys.
$531 per month
$6300 deductible
$6300 family deductible
531 x 12 mo. = $6,372 annual premium + $6300 individual ded. Means I will pay $12,672 out of my
Pocket before my insurance will pay a dime.
If I qualified for a large subsidy and only paid $1200 in annual premium and add the $6300 ded. That would be $7500 before insurance started paying claims.
I don't think the low to middle income people paying for this are going to like it at all.
ok, and how much of a change is that from last year
-
Not the point tard, how many poor people you know that will buy insurance when they don't get any 'til they pay $7,500 out of their empty pockets?
-
Here are the terms of my aca policy for me, spouse, and two boys.
$531 per month
$6300 deductible
$6300 family deductible
531 x 12 mo. = $6,372 annual premium + $6300 individual ded. Means I will pay $12,672 out of my
Pocket before my insurance will pay a dime.
If I qualified for a large subsidy and only paid $1200 in annual premium and add the $6300 ded. That would be $7500 before insurance started paying claims.
I don't think the low to middle income people paying for this are going to like it at all.
It's going to be a big story when the formerly uninsured run to the doctors on Jan 1 to find they still have to pay for most everything. For most of them, it will simply be catastrophic insurance because they still won't be able to afford the deductibles. They probably could have afforded catastrophic insurance on their own prior to obamacare and we didn't need to mess with it in the first place.
-
Here are the terms of my aca policy for me, spouse, and two boys.
$531 per month
$6300 deductible
$6300 family deductible
531 x 12 mo. = $6,372 annual premium + $6300 individual ded. Means I will pay $12,672 out of my
Pocket before my insurance will pay a dime.
If I qualified for a large subsidy and only paid $1200 in annual premium and add the $6300 ded. That would be $7500 before insurance started paying claims.
I don't think the low to middle income people paying for this are going to like it at all.
It's going to be a big story when the formerly uninsured run to the doctors on Jan 1 to find they still have to pay for most everything. For most of them, it will simply be catastrophic insurance because they still won't be able to afford the deductibles. They probably could have afforded catastrophic insurance on their own prior to obamacare and we didn't need to mess with it in the first place.
exactly why healthcare should be free :whistle1:
-
Not the point tard, how many poor people you know that will buy insurance when they don't get any 'til they pay $7,500 out of their empty pockets?
and this is a change from before how?
-
gato's point is that the government should have poured more money into it to make health insurance and care cheaper for people such as himself. Can't say I disagree.
-
gato's point is that the government should have poured more money into it to make health insurance and care cheaper for people such as himself. Can't say I disagree.
Seven really is a little slow :Cheers:
-
as a current poor, i decided to go ahead and go though the application (took literally 10 min) just right now.
the bronze plan you're talking about (aka the worst and cheapest):
Monthly premium
$12.21/mo.
was $158.21
Deductible
$6,300
Out–of–pocket maximum
$6,300
no copays
-------------
the best platinum plan:
Monthly premium
$172.02/mo.
was $318.02
Deductible
$0
group total
Out–of–pocket maximum
$1,150
50% copays
------------
with 29 other plans in-between. neither of those sound too bad, depending on how you want to use insurance.
infact i'll probably sign up for that low level bronze plan, just because i have zero insurance right now and can't afford the $120ish a month that the cheapest plan available to me right now costs.
-
You are wasting your $12 a month, since you said you can't afford $120 a month I assume you can't afford a doctors visit, much less any care.
-
Anybody want to take guess how much "public funds" we've spent so far, per enrollee, just to get them signed up? (And I'm not including all the "public funds" we'll spend to subsidize their premiums, allowing moochers like seven to pay 12/mo for insurance.)
-
You are wasting your $12 a month, since you said you can't afford $120 a month I assume you can't afford a doctors visit, much less any care.
i have been to the doctor once in the last 10 years (minor med for bronchitis). i have zero prescriptions. insurance is only of use to me if something really terrible happens, which 12 dollars a month seems reasonable.
*edit, i had insurance from my employer for that 1 visit too!
-
all of this is really moot tho, healthcare should be available to all citizens for free.
-
It will be interesting to see if doctors refuse to turn a wrench until people pay their deductibles.
-
You are wasting your $12 a month, since you said you can't afford $120 a month I assume you can't afford a doctors visit, much less any care.
i have been to the doctor once in the last 10 years (minor med for bronchitis). i have zero prescriptions. insurance is only of use to me if something really terrible happens, which 12 dollars a month seems reasonable.
*edit, i had insurance from my employer for that 1 visit too!
I don't know - this really sounds like a "cut rate" policy. We ought to pass a law banning these policies.
-
You are wasting your $12 a month, since you said you can't afford $120 a month I assume you can't afford a doctors visit, much less any care.
i have been to the doctor once in the last 10 years (minor med for bronchitis). i have zero prescriptions. insurance is only of use to me if something really terrible happens, which 12 dollars a month seems reasonable.
*edit, i had insurance from my employer for that 1 visit too!
I don't know - this really sounds like a "cut rate" policy. We ought to pass a law banning these policies.
i don't think you know what cut rate really is :sdeek:
-
You are wasting your $12 a month, since you said you can't afford $120 a month I assume you can't afford a doctors visit, much less any care.
i have been to the doctor once in the last 10 years (minor med for bronchitis). i have zero prescriptions. insurance is only of use to me if something really terrible happens, which 12 dollars a month seems reasonable.
*edit, i had insurance from my employer for that 1 visit too!
I don't know - this really sounds like a "cut rate" policy. We ought to pass a law banning these policies.
i don't think you know what cut rate really is :sdeek:
Actually, I think this is exactly the kind of "cut rate" insurance the Dems were criticizing as an excuse for cancelling all those policies, or was their only criteria that the policies provide free mamograms, birth control, and abortions? Those should all come in handy for you. Oh, but that's right, you don't really give a crap since you're only paying 12/mo. I guess I'm picking up the remainder of the tab. You should send me a Christmas card.
-
You are wasting your $12 a month, since you said you can't afford $120 a month I assume you can't afford a doctors visit, much less any care.
i have been to the doctor once in the last 10 years (minor med for bronchitis). i have zero prescriptions. insurance is only of use to me if something really terrible happens, which 12 dollars a month seems reasonable.
*edit, i had insurance from my employer for that 1 visit too!
I don't know - this really sounds like a "cut rate" policy. We ought to pass a law banning these policies.
i don't think you know what cut rate really is :sdeek:
Actually, I think this is exactly the kind of "cut rate" insurance the Dems were criticizing as an excuse for cancelling all those policies, or was their only criteria that the policies provide free mamograms, birth control, and abortions? Those should all come in handy for you. Oh, but that's right, you don't really give a crap since you're only paying 12/mo. I guess I'm picking up the remainder of the tab. You should send me a Christmas card.
or maybe we should just get rid of health insurance and have healthcare be provided to all citizens for free. :cheers:
-
You are wasting your $12 a month, since you said you can't afford $120 a month I assume you can't afford a doctors visit, much less any care.
i have been to the doctor once in the last 10 years (minor med for bronchitis). i have zero prescriptions. insurance is only of use to me if something really terrible happens, which 12 dollars a month seems reasonable.
*edit, i had insurance from my employer for that 1 visit too!
I don't know - this really sounds like a "cut rate" policy. We ought to pass a law banning these policies.
i don't think you know what cut rate really is :sdeek:
Actually, I think this is exactly the kind of "cut rate" insurance the Dems were criticizing as an excuse for cancelling all those policies, or was their only criteria that the policies provide free mamograms, birth control, and abortions? Those should all come in handy for you. Oh, but that's right, you don't really give a crap since you're only paying 12/mo. I guess I'm picking up the remainder of the tab. You should send me a Christmas card.
or maybe we should just get rid of health insurance and have healthcare be provided to all citizens for free. :cheers:
Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree!
-
Shocking. The ne'er-do-well poor wants more free(misnomer) crap.
I think we, as a country, reallly need to consider why non stakeholders are permitted to participate in the political process, particularly in its present, redistributive and market-meddling state. It makes about as much sense, logically, as divine right. "Oh, I was born here so I am entitled to a certain quality of life provided by society, regardless of my contribution or participation in said society." What the eff? Western civ society has been able to diminish devine right peeps to tabloid and E! news celebs. We would be justified in relegating our non stakeholders to non voting status. If they want to participate politically, they'll have to participate physically.
-
as a current poor, i decided to go ahead and go though the application (took literally 10 min) just right now.
the bronze plan you're talking about (aka the worst and cheapest):
Monthly premium
$12.21/mo.
was $158.21
Deductible
$6,300
Out–of–pocket maximum
$6,300
no copays
-------------
the best platinum plan:
Monthly premium
$172.02/mo.
was $318.02
Deductible
$0
group total
Out–of–pocket maximum
$1,150
50% copays
------------
with 29 other plans in-between. neither of those sound too bad, depending on how you want to use insurance.
infact i'll probably sign up for that low level bronze plan, just because i have zero insurance right now and can't afford the $120ish a month that the cheapest plan available to me right now costs.
How does the bronze have no copay? The ones I've looked at have like a $50-$60 copay. Are they subsidized also?
-
hey seven, don't use the word poor in the way you just used it..
-
Poors are not going to pay $12 for anything they can't wear, smoke or take home and stick in the microwave. That's why this is so Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). If you don't believe me, you are a sheltered naive moron.
-
as a current poor, i decided to go ahead and go though the application (took literally 10 min) just right now.
the bronze plan you're talking about (aka the worst and cheapest):
Monthly premium
$12.21/mo.
was $158.21
Deductible
$6,300
Out–of–pocket maximum
$6,300
no copays
-------------
the best platinum plan:
Monthly premium
$172.02/mo.
was $318.02
Deductible
$0
group total
Out–of–pocket maximum
$1,150
50% copays
------------
with 29 other plans in-between. neither of those sound too bad, depending on how you want to use insurance.
infact i'll probably sign up for that low level bronze plan, just because i have zero insurance right now and can't afford the $120ish a month that the cheapest plan available to me right now costs.
How does the bronze have no copay? The ones I've looked at have like a $50-$60 copay. Are they subsidized also?
no they aren't. i think it counts against deductable... i didn't really research it much. there were bronze plans with like 20-40 dollar premiums that had like 5-20 dollar copays, i think. i don't remember the exact number.
-
hey seven, don't use the word poor in the way you just used it..
i'm sorry sys. i was using it somewhat sarcastically tho.
-
The bronze i'm looking at has no copay because it is 100% out of pocket until $6300 ded. Is met
-
Shocking. The ne'er-do-well poor wants more free(misnomer) crap.
I think we, as a country, reallly need to consider why non stakeholders are permitted to participate in the political process, particularly in its present, redistributive and market-meddling state. It makes about as much sense, logically, as divine right. "Oh, I was born here so I am entitled to a certain quality of life provided by society, regardless of my contribution or participation in said society." What the eff? Western civ society has been able to diminish devine right peeps to tabloid and E! news celebs. We would be justified in relegating our non stakeholders to non voting status. If they want to participate politically, they'll have to participate physically.
yes, being an american citizen should guarantee that all your healthcare needs are are taken care of by society as a whole. i'm not sure why this is controversial at all.
-
Shocking. The ne'er-do-well poor wants more free(misnomer) crap.
I think we, as a country, reallly need to consider why non stakeholders are permitted to participate in the political process, particularly in its present, redistributive and market-meddling state. It makes about as much sense, logically, as divine right. "Oh, I was born here so I am entitled to a certain quality of life provided by society, regardless of my contribution or participation in said society." What the eff? Western civ society has been able to diminish devine right peeps to tabloid and E! news celebs. We would be justified in relegating our non stakeholders to non voting status. If they want to participate politically, they'll have to participate physically.
yes, being an american citizen should guarantee that all your healthcare needs are are taken care of by society as a whole. i'm not sure why this is controversial at all.
That's because you don't understand it.
-
hey seven, don't use the word poor in the way you just used it..
i'm sorry sys. i was using it somewhat sarcastically tho.
ok.
-
Shocking. The ne'er-do-well poor wants more free(misnomer) crap.
I think we, as a country, reallly need to consider why non stakeholders are permitted to participate in the political process, particularly in its present, redistributive and market-meddling state. It makes about as much sense, logically, as divine right. "Oh, I was born here so I am entitled to a certain quality of life provided by society, regardless of my contribution or participation in said society." What the eff? Western civ society has been able to diminish devine right peeps to tabloid and E! news celebs. We would be justified in relegating our non stakeholders to non voting status. If they want to participate politically, they'll have to participate physically.
yes, being an american citizen should guarantee that all your healthcare needs are are taken care of by society as a whole. i'm not sure why this is controversial at all.
Even if you're a lazy unhealthy slob? Or should we also ban all the unhealthy stuff? There's a whole lot of lazy unhealthy slobby Americans - millions of them - and that's their God-given right. Just don't ask me to pay for them. That's why socialized medicine, and the extent of all other welfare programs, are "controversial."
-
Shocking. The ne'er-do-well poor wants more free(misnomer) crap.
I think we, as a country, reallly need to consider why non stakeholders are permitted to participate in the political process, particularly in its present, redistributive and market-meddling state. It makes about as much sense, logically, as divine right. "Oh, I was born here so I am entitled to a certain quality of life provided by society, regardless of my contribution or participation in said society." What the eff? Western civ society has been able to diminish devine right peeps to tabloid and E! news celebs. We would be justified in relegating our non stakeholders to non voting status. If they want to participate politically, they'll have to participate physically.
yes, being an american citizen should guarantee that all your healthcare needs are are taken care of by society as a whole. i'm not sure why this is controversial at all.
Even if you're a lazy unhealthy slob?
Believe it or not an unhealthy slob could become healthier with access to proper health care.
-
The bronze i'm looking at has no copay because it is 100% out of pocket until $6300 ded. Is met
Oh, yes, that's right. After the deductible it pays something like 40 - 60% until you reach your maximum out of pocket.
-
Shocking. The ne'er-do-well poor wants more free(misnomer) crap.
I think we, as a country, reallly need to consider why non stakeholders are permitted to participate in the political process, particularly in its present, redistributive and market-meddling state. It makes about as much sense, logically, as divine right. "Oh, I was born here so I am entitled to a certain quality of life provided by society, regardless of my contribution or participation in said society." What the eff? Western civ society has been able to diminish devine right peeps to tabloid and E! news celebs. We would be justified in relegating our non stakeholders to non voting status. If they want to participate politically, they'll have to participate physically.
yes, being an american citizen should guarantee that all your healthcare needs are are taken care of by society as a whole. i'm not sure why this is controversial at all.
Even if you're a lazy unhealthy slob?
Believe it or not an unhealthy slob could become healthier with access to proper health care.
Again, why should I pay for that? Are you going to argue that it will save us all money in the long run? "Studies have shown" that preventative care doesn't actually save money. See, e.g., http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehastingscenter.org/louiserussell/a-persistent-myth/ (http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehastingscenter.org/louiserussell/a-persistent-myth/)
-
Are you going to argue that it will save us all money in the long run? "Studies have shown" that preventative care doesn't actually save money. See, e.g., http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehastingscenter.org/louiserussell/a-persistent-myth/ (http://healthcarecostmonitor.thehastingscenter.org/louiserussell/a-persistent-myth/)
Well then preventative care should change. I wouldn't be opposed to that at all.
-
The bronze i'm looking at has no copay because it is 100% out of pocket until $6300 ded. Is met
Oh, yes, that's right. After the deductible it pays something like 40 - 60% until you reach your maximum out of pocket.
Hsa, you pay 100% up to your ded. Then it pays 100% after that, ded. Is 6300 for 1 person, max of 12600 for the family. At least thats the way i understand it.
-
You are wasting your $12 a month, since you said you can't afford $120 a month I assume you can't afford a doctors visit, much less any care.
People who take that $12 per month policy aren't going to use it for doctor's visits. He should pay it in case of some major medical revelation or emergency because it could potentially save him from bankruptcy.
-
Maybe I missed this, but why does being born in the us entitle you to healthcare, even if you contribute nothing to society?
-
Maybe I missed this, but why does being born in the us entitle you to healthcare, even if you contribute nothing to society?
Because this is America and we're the greatest country on earth.
-
Maybe I missed this, but why does being born in the us entitle you to healthcare, even if you contribute nothing to society?
Because this is America and we're the greatest country on earth.
And how long do you think that's going to last if we keep expanding the welfare state? We're already 17 going on 18 trillion in debt and people are dropping out of the workforce at a record rate.
-
Maybe I missed this, but why does being born in the us entitle you to healthcare, even if you contribute nothing to society?
Because this is America and we're the greatest country on earth.
And how long do you think that's going to last if we keep expanding the welfare state? We're already 17 going on 18 trillion in debt and people are dropping out of the workforce at a record rate.
careful, libtards really hate this one
-
Oh seven...I wish I were surprised.
-
Latest enrollment numbers are in. Pravda proudly announces that "Today, just two months into the open enrollment, nearly 1.2 million Americans have selected a plan or have been determined eligible for Medicaid or CHIP." :lol: Hmmm, wonder what the breakdown is? According to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/11/hhs-announces-new-exchange-numbers/3960957/): about 365k people have signed up for Obamacare coverage, and a little 800k have signed up for Medicaid. I wonder if we could have just spent a few hundred million on an enrollment campaign to load up the already unsustainable Medicaid program rather than trashing the entire insurance industry?
Ok, so we're not exactly on pace to meet the CBO's sustainability goal of 7 million Obamacare enrollees. Not to worry though, as Eztard Klein helpfully (and accurately) points out, it's not the total number of enrollees that really matters, but the proportion of healthy versus sick enrollees. I wonder what that number is? We don't know this critical information, because the government doesn't ask! But common sense would dictate the breakdown as follows:
- Older and/or sicker enrollees: a crap ton%
- Young and/or healthy enrollees: not so much%
Sorry, gotta make a correction. Turns out, even the numbers stated above are exaggerated. http://www.propublica.org/article/payment-due-the-obamacare-deadline-no-one-is-talking-about (http://www.propublica.org/article/payment-due-the-obamacare-deadline-no-one-is-talking-about)
-
Maybe I missed this, but why does being born in the us entitle you to healthcare, even if you contribute nothing to society?
Because this is America and we're the greatest country on earth.
This post is worthless without bald eagles, American flags and fighter jets
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/barack-obama-gop-republicans-delay-obamacare-affordable-care-act-101108.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/barack-obama-gop-republicans-delay-obamacare-affordable-care-act-101108.html)
Obamacare: One punt after another
Why do Republicans even bother trying to delay Obamacare? President Barack Obama’s doing it all by himself.
On Thursday, the Obama administration gave customers permission to pay their premiums as late as Dec. 31 for coverage that starts Jan. 1, and officially gave customers an extra week — until Dec. 23 — to sign up for January coverage. The move was just the latest in a long list of extensions, delays and punts that have plagued the health care law.
Sure, Obama’s not doing the things Republicans have suggested — push off centerpieces like the individual mandate, or even put the entire law on hold for a year. But piece by piece, the Obama administration keeps giving itself extensions on smaller parts of the law, because there’s always some piece that isn’t quite ready.
It’s an attempt to put out fires — but it’s also a painful admission that, yes, there are fires.
The administration is also extending a critical program — the temporary high-risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions — through the end of January, to make sure none of them suddenly lose their health coverage because they can’t sign up for new Obamacare insurance by Jan. 1.
That’s after it postponed the employer coverage requirements for a year, delayed the online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses, and told health insurers they can extend people’s coverage for an extra year — a last-minute attempt to un-cancel millions of canceled policies. It also delayed the Spanish-language website, even though Hispanics are a large proportion of the uninsured population. It even postponed next year’s enrollment period, pushing it conveniently past the November elections.
:pbj: republic. Hey, the law is named after the guy, so I guess the law is whatever, and whenever, he wants it to be.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-25374458
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F12%2FStupid-Obama-copy.jpg&hash=e412724648e470e67dfc1bdcc8b259445a572153)
-
What was the last thing more exaggerated and overblown than B.O.'s intelligence?
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/barack-obama-gop-republicans-delay-obamacare-affordable-care-act-101108.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/barack-obama-gop-republicans-delay-obamacare-affordable-care-act-101108.html)
Obamacare: One punt after another
Why do Republicans even bother trying to delay Obamacare? President Barack Obama’s doing it all by himself.
On Thursday, the Obama administration gave customers permission to pay their premiums as late as Dec. 31 for coverage that starts Jan. 1, and officially gave customers an extra week — until Dec. 23 — to sign up for January coverage. The move was just the latest in a long list of extensions, delays and punts that have plagued the health care law.
Sure, Obama’s not doing the things Republicans have suggested — push off centerpieces like the individual mandate, or even put the entire law on hold for a year. But piece by piece, the Obama administration keeps giving itself extensions on smaller parts of the law, because there’s always some piece that isn’t quite ready.
It’s an attempt to put out fires — but it’s also a painful admission that, yes, there are fires.
The administration is also extending a critical program — the temporary high-risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions — through the end of January, to make sure none of them suddenly lose their health coverage because they can’t sign up for new Obamacare insurance by Jan. 1.
That’s after it postponed the employer coverage requirements for a year, delayed the online enrollment for the federal health insurance exchanges for small businesses, and told health insurers they can extend people’s coverage for an extra year — a last-minute attempt to un-cancel millions of canceled policies. It also delayed the Spanish-language website, even though Hispanics are a large proportion of the uninsured population. It even postponed next year’s enrollment period, pushing it conveniently past the November elections.
:pbj: republic. Hey, the law is named after the guy, so I guess the law is whatever, and whenever, he wants it to be.
The law is not named after the guy
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F12%2FStupid-Obama-copy.jpg&hash=e412724648e470e67dfc1bdcc8b259445a572153)
I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work. Clearly we, and I, did not have enough awareness about the problems with the website.
-
Welp, yet another lie and complete failure on the part of the chief executive.
Remember when the govt was shut down over the republicans wanting to delay the individual mandate for a year? Good thing the dems dug in on that.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F12%2FStupid-Obama-copy.jpg&hash=e412724648e470e67dfc1bdcc8b259445a572153)
I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work. Clearly we, and I, did not have enough awareness about the problems with the website.
It's funny that you provided this additional context as if it actually makes him look any more competent. :thumbs:
-
The problem with Obamacare isn't just that it creates winners and losers by government fiat, as opposed to the free market, but that it creates a lot more losers than winners. Currently, the number of policy cancellations outnumbers new enrollees by something like 10-1. Hey, that's just what socialism do! Politico reports on the next Obamacare shock: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/next-obamacare-crisis-small-business-costs-101212.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/next-obamacare-crisis-small-business-costs-101212.html)
Think the canceled health policies hurt the Obamacare cause? There’s another political time bomb lurking that could explode not too long before next year’s elections: rate hikes for small businesses.
Like the canceled individual health plans, it’s another example of a tradeoff that health care experts have long known about, as the new rules for health insurance prices create winners and losers. But most Americans won’t become aware of it until some small business employees learn that their premiums are going up because of a law called — oops — the Affordable Care Act.
Some will learn the opposite, that their premiums are going down because of the law. But as we saw with the canceled individual health plans, it’s the losers who will get most of the attention.
And the timing will be terrible for Democrats: A lot of those small businesses will have to start dealing with their new prices in October — just in time for Republicans to make it an issue in their mid-term election campaigns.
There are no widely accepted estimates for how many people could be affected, but even if it’s a relative minority, it won’t matter politically — because Democrats will once again have to defend the administration’s claims that the majority of Americans who have employer-based insurance won’t be affected by Obamacare.
“The biggest shocker for the small business community is going to hit in October, which is interesting because it will be prime time for the election,” said Jessica Waltman, a top lobbyist at the National Association of Health Underwriters.
Here’s why: Next year, small business health plans — generally those that cover less than 100 workers — will have to comply with a wide range of new rules, particularly the ones that say employees can’t be charged more if they have health problems. Their premiums will only vary based on their age, whether they have individual or family coverage, what part of the country they live in, and whether they use tobacco — and older workers won’t be able to be charged more than three times as much as younger ones.
Sounds like Obama needs to make some more unilateral changes to his signature "accomplishment."
-
Seems like things are running much better.
-
Seems like things are running much better.
* This Message Paid For By Obama For America
Speaking of which, are you PajamaBoy? (This is real...)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F12%2FPajamaBoy02.jpg&hash=8563bba6dcad838ea8547f694b6412940b73a6d4)
-
Lowest approval ratings for a president since Richard Nixon.
wut. Pretty sure W was in the 20's
-
Lowest approval ratings for a president since Richard Nixon.
wut. Pretty sure W was in the 20's
That didn't occur until later in his term. Obama will probably settle somewhere in the mid-30s - there's just too many kool-aid drinkers among his base to let him sink lower than that.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F12%2FPajama-Boy-11-copy.jpg&hash=d157bbcc036f0f39ad4cfaf30dcf1a06f894f2a2)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F12%2FPajama-Boy-5-copy.jpg&hash=d2bcc461f0d147b64e8b40830c387076c7a99967)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F12%2FPajama-boy-6-copy.jpg&hash=7d19ab279ef9ee9bd481c270a55237ef29053101)
-
:lol:
-
oh man, that pajama guy is a total queer right guys!?! just a peter puffin gayhawk, you can tell from his effeminate glasses! what a huge fudge packing homo. jeez, i just can't stop laughing at how big of a man of taste and distinction that guy is. this is too hilarious!
-
Those pajamas look super cozy. I would love to lounge around and drink coffee and talk about health care in them.
-
Reminds me of that episode of Scrubs when JD wore his pajamas to a bar.
-
oh man, that pajama guy is a total queer right guys!?! just a peter puffin gayhawk, you can tell from his effeminate glasses! what a huge fudge packing homo. jeez, i just can't stop laughing at how big of a man of taste and distinction that guy is. this is too hilarious!
Um... ok.
But on a related note, you know who looks even more like Rachel Maddow than PajamaBoy? Fellow MSNBC host Chris Hayes. It's a little bizarre, actually. I'm not sure what's more embarrassing - that Hayes looks so much like Maddow, or vice versa. Also funny how you can just look at people like this and make a pretty safe assumption: definitely a Libtard.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-36cBjBTjJcs%2FUciuMhEPuUI%2FAAAAAAAAGzs%2FFwtWE91oEk0%2Fs320%2Fsame.jpg&hash=d3e99a67a35dd6b954d2f8e8aa1847fba477b943)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FEntertainment%2F660%2F371%2FDuck%2520Dynasty%2520stars%2520660%2520AP.jpg%3Fve%3D1&hash=4259abd21de68b1b0642232c871e8f1e8596ee53)
Also funny how you can just look at people like this and make a pretty safe assumption: definitely a gay hating, racist neocon.
-
Pajama guy
:lol:
-
Also funny how you can just look at people like this and make a pretty safe assumption: definitely a gay hating, racist neocon.
Yes, now you're getting it, except for the "neocon" part. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
-
Seven is awfully butthurt about b.o.'s new marketing scheme and everyone making fun of a grown man wearing a pajama outfit chitchatting about how pissed he is about the new healthcare law.
-
I'm 83% sure uncle Si is gay.
-
sounds like they've gotten a lot of the technical issues figured out.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F12%2FPajama-Boy-5-copy.jpg&hash=d2bcc461f0d147b64e8b40830c387076c7a99967)
SOOPERMEXICAN? Real cool, K-S-U.
-
So a woman has short hair and all of a sudden she is "post-op?"
-
I kinda dig some girls with short hair. It shows the willingness to take risk, which I find attractive.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FEntertainment%2F660%2F371%2FDuck%2520Dynasty%2520stars%2520660%2520AP.jpg%3Fve%3D1&hash=4259abd21de68b1b0642232c871e8f1e8596ee53)
Also funny how you can just look at people like this and make a pretty safe assumption: definitely a gay hating, racist neocon.
So, you are saying these dudes are Jewish. :sdeek:
Damn! That is some krazy kosher.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2013%2F12%2FPajama-Boy-5-copy.jpg&hash=d2bcc461f0d147b64e8b40830c387076c7a99967)
SOOPERMEXICAN? Real cool, K-S-U.
:dunno: pajamaboy looks like Maddow. That's all.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FEntertainment%2F660%2F371%2FDuck%2520Dynasty%2520stars%2520660%2520AP.jpg%3Fve%3D1&hash=4259abd21de68b1b0642232c871e8f1e8596ee53)
Also funny how you can just look at people like this and make a pretty safe assumption: definitely a gay hating, racist neocon.
So, you are saying these dudes are Jewish. :sdeek:
Damn! That is some krazy kosher.
He uses that word a lot. He doesn't know what it means.
-
Good news everyone! Our Dear Leader has just decreed that if your health insurance has been cancelled due to Obamacare, this qualifies you for a "hardship exemption" from Obamacare! Obama Lifts Health Mandate for Those With Canceled Plans (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/obama-aides-say-more-to-gain-coverage-under-aca-than-canceled.html)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Oh, also :pbj: Republic.
-
I don't think this law works without everyone paying something. I think a government bailout of insurance companies is next on the agenda. Good law.
-
Eztard Klein sees the writing on the wall. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/19/the-obama-administration-just-delayed-the-individual-mandate-for-people-whose-plans-have-been-canceled/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/19/the-obama-administration-just-delayed-the-individual-mandate-for-people-whose-plans-have-been-canceled/)
6. But this puts the administration on some very difficult-to-defend ground. Normally, the individual mandate applies to anyone who can purchase qualifying insurance for less than 8 percent of their income. Either that threshold is right or it's wrong. But it's hard to argue that it's right for the currently uninsured but wrong for people whose plans were canceled.
7. Put more simply, Republicans will immediately begin calling for the uninsured to get this same exemption. What will the Obama administration say in response? Why are people who plans were canceled more deserving of help than people who couldn't afford a plan in the first place?
8. The same goes for the cheap catastrophic plans sold to customers under age 30 in the exchanges. A 45-year-old whose plan just got canceled can now purchase catastrophic coverage. A 45-year-old who didn't have insurance at all can't. Why don't people who couldn't afford a plan in the first place deserve the same kind of help as people whose plans were canceled?
9. The insurers aren't happy. "This latest rule change could cause significant instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers," says Karen Ignani, head of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans. They worry the White House is underestimating the number of people whose plans have been canceled and who will opt to either remain uninsured or buy catastrophic insurance rather than more comprehensive coverage.
10. This puts the first crack in the individual mandate. The question is whether it's the last. If Democratic members of Congress see this as solving their political problem with people whose plans have been canceled, it could help them stand against Republican efforts to delay the individual mandate. But if congressional Democrats use this ruling as an excuse to delay or otherwise de-fang the individual mandate for anyone who doesn't want to pay for insurance under Obamacare, then it'll be a very big problem for the law.
-
Our Dear Leader plans to sign up for Obamacare. That's a relief!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/23/report-obama-to-enroll-in-obamacare-monday (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/23/report-obama-to-enroll-in-obamacare-monday)
-
No surprise here, of the uninsured that are purchasing insurance, most are opting for the the cheapest policies - the ones that have astronomical deductibles. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/23/Health-plan-sticker-shock-ahead-for-some-buyers (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/23/Health-plan-sticker-shock-ahead-for-some-buyers)
Just to recap, these are the same types of high deductible policies that Dems were decrying as "cut rate" only a few weeks ago. The only difference is that the new policies are more expensive on the exchanges (though they'll be subsidized by tax dollars), and they'll offer "coverage" (again, pretty worthless considering the high deductible) for things most people don't need, like abortions, mental health, etc.
Obamacare was a really super terrific idea, guys! :Woohoo:
-
Most Americans won't ever use their coverage for cancer, either.
-
What are the max liabilities on the super high deductible cheapo plans?
-
No surprise here, of the uninsured that are purchasing insurance, most are opting for the the cheapest policies - the ones that have astronomical deductibles. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/23/Health-plan-sticker-shock-ahead-for-some-buyers (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/23/Health-plan-sticker-shock-ahead-for-some-buyers)
Just to recap, these are the same types of high deductible policies that Dems were decrying as "cut rate" only a few weeks ago. The only difference is that the new policies are more expensive on the exchanges (though they'll be subsidized by tax dollars), and they'll offer "coverage" (again, pretty worthless considering the high deductible) for things most people don't need, like abortions, mental health, etc.
Obamacare was a really super terrific idea, guys! :Woohoo:
These are not the same as the "cut rate" policies. If they were the same as the cut rate, they would still be around and people wouldn't be able to bitch about losing their policies.
-
No surprise here, of the uninsured that are purchasing insurance, most are opting for the the cheapest policies - the ones that have astronomical deductibles. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/23/Health-plan-sticker-shock-ahead-for-some-buyers (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/23/Health-plan-sticker-shock-ahead-for-some-buyers)
Just to recap, these are the same types of high deductible policies that Dems were decrying as "cut rate" only a few weeks ago. The only difference is that the new policies are more expensive on the exchanges (though they'll be subsidized by tax dollars), and they'll offer "coverage" (again, pretty worthless considering the high deductible) for things most people don't need, like abortions, mental health, etc.
Obamacare was a really super terrific idea, guys! :Woohoo:
These are not the same as the "cut rate" policies. If they were the same as the cut rate, they would still be around and people wouldn't be able to bitch about losing their policies.
You're right, they aren't the same. They cost more and cover things most people wouldn't choose to have covered by insurance, like contraceptives, mental health, etc.
-
This one's for all the PajamaBoys who won't make it home until tomorrow to have "the talk" with their parents. It's not too late!
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366985/administration-extends-deadline-obamacare-sign-through-christmas-eve-eliana-johnson (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366985/administration-extends-deadline-obamacare-sign-through-christmas-eve-eliana-johnson)
The clock to sign up for Obamacare coverage that begins January 1 was supposed to run out at midnight on Monday, but administration officials have extended it 24 hours, through Christmas eve, according to the Washington Post. The Post reports that they did so without any public announcement of the change:
Over the weekend, government officials and outside IT contractors working on the online marketplace’s computer system made a software change that automatically gives people a Jan. 1 start date for their new coverage as long as they enroll by 11:59 p.m. on Christmas Eve.
Sources told the Post that the 24-hour extension has been built into the online system and is intended as a precaution in the event that the the problem-plagued website sees a surge of traffic from individuals looking to sign up at the last minute, and buckles under the weight.
The extension, said the sources, cannot be overridden by insurance companies if they object to it. It is the latest of several last-minute, ad hoc rule changes issued by the administration, including last week’s announcement that individuals whose insurance plans were canceled may receive an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
That's our Obamacare! Over 3 years to implement it and we're still just makin' this crap up as we go along, by executive fiat! :pbj:
Hurry up everyone, sign up for your new Obama-approved cut rate super high deductible policies!
-
Man, this Obamacare thing really pisses K-S-U-Wildcats! right off.
-
Man, this Obamacare thing really pisses K-S-U-Wildcats! right off.
Just doing laps inside his dome.
-
I mean, I'm not even sure why he's pissed anymore. First I heard arguments about how this is going to ruin the availability of doctors because they will just quit and more people will be insured. Now I'm hearing about how less people are going to be insured and doctors are still going to work, but they aren't going to accept the Obamacare patients, and he's still pissed. There's just no pleasing him.
-
I mean, I'm not even sure why he's pissed anymore. First I heard arguments about how this is going to ruin the availability of doctors because they will just quit and more people will be ensured. Now I'm hearing about how less people are going to be insured and doctors are still going to work, but they aren't going to accept the Obamacare patients, and he's still pissed. There's just no pleasing him.
Breitbart hasn't told him everything is going to be ok yet
-
Brietbart died of a coke induced heart attack. Family values.
-
I mean, I'm not even sure why he's pissed anymore. First I heard arguments about how this is going to ruin the availability of doctors because they will just quit and more people will be insured. Now I'm hearing about how less people are going to be insured and doctors are still going to work, but they aren't going to accept the Obamacare patients, and he's still pissed. There's just no pleasing him.
Nah, I'm not pissed anymore. I was pissed back when it was rammed through on a strictly single party vote with legislative gimmicks, bribes, and lies. I was pissed when John Roberts switched his vote and upheld a law which compels every citizen to purchase a product simply for the privilege of breathing air. Now I just find it hilarious watching the epic failure that is Obamacare explode in the Libtards' faces.
Premiums are rising faster than ever due to guaranteed issue, more people are likely uninsured now than before this turd went into effect, I use "went into effect" loosely since Obama has to keep unilaterally delaying components of his own law, doctors are bailing on Obamacare policies because of the reimbursement rates, vastly more people have signed up for expanded Medicaid coverage than private policies, and those who do sign up for private policies are mostly enrolling in high deductible plans that are next to worthless. The list goes on and on, and the schadenfreude is certainly rich. :lol:
Not only is it funny, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Whereas before I was concerned about what Obamacare would do to our healthcare system, I'm now mostly optimistic that this may actually be a net positive. 2014 is shaping up to be a bloodbath for the Dems, and Obamacare will likely be so neutered as to become a nullity, if it isn't repealed outright.
-
Oh, and I forgot to mention the hypocrisy. Example: Obama couldn't use website to sign up for coverage (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/12/24/obama-enrolls-for-health-coverage-wont-use-it/). :lol: Turns out, not only will Obama not use the Obamacare coverage he signed up for symbolically, he didn't even use the website. Apparently, the website just isn't secure enough for his personal information! :lol: :lol: :lol: Not to worry, it's perfectly safe for the rest of us, though.
-
John Roberts leaving this to the electorate to decide may be a blessing in disquise.
-
Oh, and I forgot to mention the hypocrisy. Example: Obama couldn't use website to sign up for coverage (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/12/24/obama-enrolls-for-health-coverage-wont-use-it/). :lol: Turns out, not only will Obama not use the Obamacare coverage he signed up for symbolically, he didn't even use the website. Apparently, the website just isn't secure enough for his personal information! :lol: :lol: :lol: Not to worry, it's perfectly safe for the rest of us, though.
Yeah, pretty funny "Let them eat cake" moment.
-
The Obama administration is trumpeting that 2.1 million "signed up" for Obamacare by the end of December. It's an abysmal number, considering we're now half-way through open enrollment and, more importantly, this was the deadline for coverage to begin January 1, but how bad is it really?
Well, for starters, the 2.1 million number is phony. The administration refuses to say (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/2-1-million-obamacare-sign-ups-but-progress-not-clear/) how many of those 2.1 million people who have "signed up" have actually paid their first month's premium, and are thereby actually covered. According to insurers, something like 50% (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579290942095319848) have not.
Ok, but let's be generous and say that, what, 1.5 million are now covered? Let's go with 1.5 million.
And then you have the roughly 5 million policies that were cancelled due to Obamacare. So now we're at minus 3.5 million.
And if that weren't bad enough, how many of that 1.5 million are actually people who didn't have insurance before? I mean, I'm assuming that a big chunk of that 1.5 million are the people who had their policies cancelled (which is why I'm surprised the number is so low). Again, the White House refuses to disclose this information.
So we've taxed and spent over a trillion dollars, cancelled coverage for millions, and raised premiums for those who had coverage they were perfectly happy with, all to cover what, 500,000 people so far? Less?
-
The Obama administration is trumpeting that 2.1 million "signed up" for Obamacare by the end of December. It's an abysmal number, considering we're now half-way through open enrollment and, more importantly, this was the deadline for coverage to begin January 1, but how bad is it really?
Well, for starters, the 2.1 million number is phony. The administration refuses to say (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/2-1-million-obamacare-sign-ups-but-progress-not-clear/) how many of those 2.1 million people who have "signed up" have actually paid their first month's premium, and are thereby actually covered. According to insurers, something like 50% (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579290942095319848) have not.
Ok, but let's be generous and say that, what, 1.5 million are now covered? Let's go with 1.5 million.
And then you have the roughly 5 million policies that were cancelled due to Obamacare. So now we're at minus 3.5 million.
And if that weren't bad enough, how many of that 1.5 million are actually people who didn't have insurance before? I mean, I'm assuming that a big chunk of that 1.5 million are the people who had their policies cancelled (which is why I'm surprised the number is so low). Again, the White House refuses to disclose this information.
So we've taxed and spent over a trillion dollars, cancelled coverage for millions, and raised premiums for those who had coverage they were perfectly happy with, all to cover what, 500,000 people so far? Less?
I will answer your questions in exchange for BSFS scoops
-
The Obama administration is trumpeting that 2.1 million "signed up" for Obamacare by the end of December. It's an abysmal number, considering we're now half-way through open enrollment and, more importantly, this was the deadline for coverage to begin January 1, but how bad is it really?
Well, for starters, the 2.1 million number is phony. The administration refuses to say (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/2-1-million-obamacare-sign-ups-but-progress-not-clear/) how many of those 2.1 million people who have "signed up" have actually paid their first month's premium, and are thereby actually covered. According to insurers, something like 50% (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579290942095319848) have not.
Ok, but let's be generous and say that, what, 1.5 million are now covered? Let's go with 1.5 million.
And then you have the roughly 5 million policies that were cancelled due to Obamacare. So now we're at minus 3.5 million.
And if that weren't bad enough, how many of that 1.5 million are actually people who didn't have insurance before? I mean, I'm assuming that a big chunk of that 1.5 million are the people who had their policies cancelled (which is why I'm surprised the number is so low). Again, the White House refuses to disclose this information.
So we've taxed and spent over a trillion dollars, cancelled coverage for millions, and raised premiums for those who had coverage they were perfectly happy with, all to cover what, 500,000 people so far? Less?
The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming the Obamacare exchanges are the only place to go to find insurance.
-
The Obama administration is trumpeting that 2.1 million "signed up" for Obamacare by the end of December. It's an abysmal number, considering we're now half-way through open enrollment and, more importantly, this was the deadline for coverage to begin January 1, but how bad is it really?
Well, for starters, the 2.1 million number is phony. The administration refuses to say (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/2-1-million-obamacare-sign-ups-but-progress-not-clear/) how many of those 2.1 million people who have "signed up" have actually paid their first month's premium, and are thereby actually covered. According to insurers, something like 50% (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579290942095319848) have not.
Ok, but let's be generous and say that, what, 1.5 million are now covered? Let's go with 1.5 million.
And then you have the roughly 5 million policies that were cancelled due to Obamacare. So now we're at minus 3.5 million.
And if that weren't bad enough, how many of that 1.5 million are actually people who didn't have insurance before? I mean, I'm assuming that a big chunk of that 1.5 million are the people who had their policies cancelled (which is why I'm surprised the number is so low). Again, the White House refuses to disclose this information.
So we've taxed and spent over a trillion dollars, cancelled coverage for millions, and raised premiums for those who had coverage they were perfectly happy with, all to cover what, 500,000 people so far? Less?
The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming the Obamacare exchanges are the only place to go to find insurance.
Ah yes, I'm sure there are a huge number of people who are buying insurance for the very first time outside the exchanges, without a subsidy. Please get back to us when have a number on that. Make sure to exclude the unicorns.
-
I will answer your questions in exchange for BSFS scoops
Sorry dude, I got nothing I haven't already shared. It's gonna be awesome when it happens, but sounds like they haven't raised enough money to make a public announcement yet.
-
The Obama administration is trumpeting that 2.1 million "signed up" for Obamacare by the end of December. It's an abysmal number, considering we're now half-way through open enrollment and, more importantly, this was the deadline for coverage to begin January 1, but how bad is it really?
Well, for starters, the 2.1 million number is phony. The administration refuses to say (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/12/2-1-million-obamacare-sign-ups-but-progress-not-clear/) how many of those 2.1 million people who have "signed up" have actually paid their first month's premium, and are thereby actually covered. According to insurers, something like 50% (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579290942095319848) have not.
Ok, but let's be generous and say that, what, 1.5 million are now covered? Let's go with 1.5 million.
And then you have the roughly 5 million policies that were cancelled due to Obamacare. So now we're at minus 3.5 million.
And if that weren't bad enough, how many of that 1.5 million are actually people who didn't have insurance before? I mean, I'm assuming that a big chunk of that 1.5 million are the people who had their policies cancelled (which is why I'm surprised the number is so low). Again, the White House refuses to disclose this information.
So we've taxed and spent over a trillion dollars, cancelled coverage for millions, and raised premiums for those who had coverage they were perfectly happy with, all to cover what, 500,000 people so far? Less?
The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming the Obamacare exchanges are the only place to go to find insurance.
Ah yes, I'm sure there are a huge number of people who are buying insurance for the very first time outside the exchanges, without a subsidy. Please get back to us when have a number on that. Make sure to exclude the unicorns.
I'm sure that there are also plenty of people who had their policy cancelled and just decided to purchase a different policy. I don't know the numbers. I'm sure they aren't as good as the president hoped they would be. I'm not going to sit down and try to do the math using enrollment numbers on the Obamacare website, though. That's just dumb.
-
Megan McArdle is asking the same questions. http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/01/03/3421247/big-questions-lurk-behind-obamacares.html (http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/01/03/3421247/big-questions-lurk-behind-obamacares.html)
How many will pay? Jon Kingsdale, who oversaw the implementation of the Massachusetts exchange from 2006 to 2010, wrote in November that “Tracking billing and collections was a much bigger challenge than getting our Web site to work.” Some people will never pay their first month’s premium; others will stop paying quickly thereafter. We won’t really know how many gained insurance through the exchanges for a year or so.
How many of the people buying insurance on the exchanges already had insurance? To state the obvious, few people would have supported a radical overhaul of the individual insurance market if they had thought most of the people who bought insurance through the new exchanges would be folks who already had insurance. Perhaps we’d have done a Medicaid expansion, but not a redo of the private insurance market. We don’t know yet whether most of the 2 million enrollees were already insured, or represent uninsured people who got new insurance, and probably won’t for a while. Which brings me to the next thing we need to know:
How many people who lost insurance thanks to Obamacare mandates renewed policies outside of the exchanges, or obtained insurance elsewhere? Two million is a high number compared with the figures for October and November. But it is a low number compared with the number of people who lost their individual market policies because those policies weren’t in compliance. And we would have expected all those people – estimated to be somewhere in the range of 5 million – to buy new policies by the end of December. So did they get insurance directly through their insurer, or perhaps go on a spouse’s employer policy? Or did they drop insurance entirely?
One of the hurdles to figuring this stuff out is that I don't think the government collects this information. If I were skeptical, I might suspect that government doesn't want to know this information.
-
Megan McArdle is asking the same questions. http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/01/03/3421247/big-questions-lurk-behind-obamacares.html (http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/01/03/3421247/big-questions-lurk-behind-obamacares.html)
How many will pay? Jon Kingsdale, who oversaw the implementation of the Massachusetts exchange from 2006 to 2010, wrote in November that “Tracking billing and collections was a much bigger challenge than getting our Web site to work.” Some people will never pay their first month’s premium; others will stop paying quickly thereafter. We won’t really know how many gained insurance through the exchanges for a year or so.
How many of the people buying insurance on the exchanges already had insurance? To state the obvious, few people would have supported a radical overhaul of the individual insurance market if they had thought most of the people who bought insurance through the new exchanges would be folks who already had insurance. Perhaps we’d have done a Medicaid expansion, but not a redo of the private insurance market. We don’t know yet whether most of the 2 million enrollees were already insured, or represent uninsured people who got new insurance, and probably won’t for a while. Which brings me to the next thing we need to know:
How many people who lost insurance thanks to Obamacare mandates renewed policies outside of the exchanges, or obtained insurance elsewhere? Two million is a high number compared with the figures for October and November. But it is a low number compared with the number of people who lost their individual market policies because those policies weren’t in compliance. And we would have expected all those people – estimated to be somewhere in the range of 5 million – to buy new policies by the end of December. So did they get insurance directly through their insurer, or perhaps go on a spouse’s employer policy? Or did they drop insurance entirely?
One of the hurdles to figuring this stuff out is that I don't think the government collects this information. If I were skeptical, I might suspect that government doesn't want to know this information.
Not to be argumentative, but the IRS does collect/report the amount of money the employer contributed to employee health care. I'm sure they could use that data to answer some of these questions.
-
Megan McArdle is asking the same questions. http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/01/03/3421247/big-questions-lurk-behind-obamacares.html (http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2014/01/03/3421247/big-questions-lurk-behind-obamacares.html)
How many will pay? Jon Kingsdale, who oversaw the implementation of the Massachusetts exchange from 2006 to 2010, wrote in November that “Tracking billing and collections was a much bigger challenge than getting our Web site to work.” Some people will never pay their first month’s premium; others will stop paying quickly thereafter. We won’t really know how many gained insurance through the exchanges for a year or so.
How many of the people buying insurance on the exchanges already had insurance? To state the obvious, few people would have supported a radical overhaul of the individual insurance market if they had thought most of the people who bought insurance through the new exchanges would be folks who already had insurance. Perhaps we’d have done a Medicaid expansion, but not a redo of the private insurance market. We don’t know yet whether most of the 2 million enrollees were already insured, or represent uninsured people who got new insurance, and probably won’t for a while. Which brings me to the next thing we need to know:
How many people who lost insurance thanks to Obamacare mandates renewed policies outside of the exchanges, or obtained insurance elsewhere? Two million is a high number compared with the figures for October and November. But it is a low number compared with the number of people who lost their individual market policies because those policies weren’t in compliance. And we would have expected all those people – estimated to be somewhere in the range of 5 million – to buy new policies by the end of December. So did they get insurance directly through their insurer, or perhaps go on a spouse’s employer policy? Or did they drop insurance entirely?
One of the hurdles to figuring this stuff out is that I don't think the government collects this information. If I were skeptical, I might suspect that government doesn't want to know this information.
Not to be argumentative, but the IRS does collect/report the amount of money the employer contributed to employee health care. I'm sure they could use that data to answer some of these questions.
Not sure how that would help answer these questions, but you make a good point. The NSA probably collects all this information and more. They probably have an entire room of servers dedicated to recording and cataloging all the phone calls, texts, tweets, etc. about losing or gaining health insurance. In the interest of national security, however, they won't share that info.
-
Krauthammer wants to go nuclear. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-stop-the-bailout-now/2014/01/02/6b3087a2-73d7-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-stop-the-bailout-now/2014/01/02/6b3087a2-73d7-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html)
First order of business for the returning Congress: The No Bailout for Insurance Companies Act of 2014.
Make it one line long: “Sections 1341 and 1342 of the Affordable Care Act are hereby repealed.”
End of bill. End of bailout. End of story.
Why do we need it? On Dec. 18, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers was asked what was the administration’s Plan B if, because of adverse selection (enrolling too few young and healthies), the insurance companies face financial difficulty.
Jason Furman wouldn’t bite. “There’s a Plan A,” he replied. Enroll the young.
But of course there’s a Plan B. It’s a government bailout.
Administration officials can’t say it for political reasons. And they don’t have to say it because it’s already in the Affordable Care Act, buried deep.
First, Section 1341, the “reinsurance” fund collected from insurers and self-insuring employers at a nifty $63 a head. (Who do you think the cost is passed on to?) This yields about $20 billion over three years to cover losses.
Then there is Section 1342, the “risk corridor” provision that mandates a major taxpayer payout covering up to 80 percent of insurance-company losses.
Never heard of these? That’s the beauty of passing a bill of such monstrous length. You can insert a chicken soup recipe and no one will notice.
Nancy Pelosi was right: We’d have to pass the damn thing to know what’s in it. Well, now we have and now we know.
The whole scheme was risky enough to begin with — getting enough enrollees and making sure 40 percent were young and healthy. Obamacare is already far behind its own enrollment estimates. But things have gotten worse. The administration has been changing the rules repeatedly — with every scrimmage-line audible raising costs and diminishing revenue.
First, it postponed the employer mandate. Then it exempted from the individual mandate people whose policies were canceled (by Obamacare). And for those who did join the exchanges, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is “strongly encouraging” insurers — during the “transition” — to cover doctors and drugs not included in their clients’ plans.
The insurers were stunned. Told to give free coverage. Deprived of their best customers. Forced to offer stripped-down “catastrophic” plans to people age 30 and over (contrary to the law). These dictates, complained an insurance industry spokesman, could “destabilize” the insurance market.
Translation: How are we going to survive this? Shrinking revenues and rising costs could bring on the “death spiral” — an unbalanced patient pool forcing huge premium increases (to restore revenue) that would further unbalance the patient pool as the young and healthy drop out.
End result? Insolvency — before which the insurance companies will pull out of Obamacare.
Solution? A huge government bailout. It’s Obamacare’s escape hatch. And — surprise, surprise — it’s already baked into the law.
Which is why the GOP needs to act. Obamacare is a Rube Goldberg machine with hundreds of moving parts. Without viable insurance companies doing the work, it falls apart. No bailout, no Obamacare.
Such a bill would be overwhelmingly popular because Americans hate fat-cat bailouts of any kind. Why should their tax dollars be spent not only saving giant insurers but also rescuing this unworkable, unbalanced, unstable, unpopular money-pit of a health-care scheme?
The GOP House should pass it and send it to Harry Reid’s Democratic Senate. Democrats know it could be fatal for Obamacare. The only alternative would be single-payer. And try selling that to the country after the spectacularly incompetent launch of — and subsequent widespread disaffection with — mere semi-nationalization.
Do you really think vulnerable Democrats up for reelection will vote for a bailout? And who better to slay Obamacare than a Democratic Senate — liberalism repudiating its most important creation of the last 50 years.
Want to be even bolder? Attach the anti-bailout bill to the debt ceiling. That and nothing else. Dare the president to stand up and say: “I’m willing to let the country default in order to preserve a massive bailout for insurance companies.”
In the past, Republicans made unrealistic and unpopular debt-ceiling demands — and lost badly. They learned their lesson. Last year, Republicans presented one simple unassailable debt-ceiling demand — that the Senate pass its first budget in four years.
Who could argue with that? The Senate capitulated within two days.
Who can argue with no bailout? Let the Senate Democrats decide: Support the bailout and lose the Senate. Or oppose the bailout and bury Obamacare.
Happy New Year.
Drops mic. CK Out.
-
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-healthcare-spending-growth-remains-low-20140106,0,610974.story
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-06/why-u-dot-s-dot-health-spending-has-slowed-down
:party:
-
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-healthcare-spending-growth-remains-low-20140106,0,610974.story
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-06/why-u-dot-s-dot-health-spending-has-slowed-down
:party:
Low mortgage rates and inflation, the silver lining to a shitty economy.
The moderation since the recession ended has little to do with the Affordable Care Act, which passed after the slowdown was already under way, and more to do with a stunted economic recovery and stalled job growth
Or maybe ObamaCare is stalling the economy and thereby restraining healthcare inflation?
-
Krauthammer's idea is gaining traction, and insurers are freaking out that their slushfund might dry up and they'll be left with the tab for guaranteed issue. See, ObamaCare only "works" if the government continues to funnel more and more money to the insurers to fund the increasingly sick and risky pools. It's just Medicaid by other means.
BCBS even issued talking points (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/10/blue-cross-blue-shield-if-republicans-kill-a-bailout-for-insurers-under-obamacare-itll-lead-to-single-payer/)! :lol:
-
http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/
-
The insurance bailout is even worse than initially thought. Credit Batshit Crazy Pelosi - we certainly are finding out what's in Obamacare now that we've passed it. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bailing-out-health-insurers-and-helping-obamacare_774167.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/bailing-out-health-insurers-and-helping-obamacare_774167.html)
Robert Laszewski—a prominent consultant to health insurance companies—recently wrote in a remarkably candid blog post that, while Obamacare is almost certain to cause insurance costs to skyrocket even higher than it already has, “insurers won’t be losing a lot of sleep over it.” How can this be? Because insurance companies won’t bear the cost of their own losses—at least not more than about a quarter of them. The other three-quarters will be borne by American taxpayers.
For some reason, President Obama hasn’t talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation. Indeed, it’s bad enough that Obamacare is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00 (that’s $1.071 trillion) over the next decade (2014 to 2023) from American taxpayers, through Washington, to health insurance companies. It’s even worse that Obamacare is trying to coerce Americans into buying those same insurers’ product (although there are escape routes). It’s almost unbelievable that it will also subsidize those same insurers’ losses.
But that’s exactly what it will do—unless Republicans take action. As Laszewski explains, Obamacare contains a “Reinsurance Program that caps big claim costs for insurers (individual plans only).” He writes that “in 2014, 80% of individual costs between $45,000 and $250,000 are paid by the government [read: by taxpayers], for example.”
In other words, insurance purchased through Obamacare’s government-run exchanges isn’t even full-fledged private insurance; rather, it’s a sort of private-public hybrid. Private insurance companies pay for costs below $45,000, then taxpayers generously pick up the tab—a tab that their president hasn’t ever bothered to tell them he has opened up on their behalf—for four-fifths of the next $200,000-plus worth of costs. In this way, and so many others, Obamacare takes a major step toward the government monopoly over American medicine (“single payer”) that liberals drool about in their sleep.
-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2014/01/15/jimmy-kimmel-savages-obamacare-and-uninformed-young-people-who-suppor (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2014/01/15/jimmy-kimmel-savages-obamacare-and-uninformed-young-people-who-suppor)
-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2014/01/15/jimmy-kimmel-savages-obamacare-and-uninformed-young-people-who-suppor (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2014/01/15/jimmy-kimmel-savages-obamacare-and-uninformed-young-people-who-suppor)
Love the couple of paragraphs at the end of the article that start with "imagine if news outlets other than conservative ones explained that..."
Imagine if conservatives had any ability to communicate with anyone other than those who already and whole-heartedly agree with them.
-
Dax, are you saying that the Dem's/obama's message is being communicated only via news outlets like msnbc? Do you disagree that the Dem's/obama's message has been better communicated than that of the opposition? It's just the stupid electorate, right?
-
I'm talking about the message about obamacare that was widely supported by the people who apparently don't like now that it is implemented.
I agree that the obamacare message is now being widely criticized, but is the opposition gaining any momentum on its own?
-
Dax, are you saying that the Dem's/obama's message is being communicated only via news outlets like msnbc? Do you disagree that the Dem's/obama's message has been better communicated than that of the opposition? It's just the stupid electorate, right?
I would hazard a guess that 99.99% of the electorate receives their information from some sort of media, including media interviews, as opposed to a phone call or meeting with the politicians themselves.
Liberal bias in the media is pervasive. It's everything from an interviewer avoiding or glossing over potentially damaging subjects, taking answers at face value rather than asking challenging follow-up questions (some of that is bias, most is probably just stupidity), the way headlines are worded (compare, for example, the way "Bridgegate" has been reported versus the much worse IRS targeting of conservative groups (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368154/obama-and-christie-scandals-andrew-stiles)), and simply choosing what stories to cover and how much to cover them (again, compare coverage of Bridgegate, the closing of a bridge to snarl up traffic, to the Obama admin's closing of roads, scenic views, and monuments during the government shutdown).
Thus, the MSM generally provides the Dems with great assistance in communicating their message. Outlets such as FoxNews, talk radio, blogs, and paid political advertising have helped level the playing field somewhat, but the Dems still enjoy a sizable advantage in media propagandizing.
And for the most part, the MSM absolutely turned a blind eye to criticisms of Obamacare in the run-up to passage.
-
You would think that a large group of career politicians with billions in donations could figure out a solution to how unfairly they are being treated. If the electorate is so stupid and blindly follows any philosophies put I front of them, it seems like that would be advantageous to such a group of politicians.
Seems to me that the GOP needs to update its play book.
-
You would think that a large group of career politicians with billions in donations could figure out a solution to how unfairly they are being treated. If the electorate is so stupid and blindly follows any philosophies put I front of them, it seems like that would be advantageous to such a group of politicians.
Seems to me that the GOP needs to update its play book.
I'm not sure how this is relevant to the fact that Obamacare is a horrible piece of legislation that will cost trillions of tax dollars, will make premiums worse, not better (except for those receiving subsidies), will likely reduce access to healthcare as more and more doctors and hospitals balk at Medicaid-style reimbursement rates, and may even result in a net loss of those with insurance.
The Kimmel thing was interesting. It wasn't just the standard Leno-style short gags. Kimmel went on for about 15-20 seconds at a time with serous criticisms of the law before getting to the "punchline." If Kimmel gets it, maybe his audience will start to get it.
-
It's relevant because if republican politicians could figure out how to communicate with the electorate, then the Dem's would never have tried to ram-rod obamacare. Obama spent 4 plus years running roughshod because his opposition is still using the communication strategies of the Nixon campaign (minus the break-ins I assume) and obamacare is what we ended up with.
-
It's relevant because if republican politicians could figure out how to communicate with the electorate, then the Dem's would never have tried to ram-rod obamacare. Obama spent 4 plus years running roughshod because his opposition is still using the communication strategies of the Nixon campaign (minus the break-ins I assume) and obamacare is what we ended up with.
I isn't the republican electorate that need to receive the message, it's the democrats. If they don't watch Fox, they don't get the information the republicans are putting out. Republicans still watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Fox, but most democrats avoid Fox because it does report the other side and it angers them. Major outlets filter through liberal lenses.
-
It's relevant because if republican politicians could figure out how to communicate with the electorate, then the Dem's would never have tried to ram-rod obamacare. Obama spent 4 plus years running roughshod because his opposition is still using the communication strategies of the Nixon campaign (minus the break-ins I assume) and obamacare is what we ended up with.
I isn't the republican electorate that need to receive the message, it's the democrats. If they don't watch Fox, they don't get the information the republicans are putting out. Republicans still watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Fox, but most democrats avoid Fox because it does report the other side and it angers them. Major outlets filter through liberal lenses.
So I guess you agree with my initial point that conservatives have no idea how to communicate with anyone who doesn't already agree with them.
-
It's really sad how many neocons believe this liberal media agenda myth thing.
-
It's really sad how many neocons believe this liberal media agenda myth thing.
You are a naive young man, seven.
-
It's relevant because if republican politicians could figure out how to communicate with the electorate, then the Dem's would never have tried to ram-rod obamacare. Obama spent 4 plus years running roughshod because his opposition is still using the communication strategies of the Nixon campaign (minus the break-ins I assume) and obamacare is what we ended up with.
I isn't the republican electorate that need to receive the message, it's the democrats. If they don't watch Fox, they don't get the information the republicans are putting out. Republicans still watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Fox, but most democrats avoid Fox because it does report the other side and it angers them. Major outlets filter through liberal lenses.
So I guess you agree with my initial point that conservatives have no idea how to communicate with anyone who doesn't already agree with them.
Maybe they could drop leaflets from bombers over the liberal strongholds.
-
It's relevant because if republican politicians could figure out how to communicate with the electorate, then the Dem's would never have tried to ram-rod obamacare. Obama spent 4 plus years running roughshod because his opposition is still using the communication strategies of the Nixon campaign (minus the break-ins I assume) and obamacare is what we ended up with.
I isn't the republican electorate that need to receive the message, it's the democrats. If they don't watch Fox, they don't get the information the republicans are putting out. Republicans still watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Fox, but most democrats avoid Fox because it does report the other side and it angers them. Major outlets filter through liberal lenses.
So I guess you agree with my initial point that conservatives have no idea how to communicate with anyone who doesn't already agree with them.
Maybe they could drop leaflets from bombers over the liberal strongholds.
So, the Republicans are to blame for Obamacare because their "outdated communications" just couldn't overcome liberal media bias. :lol:
Hey, don't complain Republicans - it's your own darn fault for not stopping Obama from ramming this law through! :lol: :lol:
-
It's relevant because if republican politicians could figure out how to communicate with the electorate, then the Dem's would never have tried to ram-rod obamacare. Obama spent 4 plus years running roughshod because his opposition is still using the communication strategies of the Nixon campaign (minus the break-ins I assume) and obamacare is what we ended up with.
I isn't the republican electorate that need to receive the message, it's the democrats. If they don't watch Fox, they don't get the information the republicans are putting out. Republicans still watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Fox, but most democrats avoid Fox because it does report the other side and it angers them. Major outlets filter through liberal lenses.
So I guess you agree with my initial point that conservatives have no idea how to communicate with anyone who doesn't already agree with them.
Maybe they could drop leaflets from bombers over the liberal strongholds.
You should google "obamacare" and you will find that most of the hits on the first page are links to Obama administration websites or articles with headlines that are supportive of obamacare (like magic Johnson supports obamacare with magic's picture right next to it). There are only a couple of headlines on the first page that are negative about obamacare, and this is after a couple months of endless bad news about obamacare.
The "libtards" understand how public opinions are formed.
-
Liberal google bias! :shakesfist:
-
It's relevant because if republican politicians could figure out how to communicate with the electorate, then the Dem's would never have tried to ram-rod obamacare. Obama spent 4 plus years running roughshod because his opposition is still using the communication strategies of the Nixon campaign (minus the break-ins I assume) and obamacare is what we ended up with.
I isn't the republican electorate that need to receive the message, it's the democrats. If they don't watch Fox, they don't get the information the republicans are putting out. Republicans still watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Fox, but most democrats avoid Fox because it does report the other side and it angers them. Major outlets filter through liberal lenses.
So I guess you agree with my initial point that conservatives have no idea how to communicate with anyone who doesn't already agree with them.
Maybe they could drop leaflets from bombers over the liberal strongholds.
You should google "obamacare" and you will find that most of the hits on the first page are links to Obama administration websites or articles with headlines that are supportive of obamacare (like magic Johnson supports obamacare with magic's picture right next to it). There are only a couple of headlines on the first page that are negative about obamacare, and this is after a couple months of endless bad news about obamacare.
The "libtards" understand how public opinions are formed.
This is because the problems aren't covered as much by the large media outlets like AP or ABC, NBC, etc. Google "problems with obamacare" and you get results from overseas and sites like WND and the Blaze.
WE all know there are HUGE problems with obamacare, but the traffic jam is getting all of the large media coverage. It's a choice made by the media outlets, and they want to please Obama.
-
It's relevant because if republican politicians could figure out how to communicate with the electorate, then the Dem's would never have tried to ram-rod obamacare. Obama spent 4 plus years running roughshod because his opposition is still using the communication strategies of the Nixon campaign (minus the break-ins I assume) and obamacare is what we ended up with.
I isn't the republican electorate that need to receive the message, it's the democrats. If they don't watch Fox, they don't get the information the republicans are putting out. Republicans still watch NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and Fox, but most democrats avoid Fox because it does report the other side and it angers them. Major outlets filter through liberal lenses.
So I guess you agree with my initial point that conservatives have no idea how to communicate with anyone who doesn't already agree with them.
Maybe they could drop leaflets from bombers over the liberal strongholds.
So, the Republicans are to blame for Obamacare because their "outdated communications" just couldn't overcome liberal media bias. :lol:
Hey, don't complain Republicans - it's your own darn fault for not stopping Obama from ramming this law through! :lol: :lol:
I would say it is your own damn fault for getting rolled in the elections.
-
this is likely why 4 Dems in Congress have decided to "retire".
you're on to something, dax.
-
This is because the problems aren't covered as much by the large media outlets like AP or ABC, NBC, etc. Google "problems with obamacare" and you get results from overseas and sites like WND and the Blaze.
https://www.google.com/search?q=problems+with+obamacare&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
:dunno:
-
John dougie, LBj isn't in office anymore. A large portion of the electorate gets its info at places other than AP and Nbc. They get it from things like googling obamacare. I'm sure there are tons of anti obamacare websites out there but a google search doesn't turn up a single one on the first page. You'd barely know that there was even any problems with obamacare if you're doing a casual search. You get exactly what the Dem's want you to get because they know how Americans live in 2014.
-
John dougie, LBj isn't in office anymore. A large portion of the electorate gets its info at places other than AP and Nbc. They get it from things like googling obamacare. I'm sure there are tons of anti obamacare websites out there but a google search doesn't turn up a single one on the first page. You'd barely know that there was even any problems with obamacare if you're doing a casual search. You get exactly what the Dem's want you to get because they know how Americans live in 2014.
Thanks for proving my point. The places where most people get there news are no longer non-partisan news outlets, they are run by democrats.
By the way, I agree that the republicans have a difficult time getting their message out. See above.
-
:cheers: I guess we just disagree about whose fault it is that repubs can't convey their message. I just have a hard time blaming Dem's for repubs being really bad a politics.
-
John dougie, LBj isn't in office anymore. A large portion of the electorate gets its info at places other than AP and Nbc. They get it from things like googling obamacare. I'm sure there are tons of anti obamacare websites out there but a google search doesn't turn up a single one on the first page. You'd barely know that there was even any problems with obamacare if you're doing a casual search. You get exactly what the Dem's want you to get because they know how Americans live in 2014.
Thanks for proving my point. The places where most people get there news are no longer non-partisan news outlets, they are run by democrats.
By the way, I agree that the republicans have a difficult time getting their message out. See above.
please list these very popular news outlets run by democrats
-
All over the news around here, up for re-election Kay Hagan (NC-D) . . . no where to be found on Obama's visit to Durham yesterday.
Only the super left wingers are going to want anything to do Obama this time around, Gallop has him in the 30's this week :sdeek:
John dougie, LBj isn't in office anymore. A large portion of the electorate gets its info at places other than AP and Nbc. They get it from things like googling obamacare. I'm sure there are tons of anti obamacare websites out there but a google search doesn't turn up a single one on the first page. You'd barely know that there was even any problems with obamacare if you're doing a casual search. You get exactly what the Dem's want you to get because they know how Americans live in 2014.
Thanks for proving my point. The places where most people get there news are no longer non-partisan news outlets, they are run by democrats.
By the way, I agree that the republicans have a difficult time getting their message out. See above.
please list these very popular news outlets run by democrats
you don't need to take my word for it. Just watch any national newscast that's not on FNC. If they lead with the Christie traffic jam, you have your answer.
-
The rats are fleeing... And what rats they are. http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/368627/dem-super-pac-slams-obamacare-ad-andrew-johnson (http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/368627/dem-super-pac-slams-obamacare-ad-andrew-johnson)
-
The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.
-
The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.
Obamacare is still a mystery, even to Obama.
-
The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.
What a pathetic excuse. You realize you're essentially whining "well, they shoulda done a better job telling me why Obamacare sucked so bad!" Waa Waa Waa. :bawl:
Here's an idea: how about you do a little reading and, better yet, use some common sense?
And don't tell me you're just talking about the masses of uninformed dumshits. You voted for Obama. You are one of those uninformed dumbshits.
-
The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.
What a pathetic excuse. You realize you're essentially whining "well, they shoulda done a better job telling me why Obamacare sucked so bad!" Waa Waa Waa. :bawl:
Here's an idea: how about you do a little reading and, better yet, use some common sense?
And don't tell me you're just talking about the masses of uninformed dumshits. You voted for Obama. You are one of those uninformed dumbshits.
If the guy running for election doesn't know more about the law he is promising to repeal, he isn't getting voted in. That should be pretty fundamental. I don't have time to read the ACA cover to cover.
-
The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.
What a pathetic excuse. You realize you're essentially whining "well, they shoulda done a better job telling me why Obamacare sucked so bad!" Waa Waa Waa. :bawl:
Here's an idea: how about you do a little reading and, better yet, use some common sense?
And don't tell me you're just talking about the masses of uninformed dumshits. You voted for Obama. You are one of those uninformed dumbshits.
If the guy running for election doesn't know more about the law he is promising to repeal, he isn't getting voted in. That should be pretty fundamental. I don't have time to read the ACA cover to cover.
:bawl: :bawl: The Republicans shoulda done a better job convincing me! :bawl: :bawl:
-
The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.
What a pathetic excuse. You realize you're essentially whining "well, they shoulda done a better job telling me why Obamacare sucked so bad!" Waa Waa Waa. :bawl:
Here's an idea: how about you do a little reading and, better yet, use some common sense?
And don't tell me you're just talking about the masses of uninformed dumshits. You voted for Obama. You are one of those uninformed dumbshits.
If the guy running for election doesn't know more about the law he is promising to repeal, he isn't getting voted in. That should be pretty fundamental. I don't have time to read the ACA cover to cover.
The fact that nobody knows how it will affect the entire economy should be enough reason to repeal it and start over in smaller steps.
-
The republicans had an entire presidential election to detail exactly why Obamacare is a bad thing that needs to be repealed. They were covered by every single media outlet, major or otherwise, and to me, they really did a great job getting across the message that "we need to repeal Obamacare", but then they proceeded to make it very clear that none of the presidential candidates really knew enough about the law to know why we need to repeal it. The problem has less to do with the republican party than it does with the people that they put on the national stage.
What a pathetic excuse. You realize you're essentially whining "well, they shoulda done a better job telling me why Obamacare sucked so bad!" Waa Waa Waa. :bawl:
Here's an idea: how about you do a little reading and, better yet, use some common sense?
And don't tell me you're just talking about the masses of uninformed dumshits. You voted for Obama. You are one of those uninformed dumbshits.
I didn't vote for Obama, actually. I voted for change. You voted for the guy who wrote Obamacare.
-
There are people who don't think major media is left-biased???
:ROFL:
-
Well, the government isn't collecting this information (surprise, surprise), but insurers are figuring it themselves by conducting surveys. Apparently, of the roughly 1-2 million people who have purchased insurance on the exchanges, only about 1/3 were previously uninsured (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/01/18/coverage-expansion-fail-less-than-one-third-of-obamacare-exchange-enrollees-were-previously-uninsured/). So much for expanding coverage.
-
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/moodys-slashes-outlook-on-insurers-cites-obamacare-uncertainty/article/2542744 (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/moodys-slashes-outlook-on-insurers-cites-obamacare-uncertainty/article/2542744)
Makes sense.
-
Lost my Dr. last week. Pretty :curse: . They are going to an all monthly payment plan and are going to stop taking insurance all together. Pretty good deal if I didn't have elite insurance.
-
Lost my Dr. last week. Pretty :curse: . They are going to an all monthly payment plan and are going to stop taking insurance all together. Pretty good deal if I didn't have elite insurance.
This will probably be the model for good doctors in private practice. People with insurance will be seeing nurse practitioners, and then possibly a doctor if the nurse decides they should.
-
Children's hospitals already getting denials or no response on requests for specialized treatment for children.
Some of those hospitals are doing the procedures anyway, but say they can't continue at the current pace.
Well yeah, Obama hates all children.
-
Yup, makes sense. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/cbo-obamacare-push-2m-workers-out-labor-market/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/cbo-obamacare-push-2m-workers-out-labor-market/)
Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.
That’s a major jump in the nonpartisan budget agency’s projections and it suggests the health care law’s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work.
“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook.
-
Yup, makes sense. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/cbo-obamacare-push-2m-workers-out-labor-market/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/cbo-obamacare-push-2m-workers-out-labor-market/)
Obamacare will push the equivalent of about 2 million workers out of the labor market by 2017 as employees decide either to work fewer hours or drop out altogether, according to the latest estimates Tuesday from the Congressional Budget Office.
That’s a major jump in the nonpartisan budget agency’s projections and it suggests the health care law’s incentives are driving businesses and people to choose government-sponsored benefits rather than work.
“CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 to 2 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive,” CBO analysts wrote in their new economic outlook.
People leaving the workforce voluntarily is actually a good thing.
-
:lol: Folks, I give you the Democrat Party. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/09/Rep-Ellison-On-Obamacare-Related-Job-Losses-Americans-Work-Too-Much-Anyway (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/09/Rep-Ellison-On-Obamacare-Related-Job-Losses-Americans-Work-Too-Much-Anyway) :lol:
-
:lol:
What a dolt!
-
Delayed again. It's a like watching a slow motion train wreck that keeps slowing down, while all the while the conductor keeps saying that everything is fine!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-delays-health-insurance-mandate-for-medium-sized-employers-until-2016/2014/02/10/ade6b344-9279-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/white-house-delays-health-insurance-mandate-for-medium-sized-employers-until-2016/2014/02/10/ade6b344-9279-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html)
The Obama administration announced Monday it would give medium-sized employers an extra year, until 2016, before they must offer health insurance to their full-time workers. Firms with at least 100 employees will have to start offering this coverage in 2015.
By offering an unexpected grace period to businesses with between 50 and 99 employees, administration officials are hoping to defuse another potential controversy involving the 2010 health-care law, which has become central to Republicans’ campaign to make political gains in this year’s midterm election.
Even the nation’s largest employers got a significant concession: They can avoid a fine by offering coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent starting in 2016. Under an earlier proposal, employers with at least 50 employees would have been required to offer insurance, beginning 2015, to 95 percent of those who work 30 hours or more a week, along with their dependents.
The regulation finalized by the Treasury Department involves one of the biggest issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act: how the law’s employer mandate plays out in practice. The mandate has enormous ramifications for how businesses classify their employees and how much these men and women work.
Initially, these requirements — which affect firms employing 72 percent of all Americans — were supposed to take effect this year, at the same time that most individuals faced a new obligation to obtain health insurance or risk a tax penalty. Last July, the administration announced it would delay the regulation for a year after many employers and some unions complained about the law’s reporting requirements and classification system for workers.
-
They will delay it until after the elections in 2016...
-
Lotta great gifs here. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/02/11/which-product-was-more-dishonestly-marketed-amazing-live-sea-monkeys-or-barack-obama/ (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/02/11/which-product-was-more-dishonestly-marketed-amazing-live-sea-monkeys-or-barack-obama/) :lol:
-
So, since B.O. seems to thinks its okay to unilaterally delay the effective dates of Obamacare and also selectively enforces other laws (illegal aliens) couldn't a Republican president ostensibly "repeal" the law by refusing to enforce it?
Seems like a perverse use of the executive.
-
have a bro that is an eyeball poker/dr. Just had a con ed class and the last day was about new regs coming soon. He basically is going to have to hire someone to enter all of the additional codes required. Even then, he knows that there are so many, the orders will get rejected anyway and he will end up getting paid less because of how long everything took. He's pretty happy he is 200k in debt for eyeball Dr. school and now he will have to pay someone a lot of what he makes just to process insurance.
-
have a bro that is an eyeball poker/dr. Just had a con ed class and the last day was about new regs coming soon. He basically is going to have to hire someone to enter all of the additional codes required. Even then, he knows that there are so many, the orders will get rejected anyway and he will end up getting paid less because of how long everything took. He's pretty happy he is 200k in debt for eyeball Dr. school and now he will have to pay someone a lot of what he makes just to process insurance.
Are you talking about ICD-10 codes? Yeah there are a lot more codes, but it will be more accurate billing for everyone. Also I doubt your bro would be doing his own coding whether or not these codes were put into place. It doesn't make sense to have a Dr do work that you can pay someone $20/hour to do :dunno:
-
doctors sound very lazy.
-
:Carl:
have a bro that is an eyeball poker/dr. Just had a con ed class and the last day was about new regs coming soon. He basically is going to have to hire someone to enter all of the additional codes required. Even then, he knows that there are so many, the orders will get rejected anyway and he will end up getting paid less because of how long everything took. He's pretty happy he is 200k in debt for eyeball Dr. school and now he will have to pay someone a lot of what he makes just to process insurance.
Maybe he should just set up shop in Canada where he could just send his invoices in and get full payment back without all the overhead and headache
-
Reid basically calls everyone liars:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/27/reid-hammered-by-gop-after-claiming-all-obamacare-horror-stories-untrue/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/26/harry-reid-all-obamacare-horror-stories-are-untrue/
-
Reid basically calls everyone liars:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/27/reid-hammered-by-gop-after-claiming-all-obamacare-horror-stories-untrue/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/26/harry-reid-all-obamacare-horror-stories-are-untrue/
JFC, :facepalm: how the eff this guy hasn't been chased out of the senate is beyond me. Really says a lot about the dems that they continue to elect this guy majority leader.
-
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeed
-
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeed
Maybe I'm not understanding this, but are the two choices (1) Obamacare will be repealed outright, or (2) at least some aspects of Obamacare will remain, in some form? I'd bet heavily on the latter, too, but how does that indicate "success?" How is "success" measured?
By the end of open enrollment for this year (supposedly at end of March, but I'm betting Obama will unilaterally extend that deadline, too), I predict there will be about 5.5 million enrollees in an exchange policy, about 4 million of which will be real (the rest being duplicates or other "enrollments" that were never actually purchased by paying the premium). This will be a little over half the number that the CBO predicted the exchanges would need to be fiscally viable.
But it will actually be worse, because of that 4 million, probably only about 20% of enrollees will be the key "under 30" demographic - while the CBO predicted the exchanges need about twice that number for the exchanges to remain viable. Furthermore, I'm guessing that a good 75% of that 4 million already had insurance before, so that means that, best case scenario, Obamacare just gave those people a slightly cheaper, more comprehensive plan at taxpayer expense. In many cases however (most?), these policies are actually more "expensive" due to the ridiculous deductibles of the "bronze" and "silver" level plans many of these folks are buying.
So, we'll use the "risk corridors" and other Obamacare slush funds to funnel tax dollars to bail out the insurers, for a while.
Meanwhile, over 5 million people had their private policies cancelled (err, "not renewed") due to Obamacare, and Obama has unilaterally pushed back the employer mandate back another year, past the elections. I wonder why? :dunno: Numerous hospitals and doctors are refusing Obamacare policies. I wonder why? :dunno:
So "success?" :lol:
-
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeed
Yeah, my company's #1 Obamacare client received $30M in additional funding in January based on their initial enrollment numbers. It's a brand new health insurance company that started in New York and they'll be expanding into three more states next year.
-
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeed
Maybe I'm not understanding this, but are the two choices (1) Obamacare will be repealed outright, or (2) at least some aspects of Obamacare will remain, in some form? I'd bet heavily on the latter, too, but how does that indicate "success?" How is "success" measured?
By the end of open enrollment for this year (supposedly at end of March, but I'm betting Obama will unilaterally extend that deadline, too), I predict there will be about 5.5 million enrollees in an exchange policy, about 4 million of which will be real (the rest being duplicates or other "enrollments" that were never actually purchased by paying the premium). This will be a little over half the number that the CBO predicted the exchanges would need to be fiscally viable.
But it will actually be worse, because of that 4 million, probably only about 20% of enrollees will be the key "under 30" demographic - while the CBO predicted the exchanges need about twice that number for the exchanges to remain viable. Furthermore, I'm guessing that a good 75% of that 4 million already had insurance before, so that means that, best case scenario, Obamacare just gave those people a slightly cheaper, more comprehensive plan at taxpayer expense. In many cases however (most?), these policies are actually more "expensive" due to the ridiculous deductibles of the "bronze" and "silver" level plans many of these folks are buying.
So, we'll use the "risk corridors" and other Obamacare slush funds to funnel tax dollars to bail out the insurers, for a while.
Meanwhile, over 5 million people had their private policies cancelled (err, "not renewed") due to Obamacare, and Obama has unilaterally pushed back the employer mandate back another year, past the elections. I wonder why? :dunno: Numerous hospitals and doctors are refusing Obamacare policies. I wonder why? :dunno:
So "success?" :lol:
Serious question: Do you live on Mars?
-
Is this the worst legislation ever? Does anything even compare to the LOLarnival?
Can anyone think of a single piece of legislation that's ever come close to falling this flat on its face? eff
-
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/obamacare-investors-bet-billions-the-aca-will-succeed
Maybe I'm not understanding this, but are the two choices (1) Obamacare will be repealed outright, or (2) at least some aspects of Obamacare will remain, in some form? I'd bet heavily on the latter, too, but how does that indicate "success?" How is "success" measured?
By the end of open enrollment for this year (supposedly at end of March, but I'm betting Obama will unilaterally extend that deadline, too), I predict there will be about 5.5 million enrollees in an exchange policy, about 4 million of which will be real (the rest being duplicates or other "enrollments" that were never actually purchased by paying the premium). This will be a little over half the number that the CBO predicted the exchanges would need to be fiscally viable.
But it will actually be worse, because of that 4 million, probably only about 20% of enrollees will be the key "under 30" demographic - while the CBO predicted the exchanges need about twice that number for the exchanges to remain viable. Furthermore, I'm guessing that a good 75% of that 4 million already had insurance before, so that means that, best case scenario, Obamacare just gave those people a slightly cheaper, more comprehensive plan at taxpayer expense. In many cases however (most?), these policies are actually more "expensive" due to the ridiculous deductibles of the "bronze" and "silver" level plans many of these folks are buying.
So, we'll use the "risk corridors" and other Obamacare slush funds to funnel tax dollars to bail out the insurers, for a while.
Meanwhile, over 5 million people had their private policies cancelled (err, "not renewed") due to Obamacare, and Obama has unilaterally pushed back the employer mandate back another year, past the elections. I wonder why? :dunno: Numerous hospitals and doctors are refusing Obamacare policies. I wonder why? :dunno:
So "success?" :lol:
Serious question: Do you live on Mars?
That can't be serious question.
-
Breaking news from Mars: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/199784-new-obamacare-delay-to-help-midterm-dems (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/199784-new-obamacare-delay-to-help-midterm-dems)
The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats.
As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements.
Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.
The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.
The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber.
The irony is not lost on The Hill, a reliably liberal publication.
Allowing insurers to continue offering noncompliant health plans for several years would substantially alter the health insurance landscape under ObamaCare.
It would also undercut one rationale for the healthcare reform law.
Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to offer 10 medical benefits that the Obama administration deems essential.
Some of the services are popular, such as prescription drug coverage, but others, such as maternity and pediatric care, have been criticized as expensive as well as being unnecessary for many policyholders, such as older people.
Nonetheless, the White House has consistently argued its requirements improve health insurance standards and shield consumers from unexpected costs associated with bare-bones policies.
“There are a number of Americans, fewer than 5 percent of Americans, who’ve got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident,” Obama said in Boston in October.
“Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or use minor preexisting conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy. So a lot of people thought they were buying coverage, and it turned out not to be so good.”
The new standards have also created a political mess for the White House by forcing insurance companies to cancel policies that do not comply.
-
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-administration-allows-health-plan-renewals-two-more-212347167--sector.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-administration-allows-health-plan-renewals-two-more-212347167--sector.html)
-
boss move.
-
They will delay it until after the elections in 2016...
Nailed it
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/06/obama_wont_rule_out_more_changes_to_obamacare.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/06/obama_wont_rule_out_more_changes_to_obamacare.html) :lol:
-
Prediction from Mars appears to be correct...
Furthermore, I'm guessing that a good 75% of that 4 million already had insurance before
Today from WaPo: Health insurance marketplaces signing up few uninsured Americans, surveys say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-insurance-marketplaces-signing-up-few-uninsured-americans-surveys-say/2014/03/06/cdae3152-a54d-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_print.html)
The new health insurance marketplaces appear to be making little headway so far in signing up Americans who lack health insurance, the Affordable Care Act’s central goal.
A pair of surveys released on Thursday suggest that just one in 10 uninsured people who qualify for private health plans through the new marketplace have signed up for one — and that about half of uninsured adults has looked for information on the online exchanges or plans to look.
One of the surveys, by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co., shows that, of people who had signed up for coverage through the marketplaces by last month, just one-fourth described themselves as having been without insurance for most of the past year.
And, it turns out, we don't have official numbers due to another dazzling example of government incompetence (I still suspect intentional ignorance):
With just over three weeks remaining in a six-month sign-up period, the question of how many uninsured people are gaining coverage so far is eluding both Obama administration officials and most of the private health plans being sold through the new marketplaces.
Inside the Department of Health and Human Services, staff analysts who have been producing monthly enrollment updates are confronted with a major hindrance to examining the question of people’s prior insurance status: the wording of the HealthCare.gov applications themselves.
The paper versions of applications, used by a small fraction of people who are signing up contain a multiple-choice question asking whether people in a household currently have insurance. “No” is one of the boxes people can check
However, the online application, used by most people to enroll, asks whether people want to apply for coverage but does not give them a place to indicate whether they have insurance now or have had it in the past. As a result, HHS analysts have no way of assessing how many of the online enrollees were uninsured in the past.
:lol:
-
Obamacare is so bad it seems to be repealing itself.
The House of Representatives passed legislation Wednesday afternoon to make the fine/“tax” for violating Obamacare’s individual mandate $0 for this year, and it did so by the wide margin of 90 votes (250 to 160). That’s 83 more than the 7-vote margin (219 to 212) by which Obamacare passed the House four Marches ago. Moreover, 27 Democrats voted for today’s legislation—27 more than the number of Republicans who voted for Obamacare when it passed. In all, 223 Republicans voted for today’s bill, while only one—Paul Broun of Georgia—voted against it. Here’s the member-by-member tally for the vote.
Earlier today, the Obama White House released a 3-paragraph statement on the legislation, noting that Obamacare “helps millions of Americans stay on their parents’ plans until age 26”—which, of course, has nothing to do with the individual mandate or the fine/“tax” for violating it—and saying that if President Obama were presented with the legislation, “he would veto it.”
Given the wide margin by which the legislation passed the House, along with the significant level of bipartisan support with which it passed, perhaps the Senate will actually take a vote, pass the bill, and give Obama that chance. That would provide a welcome reminder to the American people of the extent to which Obama’s centerpiece legislation relies upon coercion.
-
Line item revisions.
Guys, this isn't how laws are supposed to work. The next republican president could simply repeal the law by not enforcing it or further delaying it. Pretty goddamn stupid precedent b.o. has set.
-
The Unaffordable Care Act. Non-exempt unions are freaking out.
Union head Donald "D." Taylor, in a note also being sent to Congress, demands changes and admits to being reluctant to bash a president his union supported.
“Believe me; I enter this entire debate about the consequences of the ACA with a deep reluctance,” he wrote. “Unite Here was the first union to endorse then-Senator Obama. We support the addition of health care to millions of Americans. Yet facts are facts, and Obamacare will cost our members the equivalent of a significant pay cut to keep their hard-won benefits.”
Taylor and other union leaders have criticized Obamacare before. His union's report was uploaded by Ralston Reports.
Unite Here's document charges that the administration is putting union health care into a "death spiral." It endorsed criticism that employers will move workers to part-time status to avoid the requirement that those working 30 hours or more a week be provided health insurance -- or else the company pays a penalty. And it says the Affordable Care Act will shift workers from union insurance to the more expensive Obamacare health exchanges, costing them up to half of their pay to cover premiums.
“The information addresses the very unfortunate irony of Obamacare,” Taylor said in his letter about the report. “Namely, that it will inevitably lead to the destruction of the health care plans we were promised we could keep. And, as a result, it will lead to greater income inequality for the very segment of the population Obamacare should want to help most.”
Taylor also suggested that Democrats in Washington are telling unions to stop griping about the impact of Obamacare on their members. He quoted a Senate aide saying, “Labor needs to regress to the mean.” Said Taylor: “In other words, roll back what you have and take one for the team. Ironic, given that Congress and the president carved out an exemption for staffers on the ACA. We cannot sit idly by as the politicians carve up our health plans while they carve out exceptions for themselves and every special interest feeding at the trough in Washington.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/big-labor-obamacare-death-spiral-to-worker-pay-insurance-coverage/article/2545310 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/big-labor-obamacare-death-spiral-to-worker-pay-insurance-coverage/article/2545310)
-
Bill O'Reilly knew Lincoln personally.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront-media.reason.com%2Fmc%2Fjwalker%2F2014_03%2Foreilly.jpg%3Fh%3D287%26amp%3Bw%3D482&hash=b57074ead7aad2082e9c4955ce4440dc73d1002c)
-
That's odd, because Lincoln was just on the Daily Show last night
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhappynicetimepeople.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F03%2Fstewart-daily4.jpg&hash=0a40e126ba85ebf80fa41b6d43adc74b6197f621)
-
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/mar/14/discussions-limiting-graduate-student-work-hours-p/
:frown:
-
I just don't understand why some employers feel the need to dictate how their employees are able to use their compensation.
-
I just don't understand why some employers feel the need to dictate how their employees are able to use their compensation.
To what, specifically, are you referring?
-
I just don't understand why some employers feel the need to dictate how their employees are able to use their compensation.
To what, specifically, are you referring?
The Hobby Lobby story. I posted this in the wrong thread.
-
:Woot:
I just don't understand why some employers feel the need to dictate how their employees are able to use their compensation.
To what, specifically, are you referring?
The Hobby Lobby story. I posted this in the wrong thread.
Oh, the abortion/contraception thing again. I know you want to equate health insurance to wages by calling them both "compensation" - but they're different things. Wages are fungible - health insurance is a defined benefit. You can't use health insurance to go buy a car or a hamburger. Employers have a right to define what benefits they provide, and employees have a right to decide whether to work there. Hence, an employer has the right to say "the insurance we offer doesn't cover abortion." The employee can decide whether to work elsewhere or purchase their own insurance. At least, that's how things would work if libtards weren't in charge.
-
an employer has the right to say "the insurance we offer doesn't cover abortion."
Not anymore. :Woot:
Well, at least with birth control. I have no idea about abortion.
-
By the end of open enrollment for this year (supposedly at end of March, but I'm betting Obama will unilaterally extend that deadline, too)
Ok, this one was easy, but another prediction comes to pass. http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-will-allow-more-time-to-enroll-in-health-care-on-federal-marketplace/2014/03/25/d0458338-b449-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_print.html (http://m.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/obama-administration-will-allow-more-time-to-enroll-in-health-care-on-federal-marketplace/2014/03/25/d0458338-b449-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_print.html)
Enrollment deadline will be extended - despite telling reporters just last month that they "lack the statutory authority" to extend the deadline. :lol: :bananarepublic:
-
Politico: A Brief History of [Lawless] Obamacare Delays (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obamacare-affordable-care-act-105036.html?hp=t1)
-
:love: :love: :love:
In reality, the administration is just continuing a long pattern of delays. They’re all designed to show flexibility and help the law work better, but they also fuel a public perception that Obamacare deadlines never really mean anything.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/obamacare-affordable-care-act-105036.html#ixzz2x5n7cxJb
-
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the fault of struggling to sign up on the Obamacare exchanges didn’t lie with the faulty website, but with the people who weren’t “educated on how to use the Internet.”
Explaining the reasoning behind the latest Obamacare delay, Reid said too many people just didn’t know to use their computer properly and needed more time. Apparently, it had nothing to do with the well-documented failings of the website that have embarrassed the White House for months.
-
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said the fault of struggling to sign up on the Obamacare exchanges didn’t lie with the faulty website, but with the people who weren’t “educated on how to use the Internet.”
Explaining the reasoning behind the latest Obamacare delay, Reid said too many people just didn’t know to use their computer properly and needed more time. Apparently, it had nothing to do with the well-documented failings of the website that have embarrassed the White House for months.
But Pelosi said it was a "surge in demand" as the deadline neared that was overwhelming the site (the same bullshit they were spouting the first couple of months). These guys need to get their lies coordinated.
-
someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on
-
Oval Office to GSA Procurment: Can we get another truck load of dry erase boards and dry erase markers/erasers over here stat? We're just kinda free handing this whole Obama Care thing. Oh, and some more cheese dip.
This abuse of power is what happens when the venerable Fourth Estate would rather sleep with Obama than hold him to account.
-
someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on
A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).
-
someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on
A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).
so that means it's not lawless
-
someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on
A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).
so that means it's not lawless
no, just the wrong people are suing.
-
someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on
A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).
so that means it's not lawless
You don't seem familiar with the Constitution.
-
someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on
A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).
so that means it's not lawless
no, just the wrong people are suing.
Well why don't those people sue?
-
someone should sue with all this lawlessness going on
A number of lawsuits have been filed, but are typically dismissed for lack of standing. This is largely a political problem that requires a political solution. The House could impeach him, for example, but have decided that for now it's not politically advantageous to do so. He's harming himself as it is, and his approval would fall even more precipitously if most of the media would do its job (recent Politici article, for example).
so that means it's not lawless
no, just the wrong people are suing.
Well why don't those people sue?
busy working? :dunno:
-
have a bro that is an eyeball poker/dr. Just had a con ed class and the last day was about new regs coming soon. He basically is going to have to hire someone to enter all of the additional codes required. Even then, he knows that there are so many, the orders will get rejected anyway and he will end up getting paid less because of how long everything took. He's pretty happy he is 200k in debt for eyeball Dr. school and now he will have to pay someone a lot of what he makes just to process insurance.
Are you talking about ICD-10 codes? Yeah there are a lot more codes, but it will be more accurate billing for everyone. Also I doubt your bro would be doing his own coding whether or not these codes were put into place. It doesn't make sense to have a Dr do work that you can pay someone $20/hour to do :dunno:
Theoretically, if he's an ambulatory physician (and if he's an ophthalmologist, I assume he is for the most part), he was doing his own billing. Doctor's can do that on their own, but generally, they're very inaccurate and are leaving money on the table or open themselves up to audits. I'd personally discourage it, but there are a lot of doctor's offices that do it this way.
ICD-10 was something that should have happened years ago, and we're one of the only developed countries that haven't moved to it yet. It's going to have a very significant impact on provider productivity going forward, but folks will get around it. Billing is just going to be a mess in Q4 of this year, and probably well into Q1 2015 after the 10/1 conversion date.
Technically, the ICD-10 conversion is not Obamacare. It was apart of the ARRA passed in 2009. I was supposed to go into effect in 2012, but physicians pushed back hard enough that the extended the deadline into 2013.
-
ICD-10 isn't going to change anything. People only use a miniscule number of the 16,000 ICD-9 codes and they're going to use roughly the same number out of 70,000 ICD-10 codes. It's the path of least resistance. Why bother hunting for some highly specified code to fit each individual case when you can use the same small set over and over and get paid just the same?
-
ICD-10 isn't going to change anything. People only use a miniscule number of the 16,000 ICD-9 codes and they're going to use roughly the same number out of 70,000 ICD-10 codes. It's the path of least resistance. Why bother hunting for some highly specified code to fit each individual case when you can use the same small set over and over and get paid just the same?
It depends on whether or not it shifts the DRG. Also, procedure coding is much more difficult between 9 and 10. Way more difficult.
-
ICD-10 isn't going to change anything. People only use a miniscule number of the 16,000 ICD-9 codes and they're going to use roughly the same number out of 70,000 ICD-10 codes. It's the path of least resistance. Why bother hunting for some highly specified code to fit each individual case when you can use the same small set over and over and get paid just the same?
It depends on whether or not it shifts the DRG. Also, procedure coding is much more difficult between 9 and 10. Way more difficult.
Just about everything will be the same except with some new code names.
-
ICD-10 isn't going to change anything. People only use a miniscule number of the 16,000 ICD-9 codes and they're going to use roughly the same number out of 70,000 ICD-10 codes. It's the path of least resistance. Why bother hunting for some highly specified code to fit each individual case when you can use the same small set over and over and get paid just the same?
It depends on whether or not it shifts the DRG. Also, procedure coding is much more difficult between 9 and 10. Way more difficult.
Just about everything will be the same except with some new code names.
Doesn't look like it may matter in the short term. Looks like it may get delayed to 2015.
-
I am friends with 3 doctors. They're extremely frustrated and depressed right now.
Good doctors, seriously considering leaving the profession.
Sad
What a bunch of bitches..
If they're going to leave money on the table then someone else is going to take it.
-
I am friends with 3 doctors. They're extremely frustrated and depressed right now.
Good doctors, seriously considering leaving the profession.
Sad
If they work for smaller, physician owned practices, it will probably take a toll. Some will survive, but others will not.
Most of them are being bought out by larger hospitals as it shares the risk and diversifies what the hospitals offer to patients in their integrated delivery networks.
It's not really all that sad.
-
Goldman Sachs seems to agree with my predictions. http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/03/11/how-many-people-did-obamacare-really-enroll/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/03/11/how-many-people-did-obamacare-really-enroll/)
Goldman Sachs is out with an analysis tonight that builds in some of these assumptions. They get at a final enrollment figure closer to my early estimates of 4-5 million people in the Obamacare exchanges.
The investment bank’s analysts project that the Obamacare exchanges will end up enrolling a total of 4 million people – including 1 million who were previously uninsured. To get to their numbers, they assume a further 1.3 million to 1.8 million enrollments in Obamacare, to arrive at a cumulative exchange enrollment figure of 5.5 million to 6.0 million. However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.
-
Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1
-
Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1
I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.
-
Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1
I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.
However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.
-
Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1
I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.
However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.
You realize there's a big difference between the "7 million signed up" figures being touted by the WH and the number of people who have actually bought coverage, right? Like, several million different?
So let's say, after you remove all the duplicates and people who "signed up" but never actually bought it, you've got 5 million. Of that number, I predict that many (probably most) already had insurance before, and are simply replacing a policy cancelled by Obamacare or replacing a policy they were formerly paying for with one that is taxpayer subsidized. Moreover, I'd predict that the overall pool skews heavily sick, which is fiscally unsustainable and will lead to higher premiums, particularly after the risk cooridor bailouts come to an end.
So, at the end if the day, we spent over a trillion dollars and mumped over millions of people just to insure 1 or 2 million new people in addition to putting millions more on Medicaid and shifting a few million from paying their own way to subsidized insurance? Sounds like exactly what I would expect.
-
Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1
I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.
However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.
You realize there's a big difference between the "7 million signed up" figures being touted by the WH and the number of people who have actually bought coverage, right? Like, several million different?
So let's say, after you remove all the duplicates and people who "signed up" but never actually bought it, you've got 5 million. Of that number, I predict that many (probably most) already had insurance before, and are simply replacing a policy cancelled by Obamacare or replacing a policy they were formerly paying for with one that is taxpayer subsidized. Moreover, I'd predict that the overall pool skews heavily sick, which is fiscally unsustainable and will lead to higher premiums, particularly after the risk cooridor bailouts come to an end.
So, at the end if the day, we spent over a trillion dollars and mumped over millions of people just to insure 1 or 2 million new people in addition to putting millions more on Medicaid and shifting a few million from paying their own way to subsidized insurance? Sounds like exactly what I would expect.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told an Oklahoma TV station on Monday that insurers were reporting that 80% to 90% had paid.
Sounds like a little less than 6 million have paid.
-
I'm unclear on how it's a foregone conclusion that greater numbers of uninsured won't have exchange plans in future years. This is at odds with what insurance companies expect based on where they're putting their money.
-
Looks like Godman Sachs and K-S-U were wrong by about 2-3 million people.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=po_c1
I think their qualifier included that first payment must have been made, as that's common industry practice.
However, like the government figures, that counts everyone — even those who selected a plan but didn’t pay their first premium.
You realize there's a big difference between the "7 million signed up" figures being touted by the WH and the number of people who have actually bought coverage, right? Like, several million different?
So let's say, after you remove all the duplicates and people who "signed up" but never actually bought it, you've got 5 million. Of that number, I predict that many (probably most) already had insurance before, and are simply replacing a policy cancelled by Obamacare or replacing a policy they were formerly paying for with one that is taxpayer subsidized. Moreover, I'd predict that the overall pool skews heavily sick, which is fiscally unsustainable and will lead to higher premiums, particularly after the risk cooridor bailouts come to an end.
So, at the end if the day, we spent over a trillion dollars and mumped over millions of people just to insure 1 or 2 million new people in addition to putting millions more on Medicaid and shifting a few million from paying their own way to subsidized insurance? Sounds like exactly what I would expect.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told an Oklahoma TV station on Monday that insurers were reporting that 80% to 90% had paid.
Sounds like a little less than 6 million have paid.
Oh, well if Obamacare Bob said it, it must be true, right? :lol:
-
I'm unclear on how it's a foregone conclusion that greater numbers of uninsured won't have exchange plans in future years. This is at odds with what insurance companies expect based on where they're putting their money.
Insurance companies never would have bought into this if the government hadn't promised to bail them out for the foreseeable future. That, and the fact that Obama was offering them a law that required people to buy their product.
-
I'm unclear on how it's a foregone conclusion that greater numbers of uninsured won't have exchange plans in future years. This is at odds with what insurance companies expect based on where they're putting their money.
Insurance companies never would have bought into this if the government hadn't promised to bail them out for the foreseeable future. That, and the fact that Obama was offering them a law that required people to buy their product.
So, you agree that enrollment will increase?
-
We're never going to know the real numbers, but I'm very curious. I do wonder how many of these 6-7 million newly insured are signed up for Medicaid. I would guess at least half. The other burning question is how many were previously insured but lost their coverage because of obamacare.
-
We're never going to know the real numbers, but I'm very curious. I do wonder how many of these 6-7 million newly insured are signed up for Medicaid. I would guess at least half. The other burning question is how many were previously insured but lost their coverage because of obamacare.
Those numbers don't include Medicaid. Apparently, that's another 9 million or so but, to be fair, the entire nine million is not due to Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid. Most of those people would have been eligible regardless.
Your second question is key, but only gets at part of the problem. There's also undoubtedly a big chunk that we're paying their own way but are now being subsidized.
-
The answer to the other burning question is either all or none. There are no other options.
-
really happy for barry today
USA!!
-
Funny how the same study is good news for Obama and his press and bad for everyone else.
Numbers from a RAND Corporation study that has been kept under wraps suggest that barely 858,000 previously uninsured Americans – nowhere near 7.1 million – have paid for new policies and joined the ranks of the insured by Monday night.
The unpublished RAND study – only the Los Angeles Times has seen it – found that just 23 per cent of new enrollees had no insurance before signing up.
And of those newly insured Americans, just 53 per cent have paid their first month's premiums.
If those numbers hold, the actual net gain of paid policies among Americans who lacked medical insurance in the pre-Obamacare days would be just 858,298.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2594309/President-plans-victory-lap-strong-Obamacare-enrollment-Sebelius-faces-unpopular-law-blank-stare-tough-questions-remain-whos-signing-up.html#ixzz2xg2Ee81p
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/
lol whoops
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/
lol whoops
Well, that's totally different. See, Hobby Lobby wants to use their religious beliefs to control their employees. They aren't interested in actually being controlled by those religious beliefs themselves. I just hope that this doesn't cause those employees to end up with a shittier 401k plan.
-
I've got to think its about impossible to not own some, for example, Wal-Mart in a 401k, if for some reason someone hated Wal-Mart. I bet the other stuff is similar.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
-
I've got to think its about impossible to not own some, for example, Wal-Mart in a 401k, if for some reason someone hated Wal-Mart. I bet the other stuff is similar.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs—or products such as alcohol or pornography—religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.
-
Devilish.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
-
I've got to think its about impossible to not own some, for example, Wal-Mart in a 401k, if for some reason someone hated Wal-Mart. I bet the other stuff is similar.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
load that 401k up on Timothy Plan funds or something :dunno:
edit: tapaluked
-
Not really obamacare related but my mom just gave me a stud pro tip about health insurance.
I recently switched jobs and will have a 2 month gap where I am uninsured. I asked her about getting some sort of gap insurance policy in case something happened and she told me not to worry about it because you can get COBRA retroactively for up to 1 year if something were to happen.
Source- Mom is an accountant at a hospital and they will help people retroactively file for COBRA so the hospitable can get paid.
-
Not really obamacare related but my mom just gave me a stud pro tip about health insurance.
I recently switched jobs and will have a 2 month gap where I am uninsured. I asked her about getting some sort of gap insurance policy in case something happened and she told me not to worry about it because you can get COBRA retroactively for up to 1 year if something were to happen.
Source- Mom is an accountant at a hospital and they will help people retroactively file for COBRA so the hospitable can get paid.
Pro-tip Mom + Bee Venom Dad = Ben Ji :billdance:
-
Not really obamacare related but my mom just gave me a stud pro tip about health insurance.
I recently switched jobs and will have a 2 month gap where I am uninsured. I asked her about getting some sort of gap insurance policy in case something happened and she told me not to worry about it because you can get COBRA retroactively for up to 1 year if something were to happen.
Source- Mom is an accountant at a hospital and they will help people retroactively file for COBRA so the hospitable can get paid.
I too have a one month gap coming up. Thanks :thumbs:
-
i haven't had insurance for a year and a half :ohno:
-
i haven't had insurance for a year and a half :ohno:
Why not student?
-
:nono:
-
Not really obamacare related but my mom just gave me a stud pro tip about health insurance.
I recently switched jobs and will have a 2 month gap where I am uninsured. I asked her about getting some sort of gap insurance policy in case something happened and she told me not to worry about it because you can get COBRA retroactively for up to 1 year if something were to happen.
Source- Mom is an accountant at a hospital and they will help people retroactively file for COBRA so the hospitable can get paid.
Pro-tip Mom + Bee Venom Dad = Ben Ji :billdance:
I dont think cobras have bee venom
-
so fun obamacare story:
radio show i listen to, one host a very hostile far right guy (think FSD), the other is a SD moderate that mostly just doesn't care about politics (it's not a political show, but they do talk about it occasionally). anyway, these guys probably make somewhere around the high 7 figures each, maybe into the 8's. the moderate guy had his plan canceled because it wasn't up to legal standards now and they spent an hour yesterday just absolutely railing on obamacare and how he's going to get mumped in the ass getting a new plan and how we need a revolution in this country. show comes on today and he opens with an embarrassing revelation... turns out when he went to get a new plan, he actually got the exact same coverage (with the "legal" updates) at a lower premium, deductible and copay. everyone had a little laugh at his expense and he apologized for being butthurt yesterday.
:D
-
7 thinks I make 8 figures :love:
-
Cobra pro tip: I switched jobs 7yrs ago and went on to private insurance for about a yr afterward. My new insurance guy told me to tell my previous employer that I was indeed interested in Cobra suring my exit interview. He said I had 60 days from leaving before I would actually have to pay a premium and basically got two months coverage for free because on day 59 my private insurance kicked in and I didn't pay a Cobra premium. That was in the horrible state of Missouri and seven yrs ago. Not sure if that all still works.
-
Cobra pro tip: I switched jobs 7yrs ago and went on to private insurance for about a yr afterward. My new insurance guy told me to tell my previous employer that I was indeed interested in Cobra suring my exit interview. He said I had 60 days from leaving before I would actually have to pay a premium and basically got two months coverage for free because on day 59 my private insurance kicked in and I didn't pay a Cobra premium. That was in the horrible state of Missouri and seven yrs ago. Not sure if that all still works.
Sort of true. It's not technically free.
If on day 59 you fall and break your arm and go to the hospital, you can elect the COBRA benefits. BUT you would have to pay the premiums for the past 59 days. In most cases, the COBRA premiums would be more than a trip to the ER. But if you ended up having a lengthy hospital stay, you could retroactively enroll in COBRA.
But if you went to the doctor on day 59 and hadn't paid the premiums, it would not be paid by your former plan.
-
Real Life Obamacare Story: Friend who is a chef and entrepreneur went to the obama care website to get a quote. They quoted him a premium that on an annual basis was hire than the annual income he inputted.
:D
-
How on earth do so many of you idiots not know about cobra?
Here's some more breaking news, your 401k account is portable!!! PM for super secret deets.
-
How on earth do so many of you idiots not know about cobra?
Here's some more breaking news, your 401k account is portable!!! PM for super secret deets.
:kstategrad: don't leave the top 1% of jobs very often
-
Real Life Obamacare Story: Friend who is a chef and entrepreneur went to the obama care website to get a quote. They quoted him a premium that on an annual basis was hire than the annual income he inputted.
chef and entrepreneur = free loader
-
Cong. Tim Huelskamp ?@CongHuelskamp 6h
CBO report confirms #ObamaScare reduces access to life-saving procedures. #YetAnotherObamaLie http://goo.gl/1RnsTz
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/23/obamascare-tactics-in-red-state-races.html
-
Shocking: WSJ: High Rates of Serious Medical Medical Conditions in New Plans Put Pressure on Premiums (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://online.wsj.com/articles/sick-drawn-to-new-coverage-in-health-law-plans-1403656445?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories).
Not to worry, though, I'm sure there's enough slush (or hush?) money to pad the insurers over, at least until we get past November.
-
Does this go here?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
-
Does this go here?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
Well, that sucks for their employees.
-
Does this go here?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
Well, that sucks for their employees.
They could always go work for someone else if getting "free" birth control is that important to them. Something tells me that the vast majority who choose to work for this Christian-owned organization either agree with the policy or DNGAF.
-
Does this go here?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
Well, that sucks for their employees.
But very good for their unborn children.
Setting aside the gross overreach by the federal govt. In mandating this crap, the fact that religious freedom is down to a 5-4 decision should be startling. What other first amendment rights do you think these four "justices" believe are properly subordinate to the almighty federal government?
-
Does this go here?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
Well, that sucks for their employees.
They could always go work for someone else if getting "free" birth control is that important to them. Something tells me that the vast majority who choose to work for this Christian-owned organization either agree with the policy or DNGAF.
I don't think anyone views it as free. That is like viewing your paycheck as free money.
-
Does this go here?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
Well, that sucks for their employees.
But very good for their unborn children.
Setting aside the gross overreach by the federal govt. In mandating this crap, the fact that religious freedom is down to a 5-4 decision should be startling. What other first amendment rights do you think these four "justices" believe are properly subordinate to the almighty federal government?
It seems like increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies would lead to more abortions, but I guess maybe it's better to have been conceived and aborted than never conceived at all? :dunno:
-
The sooner people stop treating health insurance as carte blanc prepaid medical, the sooner we'll get the cost of insurance down. Auto insurance doesn't cover gas and oil changes and health insurance shouldn't cover rubbers and bc.
-
The sooner people stop treating health insurance as carte blanc prepaid medical, the sooner we'll get the cost of insurance down. Auto insurance doesn't cover gas and oil changes and health insurance shouldn't cover rubbers and bc.
I agree with that, but one company shouldn't be exempt because its owners attend church while everyone else is forced to provide it.
-
Does this go here?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
Well, that sucks for their employees.
But very good for their unborn children.
Setting aside the gross overreach by the federal govt. In mandating this crap, the fact that religious freedom is down to a 5-4 decision should be startling. What other first amendment rights do you think these four "justices" believe are properly subordinate to the almighty federal government?
It seems like increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies would lead to more abortions, but I guess maybe it's better to have been conceived and aborted than never conceived at all? :dunno:
What an inhuman response.
I refuse to address your logical fallacies.
-
The sooner people stop treating health insurance as carte blanc prepaid medical, the sooner we'll get the cost of insurance down. Auto insurance doesn't cover gas and oil changes and health insurance shouldn't cover rubbers and bc.
I agree with that, but one company shouldn't be exempt because its owners attend church while everyone else is forced to provide it.
Hmmmm. Seems like there's an easy solution to that...
-
Does this go here?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
Well, that sucks for their employees.
They could always go work for someone else if getting "free" birth control is that important to them. Something tells me that the vast majority who choose to work for this Christian-owned organization either agree with the policy or DNGAF.
I don't think anyone views it as free. That is like viewing your paycheck as free money.
Ok, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that comparison, but to take it a step further: if you're not happy with how much you're being paid, go work somewhere else. If you're not happy with the benefits youre provided, go work somewhere else. There's a theme here.
-
I don't think anyone views it as free.
Also, this comment was pretty funny.
-
they will still cover viagra, because penis
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
Yes, perhaps companies can start employing children to work for less than minimum wage with parental consent. After all, thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.
It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.
It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.
Meh, it's a private business. They should be able to do whatever they want.
-
they will still cover viagra, because penis
They still cover vasectomies, too. also, because penis.
-
It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law
You realize you just contradicted yourself, right? "Federal law" and "government" mean the same thing.
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.
It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.
I get it, government imposition: ok. Hobby Lobby imposition: not ok.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.
It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.
Employment is not a constitutional right. If they don't want to work there, they don't have to work there. You keep ignoring this very simple fact.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.
It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.
Employment is not a constitutional right. If they don't want to work there, they don't have to work there. You keep ignoring this very simple fact.
Selling crafts to old women is not a constitutional right. If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to follow the law, they don't have to remain open.
-
So do they really require coverage for viagra?
-
This actually happened.
"Well, as the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office would tell you is, he would read the entire decision before he passed judgment in terms of his own legal analysis. What we have been able to assess so far ... is that there is a problem that has been exposed, which is that there are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views held, not by them necessarily, but by their bosses," said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
"We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion from the Supreme Court. And that's why we--primarily, because he is concerned about the impact it could have on the health of those women."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
It never ceases to amaze me how much some want the government to force people to do.
It's not that people want the government to force Hobby Lobby to provide healthcare so much as it is that people don't think Hobby Lobby should be exempt from federal law simply because the people who own the franchise are Christian and want to impose those Christian beliefs on those that they employ.
Employment is not a constitutional right. If they don't want to work there, they don't have to work there. You keep ignoring this very simple fact.
Selling crafts to old women is not a constitutional right. If Hobby Lobby doesn't want to follow the law, they don't have to remain open.
Ok, so that's the system you want to live in, huh? Force owners to close up shop rather than comply with laws that violate their religious beliefs? I think you need to take a time out, get some air, maybe sleep on this, and try to understand just how idiotic you sound.
-
The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.
Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want.
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs. That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.
For all KSU Wildcats bitching that employment is not a constitutional right, even Alito mentioned that the government has a role in providing equal opportunity to participate in the workforce. Alito just thinks this does not significantly effect that, which I disagree with when a vast majority of companies could be considered "closely held."
-
Guys, I hate how the pit divides us. One of the things I like about GE is knowing that some of you IRL friends have different beliefs and ideas than I do. Its refreshing. Sorry I jumped in this one and started arguing, I don't like arguing politics and shouldn't. Its not helpful to anyone really. If anyone needs me I'll be in the Royals/WC threads
-
I never thought old, white men would talk this much about women's birth control.
-
Guys, I hate how the pit divides us. One of the things I like about GE is knowing that some of you IRL friends have different beliefs and ideas than I do. Its refreshing. Sorry I jumped in this one and started arguing, I don't like arguing politics and shouldn't. Its not helpful to anyone really. If anyone needs me I'll be in the Royals/WC threads
I like your opinions here even if I disagree sometimes.
-
The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.
Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F37.media.tumblr.com%2F1d04cd761a6aa763c4467cb3024a19e3%2Ftumblr_mhmf7eX6Sh1qb8j9bo1_400.gif&hash=e46639cdccc733165b242ebc9b0aa040c1de4558)
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs. That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.
No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs. That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.
No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment.
The owner doesn't have to run his/ her business.
-
The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.
Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want.
I guess I just don't understand how an employee's decision to use their insurance policy for birth control has any impact whatsoever on the the people who own Hobby Lobby's religious right to not use the birth control themselves. They are paying for the birth control no more directly by offering insurance that covers it than they would be if an employee used their salary to go purchase birth control. The only difference is that the birth control comes at a higher cost to the employee. The employer doesn't even save money on the coverage. This is just a way for an employer to punish its employees for not having the same religious beliefs.
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs. That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.
No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment.
The owner doesn't have to run his/ her business.
Correct, you're the second dumbass to make that point, so I'll ask the question again: is that the system you want to live in? As between an employee who can simply find another job or an employer who can cease to due business (and lay a whole bunch of people off in the process), you opt for the latter, huh? Interesting.
-
The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.
Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want.
I guess I just don't understand how an employee's decision to use their insurance policy for birth control has any impact whatsoever on the the people who own Hobby Lobby's religious right to not use the birth control themselves. They are paying for the birth control no more directly by offering insurance that covers it than they would be if an employee used their salary to go purchase birth control. The only difference is that the birth control comes at a higher cost to the employee. The employer doesn't even save money on the coverage. This is just a way for an employer to punish its employees for not having the same religious beliefs.
You've made this argument before, and I've explained why it's stupid, but you keep making it. Wages are fungible. Do you know what that means? It means you can use wages to pay for just about anything, and the employer cannot possibly control how that money is spent. An employee could spend it on hookers, or blow, or birth control, or any number of other things an employer finds morally objectionable, but the employer has no control over it (unless the employer finds out about it, in which case he/she can fire the employee).
Health insurance, on the other hand, is not fungible. It is a defined benefit. The employer knows exactly what he/she is providing. So, if an employer finds birth control morally objectionable, the employer has the choice as to whether to provide it. Then the employee has the choice as to whether to work there. See how this works? Choice! It's a great thing! Why are libtards so anti-choice all of a sudden? :dunno:
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs. That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.
No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment.
The owner doesn't have to run his/ her business.
Correct, you're the second dumbass to make that point, so I'll ask the question again: is that the system you want to live in? As between an employee who can simply find another job or an employer who can cease to due business (and lay a whole bunch of people off in the process), you opt for the latter, huh? Interesting.
You shouldn't make assumptions about what I think. I don't think employers should have to provide health insurance at all FWIW.
-
The 1st amendment is about religious freedom, regardless of who it inconveniences or offends. If someone wants to build a mosque next to the World Trade Center, go ahead. If someone wants to live out in the desert waiting for the rapture, be my guest. If you want to drink wine and say its Christ's blood, that's you deal, you are free to do so. And if you want to run a company and not pay for something that goes against what you believe, that is perfectly fine.
Unless someone is being abused, let people worship and live how they want.
I guess I just don't understand how an employee's decision to use their insurance policy for birth control has any impact whatsoever on the the people who own Hobby Lobby's religious right to not use the birth control themselves. They are paying for the birth control no more directly by offering insurance that covers it than they would be if an employee used their salary to go purchase birth control. The only difference is that the birth control comes at a higher cost to the employee. The employer doesn't even save money on the coverage. This is just a way for an employer to punish its employees for not having the same religious beliefs.
You've made this argument before, and I've explained why it's stupid, but you keep making it. Wages are fungible. Do you know what that means? It means you can use wages to pay for just about anything, and the employer cannot possibly control how that money is spent. An employee could spend it on hookers, or blow, or birth control, or any number of other things an employer finds morally objectionable, but the employer has no control over it (unless the employer finds out about it, in which case he/she can fire the employee).
Health insurance, on the other hand, is not fungible. It is a defined benefit. The employer knows exactly what he/she is providing. So, if an employer finds birth control morally objectionable, the employer has the choice as to whether to provide it.
My insurance covers mammograms. Does that mean that my employer is paying for me to go get a mammogram?
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs. That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.
No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.
So you would be cool with a company forcing all of their females to wear Muslim scarfs covering their faces?
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs. That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.
No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.
So you would be cool with a company forcing all of their females to wear Muslim scarfs covering their faces?
I would be fine with that. I would be fine with Hobby Lobby making all employees where cross jewelry, too. It's trying to reach out and dictate what their employees do when they are not at work that bothers me.
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs. That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.
No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.
So you would be cool with a company forcing all of their females to wear Muslim scarfs covering their faces?
I would.
-
What if a company has a religious objection vaccinations for children*? (*female only)
-
Now the US court system gets to decide which corporations and which religions/religious beliefs are important enough to overrule federal law.
You may be surprised by this, but the US Court system has been deciding what laws infringe upon religious beliefs since just about right after the creation of the First Amendment and our Court system. That's kind of their job.
The bitching over this ruling is truly hilarious.
The part that bothers me the is that the federal government can't enforce their laws on the company if that ruling is against the owner's religious beliefs. That owner can, however, enforce their religious beliefs on their workforce.
No, the owner cannot, because that workforce is free to leave at any time. See 13th Amendment. There are something like 2.5 bazillion other businesses not owned by devout Christians were people can find employment, and even the Obama economy won't shut them all down.
So you would be cool with a company forcing all of their females to wear Muslim scarfs covering their faces?
I'd be fine with that. I wouldn't work there.
-
What if a company has a religious objection vaccinations for children*? (*female only)
http://catholicexchange.com/hpv-vaccine-cant-innoculate-against-immorality
-
What if a company has a religious objection vaccinations for children*? (*female only)
http://catholicexchange.com/hpv-vaccine-cant-innoculate-against-immorality
I'd be fine with that. I wouldn't work there.
-
One of the biggest fallacies in the arguments against the opinion is that HL is some how imposing their religious beliefs on employees by not paying for something. This is between the Fed and HL, and it's the Fed imparting their "religious" beliefs on HL and HL seeking protection from the court.
-
Really, the government should just pay for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's bullshit we're asking Hobby Lobby to pay IMO.
-
Really, the government should just pay for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's bullshit we're asking Hobby Lobby to pay IMO.
Yes. And it would not take long at all for taxes to go down.
-
if women just had a penis then this wouldn't be an issue.
-
Really, the government should just pay for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's bullshit we're asking Hobby Lobby to pay IMO.
Yes. And it would not take long at all for taxes to go down.
Exactly. Less people on welfare.
-
I think it's bullshit that a corporation can have religious beliefs.
-
I think it's bullshit that a corporation can have religious beliefs.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Hobby Lobby isn't going to heaven when it dies, regardless of what it believes.
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
-
the fact that the court could be asked to decide what is and what isn't sincere religious conviction is also hilarious to me
-
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised how everyone's talking mostly about the birth control thing and not about how thin of a line is being walked by making this ruling.
-
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised how everyone's talking mostly about the birth control thing and not about how thin of a line is being walked by making this ruling.
looks to me like maybe its this slippery slope thing that everyone is so worried about
what would have happened if hobby lobby was a muslim corporation and used islam to refuse to cover birth control? who (here or anywhere) would be fighting for them then?
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
Midification: The Fed Gov shouldn't be able to force them to hire women. The bold goes for about everything I say in here.
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
Ok, well I'll just go on record as disagreeing with that. But business owners are going to have a very hard time convincing a court that their religious beliefs prevent employment of women (unless, that is, you're the Catholic Church).
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
i get what you're going for with the lassez faire stuff, but the federal gov has the responsibility of protecting minorities from the oppression of the majority. I think the olden days, where the market was more free than now, shows that the free market doesnt have the power or will to give all people, created equal, their fair shake.
-
I think it's bullshit that a corporation can have religious beliefs.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Hobby Lobby isn't going to heaven when it dies, regardless of what it believes.
The owners might. They're the ones who actually pay for the health insurance - not a fictional entity. Yet another phony argument.
-
Ok, well I'll just go on record as disagreeing with that. But business owners are going to have a very hard time convincing a court that their religious beliefs prevent employment of women (unless, that is, you're the Catholic Church).
but what if, ksuDUB? how are the courts to discern which religious convictions are valid and which are not?
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
Ok, well I'll just go on record as disagreeing with that. But business owners are going to have a very hard time convincing a court that their religious beliefs prevent employment of women (unless, that is, you're the Catholic Church).
There are non-Christian religions out there that are supposed to have the same protections as every other religion, you know. Hell, I could write a book and start my own religion with any rules I want just like L. Ron Hubbard did.
-
Ok, well I'll just go on record as disagreeing with that. But business owners are going to have a very hard time convincing a court that their religious beliefs prevent employment of women (unless, that is, you're the Catholic Church).
but what if, ksuDUB? how are the courts to discern which religious convictions are valid and which are not?
Just like they decide any other issues - they weigh the evidence. Believe it or not, we actually pay judges to think. That's their job. This is no more difficult an issue to ascertain than countless others.
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
i get what you're going for with the lassez faire stuff, but the federal gov has the responsibility of protecting minorities from the oppression of the majority. I think the olden days, where the market was more free than now, shows that the free market doesnt have the power or will to give all people, created equal, their fair shake.
Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
Ok, well I'll just go on record as disagreeing with that. But business owners are going to have a very hard time convincing a court that their religious beliefs prevent employment of women (unless, that is, you're the Catholic Church).
There are non-Christian religions out there that are supposed to have the same protections as every other religion, you know. Hell, I could write a book and start my own religion with any rules I want just like L. Ron Hubbard did.
Again, as I just said, we pay judges to use their brains. The "slippery slope" in this instance is a stupid, lazy argument. If someone says "well, the religion I invented a few years makes me morally opposed to hiring blacks and women" they're going to get laughed out of court (and that assumes the judge has a sense of humor).
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
i get what you're going for with the lassez faire stuff, but the federal gov has the responsibility of protecting minorities from the oppression of the majority. I think the olden days, where the market was more free than now, shows that the free market doesnt have the power or will to give all people, created equal, their fair shake.
Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.
back in the day, those idiots were the majority
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
Ok, well I'll just go on record as disagreeing with that. But business owners are going to have a very hard time convincing a court that their religious beliefs prevent employment of women (unless, that is, you're the Catholic Church).
There are non-Christian religions out there that are supposed to have the same protections as every other religion, you know. Hell, I could write a book and start my own religion with any rules I want just like L. Ron Hubbard did.
Again, as I just said, we pay judges to use their brains. The "slippery slope" in this instance is a stupid, lazy argument. If someone says "well, the religion I invented a few years makes me morally opposed to hiring blacks and women" they're going to get laughed out of court (and that assumes the judge has a sense of humor).
Scientology was founded in 1953. It currently has millions of followers. Is it a religion? How many followers does a religion need and how old does it have to be? If it is your sincerely held belief, wouldn't 1 follower and 1 day be enough? You can't offer freedom of religion and then choose which religions are valid.
-
I don't want to derail the thread any further. You guys weren't talking about hiring practices.
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
i get what you're going for with the lassez faire stuff, but the federal gov has the responsibility of protecting minorities from the oppression of the majority. I think the olden days, where the market was more free than now, shows that the free market doesnt have the power or will to give all people, created equal, their fair shake.
Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.
So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay?
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
i get what you're going for with the lassez faire stuff, but the federal gov has the responsibility of protecting minorities from the oppression of the majority. I think the olden days, where the market was more free than now, shows that the free market doesnt have the power or will to give all people, created equal, their fair shake.
Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.
So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. goverment does it that's not okay?
Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.
-
like, what if a corporation had a strong religious conviction against women working. would anyone be against the eeo laws that force them to hire women? (prolly)
They shouldn't have to hire women.
You're going to need to explain yourself.
They are a privately owned business. They shouldn't be forced by the federal government to hire anyone, or to do business with anyone.
Ok, well I'll just go on record as disagreeing with that. But business owners are going to have a very hard time convincing a court that their religious beliefs prevent employment of women (unless, that is, you're the Catholic Church).
There are non-Christian religions out there that are supposed to have the same protections as every other religion, you know. Hell, I could write a book and start my own religion with any rules I want just like L. Ron Hubbard did.
Again, as I just said, we pay judges to use their brains. The "slippery slope" in this instance is a stupid, lazy argument. If someone says "well, the religion I invented a few years makes me morally opposed to hiring blacks and women" they're going to get laughed out of court (and that assumes the judge has a sense of humor).
Scientology was founded in 1953. It currently has millions of followers. Is it a religion? How many followers does a religion need and how old does it have to be? If it is your sincerely held belief, wouldn't 1 follower and 1 day be enough? You can't offer freedom of religion and then choose which religions are valid.
Exactly, religious exemptions are stupid.
-
Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.
So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay?
Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.
What do you mean by public business?
-
Here is the Ginsburg dissent, for anyone interested. It is a pretty long read.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent (http://www.scribd.com/doc/231974154/Ginsburg-Dissent)
-
Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.
So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay?
Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.
What do you mean by public business?
I think I used the wrong words. I mean things like highways, hospitals, transit, schools, libraries, DMV or whatever. Anything state/ gov run. That goes down to the county and city level, at least for me.
-
Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.
So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay?
Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.
What do you mean by public business?
I think I used the wrong words. I mean things like highways, hospitals, transit, schools, libraries, DMV or whatever. Anything state/ gov run. That goes down to the county and city level, at least for me.
So you are okay with across the board private sector discrimination (in terms of legality), but you are also okay with the states outlawing it just not the federal goverment doing so?
Like one state (or many I suppose) could let it get super racist as long as the state itself didn't enact any racist laws, but if it did then that's where you'd like the federal goverment to step in and strike down the state racist laws?
-
Like protecting the minority of idiots who would choose not to hire women to work at AJ's basket company for whatever reason, when most of society feels that they should be forced to disregard gender when hiring? I agree they should be protected to make their idiotic decisions, at least by the Feds. I'm cool with Kansas or some other state thinking that is a bad idea and making it illegal.
So hypothetically if all 50 states independently outlawed such behavior that's okay with you, but if the U.S. government does it that's not okay?
Pretty much. I would want the Federal Gov to step in an stop any laws forcing people not to hire women or whatever. I'd also want the Fed Gov to step in and stop any discrimination in public businesses.
What do you mean by public business?
I think I used the wrong words. I mean things like highways, hospitals, transit, schools, libraries, DMV or whatever. Anything state/ gov run. That goes down to the county and city level, at least for me.
So you are okay with across the board private sector discrimination (in terms of legality), but you are also okay with the states outlawing it just not the federal goverment doing so?
Like one state (or many I suppose) could let it get super racist as long as the state itself didn't enact any racist laws, but if it did then that's where you'd like the federal goverment to step in and strike down the state racist laws?
Yes.
-
Seems like a pretty slippery slope back to secession (and possible civil war). Your America would drive some pretty substantial redistribution of the population over time I would think. Once some states became sufficiently homogenous and extremely racist or discriminatory or xenophobic, etc. then they're going to stop being okay with the federal government dictating anything to them.
You okay with them just breaking off then?
-
Seems like a pretty slippery slope back to secession (and possible civil war). Your America would drive some pretty substantial redistribution of the population over time I would think. Once some states became sufficiently homogenous and extremely racist or discriminatory or xenophobic, etc. then they're going to stop being okay with the federal goverment dictating anything to them.
You okay with them just breaking off then?
I used to be on board with this theory, but I think Bread is right. Some theories just don't play out well in real life.
-
Does this go here?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/
I vote no.
-
:lol:
-
Really, the government should just pay for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's bullshit we're asking Hobby Lobby to pay IMO.
yes, just like they should pay for all healthcare. for profit health insurance is just immoral
-
Really, the government should just pay for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's bullshit we're asking Hobby Lobby to pay IMO.
yes, just like they should pay for all healthcare. for profit health insurance is just immoral
YEP
-
Seems like a pretty slippery slope back to secession (and possible civil war). Your America would drive some pretty substantial redistribution of the population over time I would think. Once some states became sufficiently homogenous and extremely racist or discriminatory or xenophobic, etc. then they're going to stop being okay with the federal government dictating anything to them.
You okay with them just breaking off then?
It could happen, but I don't think it's that likely. Some fringe pockets would develop, but I imagine it would be pretty minimal. Breaking off isn't necessarily bad, but it would be hard to predict a case where some future state or whatever should find it practical.
Modification: FWIW, I know I'm probably naive and overly optimistic about people's morals, etc. My feelings on government intervention get drastically more liberal going from federal to state to county to city government.
-
Seems like a pretty slippery slope back to secession (and possible civil war). Your America would drive some pretty substantial redistribution of the population over time I would think. Once some states became sufficiently homogenous and extremely racist or discriminatory or xenophobic, etc. then they're going to stop being okay with the federal government dictating anything to them.
You okay with them just breaking off then?
It could happen, but I don't think it's that likely. Some fringe pockets would develop, but I imagine it would be pretty minimal. Breaking off isn't necessarily bad, but it would be hard to predict a case where some future state or whatever should find it practical.
I am not in favor of a move backwards with regard to our national solidarity. A collective of divergent sovereigns would only invite more chaos and dissension. Regression of the worst kind. Balkanization.
We aren't getting anywhere breaking apart and setting ourselves against each other you know? The future of humanity is unity friend, always has been. Progress through togetherness.
-
having different laws in different states is pretty dumb
-
having different laws in different states is pretty dumb
States are laboratories of democracy.
-
having different laws in different states is pretty dumb
States are laboratories of democracy.
yeah, that's fine, but the state level is too large. if you are going to have different laws in different places, it should be at the city/county level probably. it's stupid that one side of kansas city has awesome alcohol laws, and one side is like eff you, drinking is a sin
-
having different laws in different states is pretty dumb
States are laboratories of democracy.
yeah, that's fine, but the state level is too large. if you are going to have different laws in different places, it should be at the city/county level probably. it's stupid that one side of kansas city has awesome alcohol laws, and one side is like eff you, drinking is a sin
^^^
also metro areas should be consolidated into a single city/county
-
having different laws in different states is pretty dumb
States are laboratories of democracy.
yeah, that's fine, but the state level is too large. if you are going to have different laws in different places, it should be at the city/county level probably. it's stupid that one side of kansas city has awesome alcohol laws, and one side is like eff you, drinking is a sin
Yeah but your position assumes that, hypothetically, the supreme law of the land would be the one you prefer (your favored drinking laws) and not the one you don't (drinking is a sin, etc).
If the issue is that important "vote with your feet" and move yourself (and your tax dollars) to the area with the laws you prefer. As it stands now, you have some choice as to which laws you want to be subject to. Without the ability to make some decisions at the state level, that freedom vanishes.
-
Everyone should only be allowed to wear federal government issued white polo shirts and khaki colored dockers.
-
A more palatable example of states being free to make laws and test out new ideas as an example for the rest of the country to examine might be the legalization of mary jane.
-
having different laws in different states is pretty dumb
States are laboratories of democracy.
yeah, that's fine, but the state level is too large. if you are going to have different laws in different places, it should be at the city/county level probably. it's stupid that one side of kansas city has awesome alcohol laws, and one side is like eff you, drinking is a sin
Yeah but your position assumes that, hypothetically, the supreme law of the land would be the one you prefer (your favored drinking laws) and not the one you don't (drinking is a sin, etc).
If the issue is that important "vote with your feet" and move yourself (and your tax dollars) to the area with the laws you prefer. As it stands now, you have some choice as to which laws you want to be subject to. Without the ability to make some decisions at the state level, that freedom vanishes.
no, i'm well aware that things would fall for and against what i personally "like". probably mostly against since i'm left of center. just the concept of state law doesn't jive with me, they are very arbitrary groupings. a common city or living area makes much more sense. kansas city has very little in common with the needs or wants of western kansas, there is no reason they should be grouped together in "state" law
-
yeah, state lines should probably be completely redrawn
-
I think it's bullshit that a corporation can have religious beliefs.
I think this is a 50 cent comment from a 15 cent brain. 1st amendment affords freedom of assembly and association. The courts recognize the Sierra clubs concerns regarding the environment and the pipe fitters right to collectively bargain. Corporations are owned by people, run by people and employ people. Just because they are legal fiction and taxed differently (like trusts and non-citizens) doesn't mean their owners forfeit their right to religious freedom.
-
yeah, it's fine if they have them, just forcing them on their employees is the bullshit part.
-
But very good for their unborn children.
Seriously? I guess I was unaware that when I had an IUD, I was aborting babies left and right.
-
Someone should tell these churches, synagogues, temples, etc (they're all organized as legal entities, including corporations) they aren't allowed to have religious beliefs.
-
Can't we all just recognize that the real problem is tying healthcare to employment, and not the family that owns hobby Lobby being opposed to abortion. It's perverted they had to spend their money to exempt themselves from a law tantamount (in their minds) to funding genocide.
-
Can't we all just recognize that the real problem is tying healthcare to employment, and not the family that owns hobby Lobby being opposed to abortion. It's perverted they had to spend their money to exempt themselves from a law tantamount (in their minds) to funding genocide.
:horrorsurprise: fsd joins the government funded healthcare camp
-
Can't we all just recognize that the real problem is tying healthcare to employment, and not the family that owns hobby Lobby being opposed to abortion. It's perverted they had to spend their money to exempt themselves from a law tantamount (in their minds) to funding genocide.
:horrorsurprise: fsd joins the government funded healthcare camp
It's been government funded for 80 years. What are you talking about?
The federal government needs to stop employing the private sector to carry out its bullshit mandates.
-
Man, I've been seeing that 15 cent brain thing on tapatalk preview all evening and had no clue it was about me. Hurts :embarrassed:
-
This ultimately doesn't effect very many people at all. The blue hairs who work at HL weren't on the pill anyway.
-
Has anyone on here ever been to an HL?
I heard it's closed on Sunday. Just more imposing religious beliefs on their employees by not allowing them to work on Sunday.
-
:dubious:
-
I like federalism.
-
Someone should tell these churches, synagogues, temples, etc (they're all organized as legal entities, including corporations) they aren't allowed to have religious beliefs.
It's not that they aren't allowed to so much as that they are physically unable to.
-
Can't we all just recognize that the real problem is tying healthcare to employment, and not the family that owns hobby Lobby being opposed to abortion. It's perverted they had to spend their money to exempt themselves from a law tantamount (in their minds) to funding genocide.
I'm all for single payer healthcare. However, just because they believe that IUDs, Plan B, and ella are "genocide" doesn't mean that it is. Those methods of birth control work in the same way that birth control pills do...primarily to prevent ovulation. This is political and I think we all know it.
I wonder if things would be different if their religious views opposed chemically-induced erections? "Hey guys, having trouble getting it up? Viagra for everyone! Sure, we cover that! Just make sure that you aren't banging a chick who works at Hobby Lobby!"
-
Viagra is old white man first amendment territory. You will never take that away
-
Can't we all just recognize that the real problem is tying healthcare to employment, and not the family that owns hobby Lobby being opposed to abortion. It's perverted they had to spend their money to exempt themselves from a law tantamount (in their minds) to funding genocide.
I'm all for single payer healthcare. However, just because they believe that IUDs, Plan B, and ella are "genocide" doesn't mean that it is. Those methods of birth control work in the same way that birth control pills do...primarily to prevent ovulation. This is political and I think we all know it.
I wonder if things would be different if their religious views opposed chemically-induced erections? "Hey guys, having trouble getting it up? Viagra for everyone! Sure, we cover that! Just make sure that you aren't banging a chick who works at Hobby Lobby!"
I'm not advocating single payer. I don't want to be on a secret waiting list that requires me to wait months to see a doctor.
Maybe the government should just stop forcing people to affirmatively do things they don't want to do.
-
Someone should tell these churches, synagogues, temples, etc (they're all organized as legal entities, including corporations) they aren't allowed to have religious beliefs.
It's not that they aren't allowed to so much as that they are physically unable to.
I suppose all these building I see labeled church and what not are imaginary. The thrift stores, soup kitchen, shelters, and charitable organizations aren't really there?
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/
They probably don't even go to church even though the stores are closed on Sundays, too. What a buncha phonies!! :Crybaby:
-
Heh. Pretty funny response to the liberal hysteria about government "intruding in the bedroom."
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
-
lol
-
Someone should tell these churches, synagogues, temples, etc (they're all organized as legal entities, including corporations) they aren't allowed to have religious beliefs.
It's not that they aren't allowed to so much as that they are physically unable to.
I suppose all these building I see labeled church and what not are imaginary. The thrift stores, soup kitchen, shelters, and charitable organizations aren't really there?
They are there, but they don't have beliefs.
-
Heh. Pretty funny response to the liberal hysteria about government "intruding in the bedroom."
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
i like this mostly because it implies that they were boning
-
Someone should tell these churches, synagogues, temples, etc (they're all organized as legal entities, including corporations) they aren't allowed to have religious beliefs.
It's not that they aren't allowed to so much as that they are physically unable to.
I suppose all these building I see labeled church and what not are imaginary. The thrift stores, soup kitchen, shelters, and charitable organizations aren't really there?
They are there, but they don't have beliefs.
I think you need to develop your point into something more than butthurt about a couple corporations not being required to pay for their employees abortions.
-
Someone should tell these churches, synagogues, temples, etc (they're all organized as legal entities, including corporations) they aren't allowed to have religious beliefs.
It's not that they aren't allowed to so much as that they are physically unable to.
I suppose all these building I see labeled church and what not are imaginary. The thrift stores, soup kitchen, shelters, and charitable organizations aren't really there?
They are there, but they don't have beliefs.
I think you need to develop your point into something more than butthurt about a couple corporations not being required to pay for their employees abortions.
No corporation is required to pay for an employee's abortion.
-
Equating birth control to abortion is a loser talking point in my opinion. Probably 95% of women in this country, conservative or liberal, have used some type of birth control in their lifetime.
-
Equating birth control to abortion is a loser talking point in my opinion. Probably 95% of women in this country, conservative or liberal, have used some type of birth control in their lifetime.
i think these people consider IUDs and morning after pills to be abortions, not 'doms and bc pills
-
Equating birth control to abortion is a loser talking point in my opinion. Probably 95% of women in this country, conservative or liberal, have used some type of birth control in their lifetime.
i think these people consider IUDs and morning after pills to be abortions, not 'doms and bc pills
I thought IUDs prevented fertilization. Which would be the same category as a condom or BC pill. I could be wrong, I'm not an expert.
-
Equating birth control to abortion is a loser talking point in my opinion. Probably 95% of women in this country, conservative or liberal, have used some type of birth control in their lifetime.
i think these people consider IUDs and morning after pills to be abortions, not 'doms and bc pills
I thought IUDs prevented fertilization. Which would be the same category as a condom or BC pill. I could be wrong, I'm not an expert.
The way I understand it is that they may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. So that's why they don't like it - the egg is fertilized.
In fact one of the 2 IUDs available in the US can be inserted up to 5 days after unprotected sex and still work.
-
Is birth control really so expensive that not covering it is really a big deal? My wife's insurance has a $40 copay all RXs. I though bc could be bought for $20 a month or so.
-
Is birth control really so expensive that not covering it is really a big deal? My wife's insurance has a $40 copay all RXs. I though bc could be bought for $20 a month or so.
I would think that not covering would make your insurance rates go up, though. If I were selling insurance, I would give a higher rate to a plan that I would associate with a higher pregnancy risk, anyway.
Plus these people work at Hobby Lobby. Any expense is a major expense.
-
I heard somewhere that HL actually pays their employees more than the typical retail store. Might have just been a right wing talking point I saw on FB though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
http://time.com/2941323/supreme-court-contraception-ruling-hobby-lobby/ (http://time.com/2941323/supreme-court-contraception-ruling-hobby-lobby/)
Appears as tho IUD's and morning after pills aren't covered, everything else is.
A traditional copper IUD does prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, however mirena (which has been heavily advertised on TV) acts more like a internal bc pill (I think). This does not equate abortion.
A lot of misinformation out there on what exactly was decided, I don't agree with it, but HL didn't block people from getting "the pill".
-
I heard somewhere that HL actually pays their employees more than the typical retail store. Might have just been a right wing talking point I saw on FB though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They start at double the minimum wage. And they actually cover most birth control, just not a few certain "abortion" ones.
-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/10506678_810795698932195_7843244202152917613_o.jpg)
-
I think you need to develop your point into something more than butthurt about a couple corporations not being required to pay for their employees abortions.
WebMD:
Pill "The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg. Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation."
Plan B "Emergency contraception pills work by preventing ovulation, fertilization, or implantation."
IUD "There are two types of IUDs available in the United States. One type releases the hormone progestin, which causes the cervical mucus to become thicker so the sperm cannot reach the egg. The hormone also changes the lining of the uterus, so implantation of a fertilized egg cannot occur. The other type doesn't use hormones. It contains copper, which is slowly released into the uterine cavity. The copper stops the sperm from making it through the vagina and uterus to reach the egg, thus preventing fertilization."
Just because people/corporations believe something doesn't make it so.
-
http://www.atlbanana.com/supreme-court-upholds-little-caesars-right-to-feed-christian-employees-to-lions/
-
Really, the government should just pay for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's bullshit we're asking Hobby Lobby to pay IMO.
Yes. And it would not take long at all for taxes to go down.
Exactly. Less people on welfare.
I hope you're joking, guys. Eugenic social cleansing stance much?
-
I'm dead serious that the government should provide free birth control and health care. And yeah, it probably would reduce the welfare rate. Teen pregnancies especially ruin the finances of people.
-
Really, the government should just pay for birth control for anyone that wants it. It's bullshit we're asking Hobby Lobby to pay IMO.
Yes. And it would not take long at all for taxes to go down.
Exactly. Less people on welfare.
I hope you're joking, guys. Eugenic social cleansing stance much?
Not advocating forced sterilization.
-
:clac:
-
It would be great if everyone practiced personal accountability. We could do away with prisons and law enforcement for the most part.
A taxpayer paid IUD is cheaper than a taxpayer paid birth.
-
damn, SPEMAW deleted his "don't get creampied by random dudes" post. :frown:
-
damn, SPEMAW deleted his "don't get creampied by random dudes" post. :frown:
Son of a..... Now my post is out of context!
-
'doms and the pill are so readily available, many times for free. The pill is like $9/mo at your typical pharmacy. People need to take some responsibility for their actions. Use those provided methods or pay for additional measures themselves. If you depend on an implanted device paid for by someone else, you're basically a real POS. Quit getting creampied raw-dog style by some dude you're not commmitted to when you can't afford your own lifestyle much less another mouth to feed. If you're financially fortunate enough to provide for some IUD yourself and must rely on that, good for you. Don't live that lifestyle and expect it to be someone else's expense.
Oh cool, I started a reply to save it!
-
Not very PC or eloquent, but this issue is a sad one to argue over. No one should be forced to pay the bill for anything beyond what is already covered. The rest is, like, a choice - definitely not a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Not very PC or eloquent, but this issue is a sad one to argue over. No one should be forced to pay the bill for anything beyond what is already covered. The rest is, like, a choice - definitely not a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you were selling insurance, would you charge more or less for a plan that covers plan b?
-
Not very PC or eloquent, but this issue is a sad one to argue over. No one should be forced to pay the bill for anything beyond what is already covered. The rest is, like, a choice - definitely not a right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like I said, the government should pay for it.
-
'doms and the pill are so readily available, many times for free. The pill is like $9/mo at your typical pharmacy. People need to take some responsibility for their actions. Use those provided methods or pay for additional measures themselves. If you depend on an implanted device paid for by someone else, you're basically a real POS. Quit getting creampied raw-dog style by some dude you're not commmitted to when you can't afford your own lifestyle much less another mouth to feed. If you're financially fortunate enough to provide for some IUD yourself and must rely on that, good for you. Don't live that lifestyle and expect it to be someone else's expense.
Oh cool, I started a reply to save it!
Maybe low creampie IQ, but I don't think you can receive one without the raw-dog style. What a brain speemaw has.
-
rawdog is a good username for speems, i remember he was shopping some concepts
also creampie, but that might attract the wrong kind of spambots.
-
'doms and the pill are so readily available, many times for free. The pill is like $9/mo at your typical pharmacy. People need to take some responsibility for their actions. Use those provided methods or pay for additional measures themselves. If you depend on an implanted device paid for by someone else, you're basically a real POS. Quit getting creampied raw-dog style by some dude you're not commmitted to when you can't afford your own lifestyle much less another mouth to feed. If you're financially fortunate enough to provide for some IUD yourself and must rely on that, good for you. Don't live that lifestyle and expect it to be someone else's expense.
Oh cool, I started a reply to save it!
Maybe low creampie IQ, but I don't think you can receive one without the raw-dog style. What a brain speemaw has.
Test tube babies, though.
-
rawdog is a good username for speems, i remember he was shopping some concepts
also creampie, but that might attract the wrong kind of spambots.
Implied Raw-Dog
-
Some things in life come before finances. Not in government controlled healthcare though! Can't have it both ways.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Some things in life come before finances. Not in government controlled healthcare though! Can't have it both ways.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
what
-
He's brain doesn't work good.
-
Yeah, that stupid rough ridin' government keeping poor people from having kids just to save everybody money. Hey, Obama, we're not asking for a bailout. We're asking you to get out. Get out of the way and let good hardworking Kansans birf kids into poverty.
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
Liberals feed off the poor, depend on them for votes, promise change, and keep them held down by the shackles of a broken system. Oh, and they get people to vote based on emotion pertaining to issues that shouldn't have a place in politics.
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
Liberals feed off the poor, depend on them for votes, promise change, and keep them held down by the shackles of a broken system. Oh, and they get people to vote based on emotion pertaining to issues that shouldn't have a place in politics.
Why are our fellow conservatives supporting policies that just lead to more liberal voters then?
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
Liberals feed off the poor, depend on them for votes, promise change, and keep them held down by the shackles of a broken system. Oh, and they get people to vote based on emotion pertaining to issues that shouldn't have a place in politics.
kick their asses, rawdogcreampiecat
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
Liberals feed off the poor, depend on them for votes, promise change, and keep them held down by the shackles of a broken system. Oh, and they get people to vote based on emotion pertaining to issues that shouldn't have a place in politics.
Why are our fellow conservatives supporting policies that just lead to more liberal voters then?
I think they are doing it from a moral perspective, not a "what's best for me" perspective, which is admirable, IMO.
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
Liberals feed off the poor, depend on them for votes, promise change, and keep them held down by the shackles of a broken system. Oh, and they get people to vote based on emotion pertaining to issues that shouldn't have a place in politics.
Bro, do you even politick?
-
does hobby lobby cover sub completion chlorinated public underwater hjs?
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
Liberals feed off the poor, depend on them for votes, promise change, and keep them held down by the shackles of a broken system. Oh, and they get people to vote based on emotion pertaining to issues that shouldn't have a place in politics.
Why are our fellow conservatives supporting policies that just lead to more liberal voters then?
I think they are doing it from a moral perspective, not a "what's best for me" perspective, which is admirable, IMO.
Right, but is it a "moral" thing or more of an "I'm not down with slaughtering the most innocent of other human beings and then saying it was for their own good" thing? Maybe that's another way of saying morals.
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
Liberals feed off the poor, depend on them for votes, promise change, and keep them held down by the shackles of a broken system. Oh, and they get people to vote based on emotion pertaining to issues that shouldn't have a place in politics.
Why are our fellow conservatives supporting policies that just lead to more liberal voters then?
I think they are doing it from a moral perspective, not a "what's best for me" perspective, which is admirable, IMO.
Right, but is it a "moral" thing or more of an "I'm not down with slaughtering the most innocent of other human beings and then saying it was for their own good" thing? Maybe that's another way of saying morals.
Except this is about birth control drugs, not abortion, so if anything, this just increases the likelihood of somebody getting an unwanted pregnancy and deciding to slaughter an innocent human being. Besides, the same people who are supporting Hobby Lobby in this case are wanting to send child refugees back to their home countries to be slaughtered.
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
Liberals feed off the poor, depend on them for votes, promise change, and keep them held down by the shackles of a broken system. Oh, and they get people to vote based on emotion pertaining to issues that shouldn't have a place in politics.
Why are our fellow conservatives supporting policies that just lead to more liberal voters then?
I think they are doing it from a moral perspective, not a "what's best for me" perspective, which is admirable, IMO.
Right, but is it a "moral" thing or more of an "I'm not down with slaughtering the most innocent of other human beings and then saying it was for their own good" thing? Maybe that's another way of saying morals.
Except this is about birth control drugs, not abortion, so if anything, this just increases the likelihood of somebody getting an unwanted pregnancy and deciding to slaughter an innocent human being. Besides, the same people who are supporting Hobby Lobby in this case are wanting to send child refugees back to their home countries to be slaughtered.
Bullshit exaggeration.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
I also find it hilarious that they say we need millions of illegal aliens to grow the economy and work jobs, while simultaneously advocating for abortion and reduced birthrate in the country. What the eff?
Liberals feed off the poor, depend on them for votes, promise change, and keep them held down by the shackles of a broken system. Oh, and they get people to vote based on emotion pertaining to issues that shouldn't have a place in politics.
Why are our fellow conservatives supporting policies that just lead to more liberal voters then?
I think they are doing it from a moral perspective, not a "what's best for me" perspective, which is admirable, IMO.
Right, but is it a "moral" thing or more of an "I'm not down with slaughtering the most innocent of other human beings and then saying it was for their own good" thing? Maybe that's another way of saying morals.
Except this is about birth control drugs, not abortion, so if anything, this just increases the likelihood of somebody getting an unwanted pregnancy and deciding to slaughter an innocent human being. Besides, the same people who are supporting Hobby Lobby in this case are wanting to send child refugees back to their home countries to be slaughtered.
Wait, these kids are "refugees" who are fleeing some sort of genocide? Wow - that's a new spin I haven't heard before.
And this isn't about just birth control drugs - which Hobby Lobby includes in its insurance - it's about a select certain birth control drugs that the HL owners have moral objections to because they believe they terminate life after conception.
Whether such drugs cause "abortion" any more than other drugs is debatable, but you avoid all this mess by simply allowing employers to choose what insurance to provide, if anything. But liberals have suddenly become the "anti-choice" party. Or maybe they always were.
Just stop the bullshit arguments. They're annoying.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.
Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-a-company-liberals-could-love-.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-a-company-liberals-could-love-.html?_r=0)
One such company was hailed last year by the left-wing policy website Demos “for thumbing its nose at the conventional wisdom that success in the retail industry” requires paying “bargain-basement wages.” A retail chain with nearly 600 stores and 13,000 workers, this business sets its lowest full-time wage at $15 an hour, and raised wages steadily through the stagnant postrecession years. (Its do-gooder policies also include donating 10 percent of its profits to charity and giving all employees Sunday off.) And the chain is thriving commercially — offering, as Demos put it, a clear example of how “doing good for workers can also mean doing good for business.
”
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.
Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?
Why would I need to change my argument? I never said that the decision was limited to any particular types of birth control - just that Hobby Lobby's insurance does, in fact, provide some coverage.
None of this changes the central point that the federal government created this mess by mandating certain minimum coverages. Without those mandates, employers would choose what coverage, if any, to provide, and employees would choose whether to purchase the employer insurance, or find a new job, or purchase different or supplemental insurance. Choice: it's a wonderful thing, and it's how free markets keep prices low.
-
I'm dead serious that the government should provide free birth control and health care. And yeah, it probably would reduce the welfare rate. Teen pregnancies especially ruin the finances of people.
A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.
The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.
The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.
Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.
-
I'm dead serious that the government should provide free birth control and health care. And yeah, it probably would reduce the welfare rate. Teen pregnancies especially ruin the finances of people.
A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.
The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.
The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.
Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.
:thumbs: :thumbs:
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control (http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control)
A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.
The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.
The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.
Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.
-
Clown suited!
-
And then there is Salina...
http://ksn.com/2014/06/10/saline-co-commission-votes-down-iud-grant/
-
Men. Pffft.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.
Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?
Why would I need to change my argument? I never said that the decision was limited to any particular types of birth control - just that Hobby Lobby's insurance does, in fact, provide some coverage.
None of this changes the central point that the federal government created this mess by mandating certain minimum coverages. Without those mandates, employers would choose what coverage, if any, to provide, and employees would choose whether to purchase the employer insurance, or find a new job, or purchase different or supplemental insurance. Choice: it's a wonderful thing, and it's how free markets keep prices low.
Yeah, funny the federal government trying to mandate things upon legal fictions created to encourage risk taking and ease commerce. How asinine to then demand adhering to certain rules and regulations for the general welfare of employees of those legal fictions while owners receive limits on liability.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.
Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?
Why would I need to change my argument? I never said that the decision was limited to any particular types of birth control - just that Hobby Lobby's insurance does, in fact, provide some coverage.
None of this changes the central point that the federal government created this mess by mandating certain minimum coverages. Without those mandates, employers would choose what coverage, if any, to provide, and employees would choose whether to purchase the employer insurance, or find a new job, or purchase different or supplemental insurance. Choice: it's a wonderful thing, and it's how free markets keep prices low.
Yeah, funny the federal government trying to mandate things upon legal fictions created to encourage risk taking and ease commerce. How asinine to then demand adhering to certain rules and regulations for the general welfare of employees of those legal fictions while owners receive limits on liability.
If you're ok with the federal government demanding that an employer purchase an employee's birth control just for the privilege of doing business, if that's really the government you want, I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
You seem to have a very low opinion of women though. I personally think they're capable of buying their own birth control if they want it. But maybe theres a whole lot of "Julias" out there I haven't met.
-
Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.
-
Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.
Please explain. This should be fun.
-
I'm dead serious that the government should provide free birth control and health care. And yeah, it probably would reduce the welfare rate. Teen pregnancies especially ruin the finances of people.
A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.
The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.
The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.
Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.
Have you ever been in a hobby lobby? All the women working there are well beyond their fertile years.
-
Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.
Please explain. This should be fun.
The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.
-
Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.
Please explain. This should be fun.
The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.
Ok, so if I have this right, once a person decides to incorporate his business, he loses all freedoms (speech, religion, etc.) that might be exercised through that corporation, and the government can mandate that that person purchase or do anything it damn well demands even if it goes against that person's religion. Yup, that sounds as American as Apple Pie!
You know, this all came about because George Bush signed that damned Religious Freedom Restoration Act. :shakesfist:
It's just so sad that one person - the evil business owner - can use his right to freedom of religion as an excuse to trample on the rights of his employees - the right to free birth control...
-
Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.
Please explain. This should be fun.
The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.
LOL, wut?
I think 06 has convoluted a piercing argument into his qualms with the Courts interpretation of religious freedom. Do yourself a favor and delete that HuffPost favorite; it's dumb enough without imparting a child's reinterpretation.
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control (http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control)
A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.
The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.
The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.
Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.
An anecdote and some conjecture rolled up into a self serving and self promoting snippet. It's nice that these 14 year old girls can get IUD without parental consent, though. Nothing disturbing about that.
Question, are all teens low-income or are all low-income teens?
-
vox and their stupid cards, my god
-
Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.
Please explain. This should be fun.
The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.
Ok, so if I have this right, once a person decides to incorporate his business, he loses all freedoms (speech, religion, etc.) that might be exercised through that corporation, and the government can mandate that that person purchase or do anything it damn well demands even if it goes against that person's religion. Yup, that sounds as American as Apple Pie!
You know, this all came about because George Bush signed that damned Religious Freedom Restoration Act. :shakesfist:
It's just so sad that one person - the evil business owner - can use his right to freedom of religion as an excuse to trample on the rights of his employees - the right to free birth control...
This answers my original question.
-
Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.
Please explain. This should be fun.
The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.
LOL, wut?
I think 06 has convoluted a piercing argument into his qualms with the Courts interpretation of religious freedom. Do yourself a favor and delete that HuffPost favorite; it's dumb enough without imparting a child's reinterpretation.
I didn't know corporations had inherent religious beliefs. What form do I check at the SOS's office to find out if a vendor is properly religious for my needs?
-
Can't tell if you created that strawman on purpose or missed the point entirely.
Please explain. This should be fun.
The subject of the mandate doesn't matter. The Supreme Court essentially blurred the line between owners and corporations, two things that are to remain entirely separate entities for corporations to serve their intended purpose.
LOL, wut?
I think 06 has convoluted a piercing argument into his qualms with the Courts interpretation of religious freedom. Do yourself a favor and delete that HuffPost favorite; it's dumb enough without imparting a child's reinterpretation.
I didn't know corporations had inherent religious beliefs. What form do I check at the SOS's office to find out if a vendor is properly religious for my needs?
It's right next to disclosure box for "donates to ____ PAC", below the "y/n permit freedom of assembly on premises" and above the "y/n we dont hire mormons that wont work on sunday" questions, you rough ridin' dork.
-
Seriously though, you can get a list of every shareholder who owns more than 5% of the corporations stock, so that should be a good start to discover their "inherent beliefs"
-
Are the libtards arguing that bc isn't already free and provided by the government? Assuming it werent, do the actually think it would make a modicum of difference in the unplanned birthrate for poorer people? That's rough ridin' classic.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control (http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control)
A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.
The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.
The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.
Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.
An anecdote and some conjecture rolled up into a self serving and self promoting snippet. It's nice that these 14 year old girls can get IUD without parental consent, though. Nothing disturbing about that.
Question, are all teens low-income or are all low-income teens?
I don't think many docs are putting IUD's into children, IUD's are mostly given to women who have already given birth.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.
Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?
Why would I need to change my argument? I never said that the decision was limited to any particular types of birth control - just that Hobby Lobby's insurance does, in fact, provide some coverage.
None of this changes the central point that the federal government created this mess by mandating certain minimum coverages. Without those mandates, employers would choose what coverage, if any, to provide, and employees would choose whether to purchase the employer insurance, or find a new job, or purchase different or supplemental insurance. Choice: it's a wonderful thing, and it's how free markets keep prices low.
Yeah, funny the federal government trying to mandate things upon legal fictions created to encourage risk taking and ease commerce. How asinine to then demand adhering to certain rules and regulations for the general welfare of employees of those legal fictions while owners receive limits on liability.
If you're ok with the federal government demanding that an employer purchase an employee's birth control just for the privilege of doing business, if that's really the government you want, I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
You seem to have a very low opinion of women though. I personally think they're capable of buying their own birth control if they want it. But maybe theres a whole lot of "Julias" out there I haven't met.
I really enjoy it when neocons, who argue that the government shouldn't be in your personal life, advocate for big business to get into your lives.
Also how about that whole only 4 types of birth control working out now? LOL equal protection unless you have a vagina.
-
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
Thanks for posting this clownsuit before I got here Mrs.
It will be interesting to see how KSU and the rest of the neo-cons morph their arguments.
Also we're now good with corps having all parts of first amendment protections now even if their beliefs are lies?
Why would I need to change my argument? I never said that the decision was limited to any particular types of birth control - just that Hobby Lobby's insurance does, in fact, provide some coverage.
None of this changes the central point that the federal government created this mess by mandating certain minimum coverages. Without those mandates, employers would choose what coverage, if any, to provide, and employees would choose whether to purchase the employer insurance, or find a new job, or purchase different or supplemental insurance. Choice: it's a wonderful thing, and it's how free markets keep prices low.
Yeah, funny the federal government trying to mandate things upon legal fictions created to encourage risk taking and ease commerce. How asinine to then demand adhering to certain rules and regulations for the general welfare of employees of those legal fictions while owners receive limits on liability.
If you're ok with the federal government demanding that an employer purchase an employee's birth control just for the privilege of doing business, if that's really the government you want, I'm not going to convince you otherwise.
You seem to have a very low opinion of women though. I personally think they're capable of buying their own birth control if they want it. But maybe theres a whole lot of "Julias" out there I haven't met.
I really enjoy it when neocons, who argue that the government shouldn't be in your personal life, advocate for big business to get into your lives.
Also how about that whole only 4 types of birth control working out now? LOL equal protection unless you have a vagina.
Again, let me paraphrase your idiotic "big business is intruding into my privacy" talking point...
"Get your politics out of my bedroom!"
"Not a problem. I'm just going to grab my wallet before I leave."
"The wallet stays, bigot."
Are you getting this? You're free to do what you want in the bedroom, just maybe don't ask that evil Christian-based "Big Business" (that pays double the minimum wage for moral reasons) to pay for it.
-
Isn't business (except HL, nonprofits, thousands of other specially exempted companies) required to provide health insurance to its male workers that covers birth control, IUDs, etc.? Yes, yes they are.
That's "equal protection" to a perverted and wasteful degree not known until now. It's a good thing the Fed has commandeered big insurance to make sure men are provided these necessary coverages. When everyone plays the game, everyone gets paid.
-
For all their anti big business rhetoric, the left sure does spend an awful lot of time and energy channeling money to big - business.
-
Its like the can feel your war on women froth through my computer. :eye:
-
I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people. I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.
-
I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people. I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.
Jesus, this is pathetic.
-
I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people. I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.
Jesus, this is pathetic.
Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.
-
Its like the can feel your war on women froth through my computer. :eye:
You lose the argument when you use this phrase FYI. Having a discussion about what should or should not be required for a business to offer their employees is hardly a war, friend. Perhaps you ought to personally consider what constitutes a war, and what an individual whom you accuse of waging war is actually doing.
-
Its like the can feel your war on women froth through my computer. :eye:
You lose the argument when you use this phrase FYI. Having a discussion about what should or should not be required for a business to offer their employees is hardly a war, friend. Perhaps you ought to personally consider what constitutes a war, and what an individual whom you accuse of waging war is actually doing.
Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war?
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?
-
Its like the can feel your war on women froth through my computer. :eye:
You lose the argument when you use this phrase FYI. Having a discussion about what should or should not be required for a business to offer their employees is hardly a war, friend. Perhaps you ought to personally consider what constitutes a war, and what an individual whom you accuse of waging war is actually doing.
Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war?
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?
Kinda remembering why I quit posting in this thread. If you want to have a grown up discussion I'm down for that, but if you're agenda is to insult, I'll be content to let you do so with someone else.
-
I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people. I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.
Jesus, this is pathetic.
Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.
Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points.
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business. So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.
-
The number on strawpeople on display is incredible!
-
I am not for forcing owners of biz to do something that goes against their beliefs.
The market will sort it out, imo. Go work elsewhere.
That said, the radio story I heard on the ruling recently said that the ruling specifically said they didn't have to pay for the Plan B pill or UTI's, but that they didn't object paying for other forms of birth control.
It's not the all or nothing ruling that many reports are generalizing it as, who cares.
-
If I were a woman, I'd be highly skeptical of the party lead by known serial rapist and misogynist Bill Clinton running to my rescue.
Hey its cool he coaxed a BJ out of a 24 year old girl during her work day. But the 'pubs, trying to prevent legislative mandates requiring coverage for readily available and inexpensive BC, now that's repellent.
-
I am not for forcing owners of biz to do something that goes against their beliefs.
The market will sort it out, imo. Go work elsewhere.
That said, the radio story I heard on the ruling recently said that the ruling specifically said they didn't have to pay for the Plan B pill or UTI's, but that they didn't object paying for other forms of birth control.
It's not the all or nothing ruling that many reports are generalizing it as, who cares.
You seem pretty with it CNS, so I'm surprised to hear you say this. You should go read up on how the SCOTUS has appended its decision (the day after the ruling in fact) to guide the lower courts to re-examine their previous rulings on all BCs. So in essence, they ruled and allowed for certain provisions and then the next day instructed lower courts to shut off those other avenues, ergo threatening all BC no matter what the intention of use is.
-
I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people. I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.
Jesus, this is pathetic.
Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.
Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points.
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business. So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.
First, "neocon" is a foreign policy label. You sound like a dumbass when you don't use words correctly. Second, I'm "parroting" my legal training, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and common sense. I'll take those "sources" over whatever lefty blog or MSNBC (but I repeat myself) you're perusing.
-
I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people. I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.
Jesus, this is pathetic.
Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.
Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points.
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business. So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.
First, "neocon" is a foreign policy label. You sound like a dumbass when you don't use words correctly. Second, I'm "parroting" my legal training, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and common sense. I'll take those "sources" over whatever lefty blog or MSNBC (but I repeat myself) you're perusing.
How many times can you seriously say something on the internet made you laugh out loud!!!
-
nobody is limiting the access of birth control, any woman can buy it from any source they like.
Also, why would half the women in the US wage a war on themselves? Or, are they just waging a war against liberal women?
-
I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people. I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.
Jesus, this is pathetic.
Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.
Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points.
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business. So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.
First, "neocon" is a foreign policy label. You sound like a dumbass when you don't use words correctly. Second, I'm "parroting" my legal training, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and common sense. I'll take those "sources" over whatever lefty blog or MSNBC (but I repeat myself) you're perusing.
How many times can you seriously say something on the internet made you laugh out loud!!!
Happy to cheer you up, and nice tap out. I was trying to say, as politely as possible, "I'm smarter than you, I know what I'm talking about, you don't, so quit being a dumbass."
-
nobody is limiting the access of birth control, any woman can buy it from any source they like.
Also, why would half the women in the US wage a war on themselves? Or, are they just waging a war against liberal women?
No, no, no, it's the 5 old, male SC Justices that are waging the war on women! :shakesfist:
-
I really enjoy the openness about believing corps are people. I mean you dont get that kind of legal formalist honesty anymore, mostly becauae it died out in the american public with child labor and 70 hour work weeks to provide bread and water and it isnt the early 20th century.
Jesus, this is pathetic.
Yes, but he's just parroting a common libtard talking point without really understanding its implications. Corporations are a legal entity composed of, and held by, people. Were it not for this ruling, the government would be able to force people to violate their religious beliefs just to maintain their corporate status (or pay penalties, etc) which is a clear violation of the First Anendment and the RFRA.
Hey dumbass,
Please read the history of where your beliefs come from, because right now its painfully obvious you're parroting Foxnews/neocon talking points.
Additionally, and I really hate to add to your work load of reading books without burning them, why don't you read up on why corps aren't people and their entire legal existence is designed to shield owners form liabilities of running said business. So either corporations are people and we can put them and their owners to death (think recalls and failure to notify being akin to manslaughter) or we get back to rational law and say corps are not people, don't have any first amendment rights, like our founders wanted, and get over imposing your views on women.
First, "neocon" is a foreign policy label. You sound like a dumbass when you don't use words correctly. Second, I'm "parroting" my legal training, the Supreme Court majority opinion, and common sense. I'll take those "sources" over whatever lefty blog or MSNBC (but I repeat myself) you're perusing.
How many times can you seriously say something on the internet made you laugh out loud!!!
Happy to cheer you up, and nice tap out. I was trying to say, as politely as possible, "I'm smarter than you, I know what I'm talking about, you don't, so quit being a dumbass."
sorry to put you in that kind of mood. But I was just gonna say your juvenile understanding Supreme Court decisions shows you obviously have nothing beyond an undergrad level of legal training. I would be shocked if you want to any kind of reputable school for post grad work with the way you spew these repudiated legal formalist arguments.
-
I really wouldn't care about this at all if the law didn't mandate that individuals purchase insurance that includes birth control. Giving a business an exemption on religious grounds when their employees aren't required to follow their religion just doesn't make sense to me. My religion says I'm not supposed to kill people. That didn't give me an exemption from filling out a draft card.
-
I really wouldn't care about this at all if the law didn't mandate that individuals purchase insurance that includes birth control. Giving a business an exemption on religious grounds when their employees aren't required to follow their religion just doesn't make sense to me. My religion says I'm not supposed to kill people. That didn't give me an exemption from filling out a draft card.
whats your beef with birth control? If its because of religious issues woild you have the same objections to Jehovah witness and blood transfusions or scientology and psychological care?
-
Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war?
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?
All facets, huh? It seems to me the only thing "under attack" is contraception. Could be wrong though.
-
Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war?
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?
All facets, huh? It seems to me the only thing "under attack" is contraception. Could be wrong though.
not keeping up on the slashing of funding for women's centers in red states? How about horribly restrictive standards like admitting privileges and surgical center certifications. Or guest the general issue that birth control has been something radical right has been attempting to wrest control from women for decades with little success.
-
I really wouldn't care about this at all if the law didn't mandate that individuals purchase insurance that includes birth control. Giving a business an exemption on religious grounds when their employees aren't required to follow their religion just doesn't make sense to me. My religion says I'm not supposed to kill people. That didn't give me an exemption from filling out a draft card.
Also if your issue is that it requires men to have BC coverage its because the issue is being framed by neo-cons that way. Instead turn it around and look at it as a civil rights issue where you are preventing an insurance company from discriminating against women on the basis of sex. So in effect you the ACA doesn't mandate men have BC coverage, its mandates that plans can't prohibit companies from discriminating against women. All the more reason why Hobby Lobby is bullshit, my companies first amendment rights which were just invented by old white guys trumps your natural rights as a human, seems fair doesn't it?
Additionally legal formalists, like K-S-U, do stupid crap like Rehnquist did G.E. v Gilbert and say that pregnancy exclusions written into things like disability coverage because its a "physical condition" not sexual discrimination because the law was written gender neutrally. So the BC coverage mandate takes this kind of logic and turns it on its head to provide coverage.
-
Ed - if you're trolling, I salute you. You really had me going. If you're serious, you just jumped the shark. Or a whole SeaWorld of them.
Also if your issue is that it requires men to have BC coverage its because the issue is being framed by neo-cons that way. Instead turn it around and look at it as a civil rights issue where you are preventing an insurance company from discriminating against women on the basis of sex. So in effect you the ACA doesn't mandate men have BC coverage, its mandates that plans can't prohibit companies from discriminating against women.
Wait - are you saying Obamacare requires free condoms for men?! How has the entire universe overlooked this salient fact?
All the more reason why Hobby Lobby is bullshit, my companies first amendment rights which were just invented by old white guys trumps your natural rights as a human, seems fair doesn't it?
Ah yes, the "natural right" to free birth control provided by your employer. I believe that was discussed at length in Federalist Papers No. 9.
-
All Healthcare should be provided free of charge to citizens, then all this ridiculousness would be moot
-
Is birth control really healthcare? Seems like a slippery slope. Pretty soon the government will be paying for deoderant, kale, tylenol, bean sprouts and nasal strips.
At some point major medical will became prepaid toiletries and health food.
-
birth control is preventative healthcare
-
Anyone opposed to free dental floss, diapers and preparation-h is warring against womens!!!!!
-
birth control is preventative healthcare
So is abstinence and monogamy and euthanasia
-
it's really odd that neocons hate birth control, considering it prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born every year.
guess they think shooting mexicans on sight is a better tactic. so weird.
-
Fan of both monogamy and euthanasia
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
-
assisted suicide should absolutely be available to those in dire situations
-
it's really odd that neocons hate birth control, considering it prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born every year.
guess they think shooting mexicans on sight is a better tactic. so weird.
Direct quote from a Ginsberg dissenting [delusion].
-
assisted suicide should absolutely be available to those in dire situations
Hitler was a leader in progressive "preventive healthcare"
-
it's really odd that neocons hate birth control, considering it prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born every year.
Seriously, this is such a sad and pathetic view of humanity, particularly from someone who presumably champions the merits of the welfare state, and I'm so glad I have completely opposite positions to this person.
-
it's really odd that neocons hate birth control, considering it prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born every year.
Seriously, this is such a sad and pathetic view of humanity, particularly from someone who presumably champions the merits of the welfare state, and I'm so glad I have completely opposite positions to this person.
yup, nothing worse than preventing unwanted pregnancies. unwanted babies are the most successful people ever and don't ever add to the welfare state that you hate so much.
-
sex is only for procreation, that's what i always say. if god didn't want you to have babies, he'd make your wife barren.
-
it's really odd that neocons hate birth control, considering it prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born every year.
Seriously, this is such a sad and pathetic view of humanity, particularly from someone who presumably champions the merits of the welfare state, and I'm so glad I have completely opposite positions to this person.
yup, nothing worse than preventing unwanted pregnancies. unwanted babies are the most successful people ever and don't ever add to the welfare state that you hate so much.
If only you and the other losers who share these horrific and self deprecating thoughts would self-employ this fanatical genocide....Please seek professional guidance
-
birth control is genocide.... :lol:
-
how can you even have a conversation with a moron that makes a statement like that :lol:
-
it's really odd that neocons hate birth control, considering it prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born every year.
Disgusting
-
this rough ridin' guy thinks a condom is genocide :lol:
holy crap!
-
The leftist, once the curtains are pulled back, is a whole another kind of inhuman(e), subhuman.
-
holy eff this is amazing :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
how deep does this go? is any spilling of the seed outside of the purpose of impregnating a woman genocide as well?
-
Back pedaling to condoms is interesting. Are these the "poor libtard" condoms preventing the birth of more poor people, or the condoms everyone should be entitled to through their free healthcare?
These people are truly deranged psychopaths in dire need of professional assistance.
-
backpedaling? you're the one that said birth control is rough ridin' genocide you god damn crazy person. or do you think only female birth control is genocide?
-
even the ever evil muslim faith says it's ok to use birth control :lol: jfc fsd
:lol:
-
Not sure, are you talking about BC that keeps "poor libtards" out of society, or the 75 cent french tickler available in the men's stall at the Love's truck stop, you subhuman specimen of fecal matter?
-
do you pray every night for victims of the birth control pill holocaust?
-
this is almost as great as the time on shaggy that some guy said the tea party was the best fit for fiscally conservative/socially liberal people :lol:
-
I'm glad you've decided to backpedal into this pathetic straw man attack, because the reckless and unbridled abortion of unborn poors position you were advocating is just rough ridin' despicable and disgusting. Unfortunately, you can't wash your hands of that, and it won't be forgotten.
-
I'm glad you've decided to backpedal into this pathetic straw man attack, because the reckless and unbridled abortion of unborn poors position you were advocating is just rough ridin' despicable and disgusting. Unfortunately, you can't wash your hand of that, and it won't be forgotten.
guys, i think he realizes he sounds like a crazy person when he says birth control is genocide, but you know... i'm the one backpedeling... :lol:
-
it prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born every year.
-
it's really odd that neocons hate birth control, considering it prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born every year.
Folks, this is what they really believe. Frightening.
depo-shot = pol pot -- FSD
-
it prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born every year.
Post hoc damage control, "this quote was meant to convey sentiments regarding free rubbers for everyone."
Sure thing, psychopath.
-
it (birth control) does, you rough ridin' moron.
-
it (birth control) does, you rough ridin' moron.
which is also in the original quote that you are now omitting with your backpedeling
-
We all knew what you were trying to say, which makes this such a sad and dark day, even for the pit.
-
:lol:
-
prevents millions of poor libtard voters from being born
It's just sad to see this sadistic and anachronistic thinking surface in this day and age. Unsurprisingly, it comes from a devout and dogmatic leftist, the most fanatical and self righteous of religions.
-
:lol:
-
:lol:
Seek counseling. EMAW T&Ps
-
:lol:
Seek counseling. EMAW T&Ps
:lol:
-
This thread is crap storm.
-
This thread is crap storm.
;)
-
Ed - if you're trolling, I salute you. You really had me going. If you're serious, you just jumped the shark. Or a whole SeaWorld of them.
Also if your issue is that it requires men to have BC coverage its because the issue is being framed by neo-cons that way. Instead turn it around and look at it as a civil rights issue where you are preventing an insurance company from discriminating against women on the basis of sex. So in effect you the ACA doesn't mandate men have BC coverage, its mandates that plans can't prohibit companies from discriminating against women.
Wait - are you saying Obamacare requires free condoms for men?! How has the entire universe overlooked this salient fact?
All the more reason why Hobby Lobby is bullshit, my companies first amendment rights which were just invented by old white guys trumps your natural rights as a human, seems fair doesn't it?
Ah yes, the "natural right" to free birth control provided by your employer. I believe that was discussed at length in Federalist Papers No. 9.
please read and attempt to understand the points made and the cases noted. If you have questions ill answer them.
-
I would also like to take a moment tonight to applaud Seven. Great.form.sir. :billdance:
-
EXCLUSIVE VIDEO OF FSD PUTTING SEVEN AGAINST THE ROPES:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F12%2Fmuhammad-ali.gif&hash=84f6ababe5d3669bd0dff42e27d64999e3f65b00)
-
Ed - if you're trolling, I salute you. You really had me going. If you're serious, you just jumped the shark. Or a whole SeaWorld of them.
Also if your issue is that it requires men to have BC coverage its because the issue is being framed by neo-cons that way. Instead turn it around and look at it as a civil rights issue where you are preventing an insurance company from discriminating against women on the basis of sex. So in effect you the ACA doesn't mandate men have BC coverage, its mandates that plans can't prohibit companies from discriminating against women.
Wait - are you saying Obamacare requires free condoms for men?! How has the entire universe overlooked this salient fact?
All the more reason why Hobby Lobby is bullshit, my companies first amendment rights which were just invented by old white guys trumps your natural rights as a human, seems fair doesn't it?
Ah yes, the "natural right" to free birth control provided by your employer. I believe that was discussed at length in Federalist Papers No. 9.
please read and attempt to understand the points made and the cases noted. If you have questions ill answer them.
I understand your points just fine, to the extent that stupidity can be understood. You are arguing that Hobby Lobby, by allowing business owners to assert freedom of religion (and that's not exactly what it holds, but let's not quibble over specifics), allows the business owners to trample on the "rights" of their employees.
The question is, what "rights" are being trampled upon? And here is where your argument falls apart, as I illustrated above. This is not, as you argue, a matter of equal protection. Obamacare does not require free male contraception. Nor is there a right to "free" contraception.
The employees' right to access to birth control is the same as it has been since Griswold. If you want, you can trot your happy ass down to the pharmacy and buy it. Just don't demand that your employer pay for it. There is no such right.
-
I really wouldn't care about this at all if the law didn't mandate that individuals purchase insurance that includes birth control. Giving a business an exemption on religious grounds when their employees aren't required to follow their religion just doesn't make sense to me. My religion says I'm not supposed to kill people. That didn't give me an exemption from filling out a draft card.
whats your beef with birth control? If its because of religious issues woild you have the same objections to Jehovah witness and blood transfusions or scientology and psychological care?
I have no beef with birth control. It's great. This issue is not about birth control to me, though. It's about the religious exemption granted to a corporation. Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
-
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?
-
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?
I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.
-
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?
I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.
That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.
-
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?
I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.
That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.
Oh, the horror.
-
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?
I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.
That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.
Oh, the horror.
You don't find it morally objectionable - neither do I - but I do think we should respect freedom of religion in this country. These owners are not kooks. They have deep-seated religious beliefs, beliefs that are shared, by the way, by millions of Americans. And they walk the walk. They don't operate on Sundays, and their starting wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage because they believe it is the right thing to do (something they were widely praised for in liberal circles just a few years ago before they threatened the sacred cows of Obamacare and free birth control).
-
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?
I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.
That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.
Oh, the horror.
You don't find it morally objectionable - neither do I - but I do think we should respect freedom of religion in this country. These owners are not kooks. They have deep-seated religious beliefs, beliefs that are shared, by the way, by millions of Americans. And they walk the walk. They don't operate on Sundays, and their starting wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage because they believe it is the right thing to do (something they were widely praised for in liberal circles just a few years ago before they threatened the sacred cows of Obamacare and free birth control).
If the US ever has to have another draft, are you ok with Christians and Jews being exempt?
-
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?
I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.
That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.
Oh, the horror.
You don't find it morally objectionable - neither do I - but I do think we should respect freedom of religion in this country. These owners are not kooks. They have deep-seated religious beliefs, beliefs that are shared, by the way, by millions of Americans. And they walk the walk. They don't operate on Sundays, and their starting wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage because they believe it is the right thing to do (something they were widely praised for in liberal circles just a few years ago before they threatened the sacred cows of Obamacare and free birth control).
If the US ever has to have another draft, are you ok with Christians and Jews being exempt?
I'm ok with exemptions for conscientious objectors, just like we had for prior drafts.
-
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?
I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.
That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.
Oh, the horror.
You don't find it morally objectionable - neither do I - but I do think we should respect freedom of religion in this country. These owners are not kooks. They have deep-seated religious beliefs, beliefs that are shared, by the way, by millions of Americans. And they walk the walk. They don't operate on Sundays, and their starting wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage because they believe it is the right thing to do (something they were widely praised for in liberal circles just a few years ago before they threatened the sacred cows of Obamacare and free birth control).
If the US ever has to have another draft, are you ok with Christians and Jews being exempt?
I'm ok with exemptions for conscientious objectors, just like we had for prior drafts.
I don't think that worked out very well for most of the people who tried it.
-
birth control is preventative healthcare
So is abstinence and monogamy and euthanasia
Are you saying that monogamy prevents pregnancy? :dunno: I don't think it does.
-
Freedom of religion includes the freedom to be non-religious. An employer should not be able to get an exemption on a law only so they can insure that their employees are following the beliefs of a religion that those employees may not even believe in.
Again, this is so simple, I don't understand why you can't grasp it. The Hobby Lobby owners are not trying to "insure [sic] that their employees are following" the same religious beliefs of the owners. The owners just don't want to pay for something that they find immoral. The employees remain free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Why can't you understand that distinction?
I would be curious to see how much 4 methods of birth control move the needle on a group insurance premium. I'm betting it's pretty close to 0.
That is irrelevant. If it is part of the policy, and they're paying for the policy, then they're paying for the birth control coverage.
Oh, the horror.
You don't find it morally objectionable - neither do I - but I do think we should respect freedom of religion in this country. These owners are not kooks. They have deep-seated religious beliefs, beliefs that are shared, by the way, by millions of Americans. And they walk the walk. They don't operate on Sundays, and their starting wage is significantly higher than the minimum wage because they believe it is the right thing to do (something they were widely praised for in liberal circles just a few years ago before they threatened the sacred cows of Obamacare and free birth control).
If the US ever has to have another draft, are you ok with Christians and Jews being exempt?
Absolutely yes.
-
I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
-
I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
Which religion is this specifically?
-
I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
Sadly, the courts have ruled (repeatedly, I think) that you cannot object to paying taxes on the basis of religion. Sorry. Freedom of religion does not trump all government power - the government just has to meet a very high burden of establishing that there is no less restrictive way to further a compelling government interest before it can infringe on your religious liberty.
-
I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
Which religion is this specifically?
my strongly held one
-
I don't believe my taxes should pay for such a large military (cuz religion). Should I get, say, a 10% break on my taxes?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
Which religion is this specifically?
my strongly held one
I would say render to Caesar in that case. However I get your point that laws infringe on religious liberty often. Its a bummer.
-
Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war?
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?
All facets, huh? It seems to me the only thing "under attack" is contraception. Could be wrong though.
not keeping up on the slashing of funding for women's centers in red states? How about horribly restrictive standards like admitting privileges and surgical center certifications. Or guest the general issue that birth control has been something radical right has been attempting to wrest control from women for decades with little success.
If we're talking about abortion here (which according to your admitting privileges and surgical center certifications examples, we are), then my point still stands. The so called "war on women" is a war on abortion.
Nobody takes issue with women's centers doing cancer screenings.
-
Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war?
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?
All facets, huh? It seems to me the only thing "under attack" is contraception. Could be wrong though.
not keeping up on the slashing of funding for women's centers in red states? How about horribly restrictive standards like admitting privileges and surgical center certifications. Or guest the general issue that birth control has been something radical right has been attempting to wrest control from women for decades with little success.
If we're talking about abortion here (which according to your admitting privileges and surgical center certifications examples, we are), then my point still stands. The so called "war on women" is a war on abortion.
Nobody takes issue with women's centers doing cancer screenings.
Shhh! Libtards don't use the A Word when talking about the War on Women. The correct term is "women's health." The WoW apparently does not pertain to the millions of girls that are aborted. It's all so confusing.
-
I wouldn't say that not offering female employees insurance that covers certain types of bc, getting into their personal lives. I would say the government mandating that a business/ business owner offer certain types of bc, getting into their personal lives.
-
i would think that with nicname we can ignore the fed government and focus on whether the state of kansas should provide these services, to which the answer would be no. they can go to a diff state if they expect this, correct? not disagreeing necessarily, just condensing
-
Ed - if you're trolling, I salute you. You really had me going. If you're serious, you just jumped the shark. Or a whole SeaWorld of them.
Also if your issue is that it requires men to have BC coverage its because the issue is being framed by neo-cons that way. Instead turn it around and look at it as a civil rights issue where you are preventing an insurance company from discriminating against women on the basis of sex. So in effect you the ACA doesn't mandate men have BC coverage, its mandates that plans can't prohibit companies from discriminating against women.
Wait - are you saying Obamacare requires free condoms for men?! How has the entire universe overlooked this salient fact?
All the more reason why Hobby Lobby is bullshit, my companies first amendment rights which were just invented by old white guys trumps your natural rights as a human, seems fair doesn't it?
Ah yes, the "natural right" to free birth control provided by your employer. I believe that was discussed at length in Federalist Papers No. 9.
please read and attempt to understand the points made and the cases noted. If you have questions ill answer them.
I understand your points just fine, to the extent that stupidity can be understood. You are arguing that Hobby Lobby, by allowing business owners to assert freedom of religion (and that's not exactly what it holds, but let's not quibble over specifics), allows the business owners to trample on the "rights" of their employees.
The question is, what "rights" are being trampled upon? And here is where your argument falls apart, as I illustrated above. This is not, as you argue, a matter of equal protection. Obamacare does not require free male contraception. Nor is there a right to "free" contraception.
The employees' right to access to birth control is the same as it has been since Griswold. If you want, you can trot your happy ass down to the pharmacy and buy it. Just don't demand that your employer pay for it. There is no such right.
Its clear that you don't understand the law and what is going on here. Additionally its clear that all of my comments have gone right over your head. If you went to school at K-State and took any Pol Sci or Hist of Con Law classes please return to campus immediately and apologize to Dr. Fliter, Dr. Franke, or Dr. Williams.
I'll make this very simple:
Hobby lobby said the business has a religious belief because of its owners beliefs.
Alito's opinion said that their beliefs, even though they are scientifically inaccurate, were enough justification to rule over the rights of people, simply because they believed they caused abortions.
ACA turned your legal formalist logic on its head, and didn't say men must have coverage for BC for all. And like previous decisions, the law was written neutrally so it couldn't discriminate based on sex. See notes which you ducked before.
The result is that we live in an era now where corps have 1st amendment rights of speech and now religion in addition to 14th amendment equal protection rights. That is one of the most heinous things which you people have done to our country.
-
Attacking all facets of Women's health care, particularly their access to it isn't a war?
lol another supporter of the pre existing condition of 'vagina'?
All facets, huh? It seems to me the only thing "under attack" is contraception. Could be wrong though.
not keeping up on the slashing of funding for women's centers in red states? How about horribly restrictive standards like admitting privileges and surgical center certifications. Or guest the general issue that birth control has been something radical right has been attempting to wrest control from women for decades with little success.
If we're talking about abortion here (which according to your admitting privileges and surgical center certifications examples, we are), then my point still stands. The so called "war on women" is a war on abortion.
Nobody takes issue with women's centers doing cancer screenings.
I would encourage you to look at places like Planned Parenthood having funding blocked even for clinics which don't provide abortions. Most importantly, look at the history of female health issues in this country. From various issues being "preexisting conditions" for insurance coverage, laws limiting the distribution and access to birth control, controversies invented for Plan B, and an overall climate preventing women from totally controlling their sexual lives, its pretty clear that the radical right has a war against women. And that doesn't even get into "legitimate rape", slut shaming, and a general failure to prosecute sexual assaults.
-
I'll ask the radical right again: Are we comfortable with a company run by Jehovah Witness to block blood transfusions, Christians Scientists to block vaccinations, or Scientologists to block psychiatric care? Because the reality create by Hobby Lobby is that the owner's beliefs are transferred to the company and imposed on you and your rights. Even if those beliefs are fundamentally wrong according to the medical science, they come between you and your doctor. And keep in mind that the SCOTUS recently appended their decision so that this cases isn't limited to just 4 types of BC. They have given guidance to the lower courts to review previous challenges to ALL coverage (hint, we're back to that war on women thing). So yeah, what that stare decisis do.
-
I'll ask the radical right again: Are we comfortable with a company run by Jehovah Witness to block blood transfusions, Christians Scientists to block vaccinations, or Scientologists to block psychiatric care? Because the reality create by Hobby Lobby is that the owner's beliefs are transferred to the company and imposed on you and your rights. Even if those beliefs are fundamentally wrong according to the medical science, they come between you and your doctor. And keep in mind that the SCOTUS recently appended their decision so that this cases isn't limited to just 4 types of BC. They have given guidance to the lower courts to review previous challenges to ALL coverage (hint, we're back to that war on women thing). So yeah, what that stare decisis do.
This has already been asked and answered. The answer is yes, I'm fine with an employer choosing not to provide insurance for any of these things, or not providing insurance at all. If you don't like it, you don't have to work there. See 13th Amendment. Or, you can get your own insurance coverage if you don't like the policy offered by your employer.
Its clear that you don't understand the law and what is going on here. Additionally its clear that all of my comments have gone right over your head. If you went to school at K-State and took any Pol Sci or Hist of Con Law classes please return to campus immediately and apologize to Dr. Fliter, Dr. Franke, or Dr. Williams.
Oh good lord.... :lol: Looks like we've got a law school versus pre-law smackdown!
-
I'll ask the radical right again: Are we comfortable with a company run by Jehovah Witness to block blood transfusions, Christians Scientists to block vaccinations, or Scientologists to block psychiatric care? Because the reality create by Hobby Lobby is that the owner's beliefs are transferred to the company and imposed on you and your rights. Even if those beliefs are fundamentally wrong according to the medical science, they come between you and your doctor. And keep in mind that the SCOTUS recently appended their decision so that this cases isn't limited to just 4 types of BC. They have given guidance to the lower courts to review previous challenges to ALL coverage (hint, we're back to that war on women thing). So yeah, what that stare decisis do.
This has already been asked and answered. The answer is yes, I'm fine with an employer choosing not to provide insurance for any of these things, or not providing insurance at all. If you don't like it, you don't have to work there. See 13th Amendment. Or, you can get your own insurance coverage if you don't like the policy offered by your employer.
Its clear that you don't understand the law and what is going on here. Additionally its clear that all of my comments have gone right over your head. If you went to school at K-State and took any Pol Sci or Hist of Con Law classes please return to campus immediately and apologize to Dr. Fliter, Dr. Franke, or Dr. Williams.
Oh good lord.... :lol: Looks like we've got a law school versus pre-law smackdown!
oh god youve actually gone to law school?!?! Please tell me it was at Liberty University and not a legitimate school. Otherwise you're going to have to add more to your list of people to apologize to (I also assume at this point you didnt go to k-state, or at least recently, since you didnt recognize any of those names or cant read.)
-
Hey guys, did you see edn's awesome burn? K-S-U CAN'T READ!!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I'm glad you're back in the pit edna, very entertaining.
-
I'm glad you're back in the pit edna, very entertaining.
It's terrible
-
I'm glad you're back in the pit edna, very entertaining.
It's terrible
It' like having rachel maddow right here on this blog. :bwpopcorn:
-
I'm glad you're back in the pit edna, very entertaining.
It's terrible
HEY! :shakesfist:
-
Oh Johnny! :blush:
Wanna do [serious] tags so we can have fun and talk about stuff.
-
I don't really think that Drs. Franke, Fliter and Williams would appreciate having their names drug into this.
-
http://boingboing.net/2014/07/16/tom-the-dancing-bug-bible-sto.html
-
http://boingboing.net/2014/07/16/tom-the-dancing-bug-bible-sto.html
Boing boing indeed
-
Wow. Was not expecting this. Obamacare is in seriouser trouble.
Appellate Court Rules Subsidies Illegal (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065)
Let's see Obama try to fix this now with his "pen and phone."
-
Wow. Was not expecting this. Obamacare is in seriouser trouble.
Appellate Court Rules Subsidies Illegal (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065)
Let's see Obama try to fix this now with his "pen and phone."
Meh it will get overturned by the full court. The Supreme Court is anybody's guess tho.
-
The 4th Circuit Court just upheld the subsidies. More than anything this just proves how confusing our appellate system is.
-
The 4th Circuit Court just upheld the subsidies. More than anything this just proves how confusing our appellate system is.
I don't see what's so confusing about the appellate system. We've got a lot of federal judges appointed by different presidents with significantly different views when it comes to statutory construction, interpreting and applying the Constitution, etc. The importance of the DC Circuit's ruling is that it now provides a clear split of opinion on the issue, virtually assuring that the SC will have to take it up, and I can guarantee you the SC will decide it on a 5-4 or 6-3 vote. We know how 7 Justices will rule - the question comes down to Roberts and Kennedy.
I still think Obamacare can only be killed politically, but there's a least a decent chance the SC will gut it.
-
The 4th Circuit Court just upheld the subsidies. More than anything this just proves how confusing our appellate system is.
I don't see what's so confusing about the appellate system. We've got a lot of federal judges appointed by different presidents with significantly different views when it comes to statutory construction, interpreting and applying the Constitution, etc. The importance of the DC Circuit's ruling is that it now provides a clear split of opinion on the issue, virtually assuring that the SC will have to take it up, and I can guarantee you the SC will decide it on a 5-4 or 6-3 vote. We know how 7 Justices will rule - the question comes down to Roberts and Kennedy.
I still think Obamacare can only be killed politically, but there's a least a decent chance the SC will gut it.
I guess it's always been weird to me that depending on what appellate district you're in a law can be different than in another district. I'm not a lawyer but I assume it's how it works. Oh well the Supreme. Court gets another whack at it. Which is disappointing.
-
Wow. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-agreed-with-gop-exchange-subsidies-can-only-flow-through-state-exchanges/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-agreed-with-gop-exchange-subsidies-can-only-flow-through-state-exchanges/)
In short, plaintiffs in the recent Obamacare litigation have latched onto the argument that the law as worded clearly does not permit insurance subsidies except for policies purchased on state-run exchanges. This means that there would be no subsidies for the 34 states that refused to set up their own exchanges, resulting in a political firestorm and (most likely) the effective death of Obamacare.
The government argues that the particular provision was just a mistake (though even sloppy drafting is usually not a viable excuse for ignoring what the law says). The plaintiffs counter that this provision was not a mistake, but rather that Congress intended to limit the subsidies to state-run exchanges in order to pressure conservative states into establishing exchanges.
I would now say there's a better than 50% chance that the SC will rule in favor of the plaintiffs by a 5-4 vote.
-
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/28/3464769/satanists-hobby-lobby-abortion/
-
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/28/3464769/satanists-hobby-lobby-abortion/
Wait - they are suing to be "exempted" from having to receive a pamphlet when they walk in to see their friendly neighborhood abortionist? Doesn't sound too burdensome...
-
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/28/3464769/satanists-hobby-lobby-abortion/
Wait - they are suing to be "exempted" from having to receive a pamphlet when they walk in to see their friendly neighborhood abortionist? Doesn't sound too burdensome...
Lol
-
The Satanic Temple is pretty great at everything they do, it seems.
-
Another round of cancellation notices going out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/insurers-poised-to-cancel-health-plans-that-dont-comply-with-affordable-care-act/2014/10/02/31525c74-49b3-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/insurers-poised-to-cancel-health-plans-that-dont-comply-with-affordable-care-act/2014/10/02/31525c74-49b3-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html)
I don't know about you, but I think it is an awesome idea for the federal government to mandate the amount of insurance everyone needs to have. And then, if you don't comply, the IRS collects a tax, err, "penalty." Meanwhile, the federal government doles out hundreds of billions of tax dollars to expand Medicaid and also subsidize the more expensive policies which basically amount to more expensive versions of Medicaid. Fewer and fewer doctors accept these policies, resulting in long drives and waiting times for care. And it's all "paid for" by a combination of debt and taxing and raising the premiums of the vast majority of people who already had health insurance and liked it just fine.
The Democrats took a problem and made it worse in every conceivable way.
-
how would you have fixed the problem, Kay S. Youdub?
-
how would you have fixed the problem, Kay S. Youdub?
Well, just for starters, I'd do a number of things to bring down the cost of insurance.
(1) Allow insurance to be purchased from any company, for any particular coverage, like most any other type of insurance.
(2) Impose aggressive tort reform, capping medical malpractice liability limits and barring/capping liability for anyone receiving free or government subsidized care.
(3) Expand tax-free HSAs to all Americans to encourage the use the HDHPs. If we encourage people to use health insurance like any other insurance (only for the serious stuff you really can't afford out of pocket), it removes the distortion from the market and brings down costs.
I don't profess to have all the answers - I just know that Obamacare made things a lot worse. That's pretty undeniable at this point. About the only thing Obamacare has "achieved" is reducing the number of uninsured, but those newly insured are just being added to Medicaid or Medicaid-esque exchanges (together with many people who had real insurance but got booted onto the exchanges), with limited access to healthcare, and all at great expense to everyone else.
-
how would you have fixed the problem, Kay S. Youdub?
Personally, I would have not made the problem worse. For starters.
-
I don' think tort reform will lower healthcare costs in the slightest. The market has already shown a willingness to pay for current costs. What incentive do doctors have to lower prices?
-
I don' think tort reform will lower healthcare costs in the slightest. The market has already shown a willingness to pay for current costs. What incentive do doctors have to lower prices?
In places where compensatory damages are capped, it is well documented it has helped. Anymore, it's virtually impossible to win a med mal claim, but that doesn't mean people still aren't trying and attorneys fees accruing.
-
I don' think tort reform will lower healthcare costs in the slightest. The market has already shown a willingness to pay for current costs. What incentive do doctors have to lower prices?
And you've just perfectly described the problem. The buyers in the current "Market" are almost entirely government and private insurers - not individuals. This discourages competitive pricing and distorts market dynamics.
No other insurance works this way! If people started using car insurance to pay for routine maintenance, I guarantee you the price of an oil change would skyrocket.
That's why HCAs with HDHPs are such a wonderful thing. They ought to be expanded and encouraged. Instead, Obamacare works in the opposite direction, forcing people into bloated old-fashioned policies.
And yes, real tort reform would absolutely produce savings. The practice of "defensive medicine," particularly in ERs is absurd. We shouldn't be running every bad person who wanders into the ER with a battery of tests just to reduce liability - especially if said bad person isn't paying.
-
It's insane that you want to expand the health insurance industry
-
Wait, people think malpractice suits are the reason health insurance costs are skyrocketing?
-
I'm going to assume the last two posts are trolls, because the Pit
-
It's insane that you want to expand the health insurance industry
I'm not in favor of expanding health insurance. I want more competition among insurers and for people to use insurance less, not more.
Obamacare works in the opposite direction, expanding "private" insurance (but not really, after all the subsidies) to the point of collapse, while simultaneously expanding more direct government healthcare (Medicaid). It's a bridge to making our government one unified insurer (single payer), but as I've explained ad nauseum, that's not going to improve healthcare - it will make it worse.
-
Single payer is the only sensible option
-
Single payer is the only sensible option
Complete with secret waiting lists and people who die waiting to see a nurse practitioner.
-
You're the idiot that thinks condoms are tools of genocide, right?
-
Seems like single payer would equate to us all using a VA'ish system. No thanks.
-
You're the idiot that thinks condoms are tools of genocide, right?
A condom is something you wear if you don't want to feel the sex you're having. Guys with "stamina" issues buy them.
You're the idiot that wants a single payer system, right?
-
Seems like single payer would equate to us all using a VA'ish system. No thanks.
Remember when libtards proudly touted the VA as a model for single payer in the US? :lol: Yeah, I do too. That argument seems to have died down recently for some reason...
-
I have done work for the VA on and off for a decade. Nothing about that system looks good from the angles I have seen, even way before the recent crap v fan.
-
I have done work for the VA on and off for a decade. Nothing about that system looks good from the angles I have seen, even way before the recent crap v fan.
True, but it would be "free."
-
It's insane that you want to expand the health insurance industry
I'm not in favor of expanding health insurance. I want more competition among insurers and for people to use insurance less, not more.
Obamacare works in the opposite direction, expanding "private" insurance (but not really, after all the subsidies) to the point of collapse, while simultaneously expanding more direct government healthcare (Medicaid). It's a bridge to making our government one unified insurer (single payer), but as I've explained ad nauseum, that's not going to improve healthcare - it will make it worse.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
seriously :lol: :lol: :lol: IRL funny
Its clear you have NOOOOO idea what insurance is in the United States or how modern healthcare works. You probably think the gilded age needed just a few entrepreneurs to break up that whole trust and monopoly mess.
-
I would probably want to do some things differently than the VA based on mistakes that have been made in that system but that's just me.
-
If they handled it like everything else lately, it would all just be outsourced to existing companies. And in those cases, everything remains pretty much the same except the routing of money. But, yeah, those fantasy scenarios are more fun to think about, I guess.
-
If they handled it like everything else lately, it would all just be outsourced to existing companies. And in those cases, everything remains pretty much the same except the routing of money. But, yeah, those fantasy scenarios are more fun to think about, I guess.
Single payer sort of flips the market from "what the purchaser is willing to pay" to "what the provider is willing to work for." At least that is the idea behind it that supposedly saves money.
-
If they handled it like everything else lately, it would all just be outsourced to existing companies. And in those cases, everything remains pretty much the same except the routing of money. But, yeah, those fantasy scenarios are more fun to think about, I guess.
Single payer sort of flips the market from "what the purchaser is willing to pay" to "what the provider is willing to work for." At least that is the idea behind it that supposedly saves money.
I don't see how provider pay and the general concept of single payer are necessarily related in any way.
-
Edna, let's stop pretending that "modern day healthcare" isn't anachronistic as eff. K? Thx
-
It's kinda of... I don't know what the right word for it is - how as corrupt and incompetent as our government has proven to be, so many people still want to put it in charge of our healthcare, or more so than it already is.
I guess it's the desire for more "free" stuff. It's kind of like voluntary imprisonment - you trade in your freedom, the free stuff is crap, and somebody else still ends up paying for it, but it still seems to make some people happy because it's "free" to them. The problem is that they want to impose the same shitty system on everybody else (how else would it be paid for) and most people (I hope) would rather work for a living, enjoy the fruits of their labor, etc.
-
It's kinda of... I don't know what the right word for it is - how as corrupt and incompetent as our government has proven to be, so many people still want to put it in charge of our healthcare, or more so than it already is.
I guess it's the desire for more "free" stuff. It's kind of like voluntary imprisonment - you trade in your freedom, the free stuff is crap, and somebody else still ends up paying for it, but it still seems to make some people happy because it's "free" to them. The problem is that they want to impose the same shitty system on everybody else (how else would it be paid for) and most people (I hope) would rather work for a living, enjoy the fruits of their labor, etc.
Are you talking about military spending or health care?
-
What's Obama cares stance on Ebola and when will this administration classify Ebola as a JV Disease?
:D
-
I think the correct term is ObamaScare
-
It's kinda of... I don't know what the right word for it is - how as corrupt and incompetent as our government has proven to be, so many people still want to put it in charge of our healthcare, or more so than it already is.
I guess it's the desire for more "free" stuff. It's kind of like voluntary imprisonment - you trade in your freedom, the free stuff is crap, and somebody else still ends up paying for it, but it still seems to make some people happy because it's "free" to them. The problem is that they want to impose the same shitty system on everybody else (how else would it be paid for) and most people (I hope) would rather work for a living, enjoy the fruits of their labor, etc.
Are you talking about military spending or health care?
Sorry, health care. The military is sort of a necessary government function.
-
sort of
-
It's kinda of... I don't know what the right word for it is - how as corrupt and incompetent as our government has proven to be, so many people still want to put it in charge of our healthcare, or more so than it already is.
I guess it's the desire for more "free" stuff. It's kind of like voluntary imprisonment - you trade in your freedom, the free stuff is crap, and somebody else still ends up paying for it, but it still seems to make some people happy because it's "free" to them. The problem is that they want to impose the same shitty system on everybody else (how else would it be paid for) and most people (I hope) would rather work for a living, enjoy the fruits of their labor, etc.
Are you talking about military spending or health care?
Wut?
-
sort of
It's in the Constitution, I think, but I don't see anything about national healthcare.
-
Well, yeah. Bleedings were what passed for health care when they wrote the constitution.
But as you said, we really only sort of need the current scope of the military. And I agree with you.
-
my benefits stayed the exact same this year.
-
my benefits stayed the exact same this year.
I think it was delayed another year if you get your HC through your employer. Next year is the next round of "I lost my policy and doctor!"
-
My policy is pretty good. I think it will make the cut.
-
I know we went back and forth about this before, but plans are almost always one year contracts, so to say that they are cancelled isn't very accurate. As for changes, the are VERY few changes due to passed legislation that will occur as almost all went into effect years ago and the ones that are left affect only a handful of people.
-
Edna, let's stop pretending that "modern day healthcare" isn't anachronistic as eff. K? Thx
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
-
Gallup: Number of Democrats who say Obamacare has hurt them is up by 10 points (http://www.gallup.com/poll/178094/say-health-law-hurt-instead-helped.aspx). These same dumbasses will continue to vote for Democrats.
-
It's kinda of... I don't know what the right word for it is - how as corrupt and incompetent as our government has proven to be, so many people still want to put it in charge of our healthcare, or more so than it already is.
I guess it's the desire for more "free" stuff. It's kind of like voluntary imprisonment - you trade in your freedom, the free stuff is crap, and somebody else still ends up paying for it, but it still seems to make some people happy because it's "free" to them. The problem is that they want to impose the same shitty system on everybody else (how else would it be paid for) and most people (I hope) would rather work for a living, enjoy the fruits of their labor, etc.
I can't believe how much of a gasbag you are. Are you by chance near retirement, or in it now?
-
Edna, let's stop pretending that "modern day healthcare" isn't anachronistic as eff. K? Thx
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Which word?
-
It's kinda of... I don't know what the right word for it is - how as corrupt and incompetent as our government has proven to be, so many people still want to put it in charge of our healthcare, or more so than it already is.
I guess it's the desire for more "free" stuff. It's kind of like voluntary imprisonment - you trade in your freedom, the free stuff is crap, and somebody else still ends up paying for it, but it still seems to make some people happy because it's "free" to them. The problem is that they want to impose the same shitty system on everybody else (how else would it be paid for) and most people (I hope) would rather work for a living, enjoy the fruits of their labor, etc.
I can't believe how much of a gasbag you are. Are you by chance near retirement, or in it now?
No, I'm early 30s, just entering my prime earning - and fleecing - years. So naturally I'm pretty concerned about the direction this country is headed.
-
It's kinda of... I don't know what the right word for it is - how as corrupt and incompetent as our government has proven to be, so many people still want to put it in charge of our healthcare, or more so than it already is.
I guess it's the desire for more "free" stuff. It's kind of like voluntary imprisonment - you trade in your freedom, the free stuff is crap, and somebody else still ends up paying for it, but it still seems to make some people happy because it's "free" to them. The problem is that they want to impose the same shitty system on everybody else (how else would it be paid for) and most people (I hope) would rather work for a living, enjoy the fruits of their labor, etc.
I can't believe how much of a gasbag you are. Are you by chance near retirement, or in it now?
No, I'm early 30s, just entering my prime earning - and fleecing - years. So naturally I'm pretty concerned about the direction this country is headed.
I understand your concerns, but I think you may be a little out of touch. I would suggest getting better sources of information.
-
Unhealthy obsession with money distorts his world view
-
Lazy and stupid people are always so jealous of how hard working and smart people have better lives than they do. It's one of my favorite things to laugh at.
-
Obamacare has ruined this country and our collective way of life. Smdh
-
this is a place to vent Spracne, please continue
-
The America I grew up in would rather have a young person with leukemia die for lack of insurance than let someone else potentially leach off the communal good will.
-
Id rather kill 1 innocent person than let 9 guilties go free is what im saying.
-
:clap: amen
-
If everybody just got jobs and worked hard we wouldn't need welfare
-
The America I grew up in would rather have a young person with leukemia die for lack of insurance than let someone else potentially leach off the communal good will.
Sorry you grew up in an America without Medicaid, SSI and Medicare. They would have helped out.
-
Opposition to government run healthcare is the same thing as wishing death on a 6 year old, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!!?????
Before Obama care people were dying in front of hospitals because they didn't have insurance and couldn't get any.
-
Opposition to government run healthcare is the same thing as wishing death on a 6 year old, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!!?????
Before Obama care people were dying in front of hospitals because they didn't have insurance and couldn't get any.
:Wha: tell me you aren't this dumb......
-
Opposition to government run healthcare is the same thing as wishing death on a 6 year old, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!!?????
Before Obama care people were dying in front of hospitals because they didn't have insurance and couldn't get any.
:Wha: tell me you aren't this dumb......
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fv60fbgJ.jpg&hash=6cc7d7a241d5e8de5f32f5ad887faad9c9776734)
-
Can we all agree that the previous paradigm for health insurance (minimize and shed risk), while a good business model, sucks for a lot of people with chronic illnesses?
-
Can we all agree that the previous paradigm for health insurance (minimize and shed risk), while a good business model, sucks for a lot of people with chronic illnesses?
We could have had a simple one page insurance regulation that didn't involve the IRS, or even the government in general. But, there probably wouldn't have been free contraception, so the dems would never have voted for it.
-
Opposition to government run healthcare is the same thing as wishing death on a 6 year old, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!!?????
Before Obama care people were dying in front of hospitals because they didn't have insurance and couldn't get any.
:Wha: tell me you aren't this dumb......
:lol:
It was a Nancy Pelosi quote
-
Can we all agree that the previous paradigm for health insurance (minimize and shed risk), while a good business model, sucks for a lot of people with chronic illnesses?
I assume you're talking about lifetime caps on coverage, which everyone agreed could be eliminated at virtually no cost to anyone.
I personally like the idea of paying hundreds of dollars per month to hedge risk against millions of dollars of financial liability.
-
Opposition to government run healthcare is the same thing as wishing death on a 6 year old, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!!!!!?????
Before Obama care people were dying in front of hospitals because they didn't have insurance and couldn't get any.
:Wha: tell me you aren't this dumb......
:lol:
It was a Nancy Pelosi quote
:eek:
-
Surprise surprise - CBO revises its phony-balony numbers to show that Obamacare actually will add to the deficit (even after the trillion+ in new taxes). http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-projections-indicate-obamacare-will-raise-deficits-131-billion_816288.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-projections-indicate-obamacare-will-raise-deficits-131-billion_816288.html)
Let's be honest, here. The CBO has lost a great deal of credibility in the integrity of their projections and, to be fair, it's not entirely their fault. Legislators have perfected the art of manipulating CBO scoring rules to result in "revenue neutral" findings.
So I don't fault the CBO as much as all the dumbshits who abandoned all common sense and actually believed that subsidizing insurance for millions of Americans, and expanding Medicaid to millions more, wouldn't actually increase the deficit. And again, to be fair, I think a lot of the libtards knew full well that it would - they just lied about it.
-
Things not to release or discuss prior to mid-terms:
1. New AG-Check
2. Executive Order(s) on immigration-Check
3. Updated Obamacare Premiums-Check
That's odd. More obfuscation from "the most transparent administration in history." http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/obamacare-website-wont-reveal-insurance-costs-for-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/obamacare-website-wont-reveal-insurance-costs-for-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS)
Politico says they're going up in most states. A lot. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html)
-
Politico says they're going up in most states. A lot. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html)
:thumbs:
-
Politico says they're going up in most states. A lot. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html)
Surprise KSUW lies once again
The attacks could easily give the impression that the health care law is causing premiums to go through the roof around the country. They’re not. In reality, in most states, premiums for coverage in the Obamacare health insurance exchanges for 2015 are rising at about the normal rate for health insurance throughout the country. In some places, they’re even going down.
But there are a few states that are facing more extreme premium increases from some insurers — and Louisiana and Iowa are two of them. Alaska, where Democratic Sen. Mark Begich is struggling to win a second term, is another one.
Even there, it’s not all insurers that are raising rates that much. Louisiana, for example, is only announcing rates for the insurers that are raising rates by 10 percent or more, so the picture that’s being made public is incomplete.
-
Politico says they're going up in most states. A lot. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html)
Surprise KSUW lies once again
The attacks could easily give the impression that the health care law is causing premiums to go through the roof around the country. They’re not. In reality, in most states, premiums for coverage in the Obamacare health insurance exchanges for 2015 are rising at about the normal rate for health insurance throughout the country. In some places, they’re even going down.
But there are a few states that are facing more extreme premium increases from some insurers — and Louisiana and Iowa are two of them. Alaska, where Democratic Sen. Mark Begich is struggling to win a second term, is another one.
Even there, it’s not all insurers that are raising rates that much. Louisiana, for example, is only announcing rates for the insurers that are raising rates by 10 percent or more, so the picture that’s being made public is incomplete.
Sorry, as the article I linked says, premiums are going up in most states, and a lot in a few. But by all means, quibble away in defense of this turd of a law.
-
I thought the reason for Obamacare was to lower premiums for everyone? Instead, rates are only increasing at the normal rate plus we are subsidizing a few million more policies. :flush:
-
Healthcare for a few million people, Yuck!
-
By its own account, Obamacare has had virtually zero effect on lowering the number of uninsured.
Saying that premiums are going up at normal rates is disingenuous as 1) it's by and large a false statement and 2) one of the principle purposes of the law was to curtail rapidly rising premiums (which are post facto referred to as "normal").
Edna long ago demonstrated that she feeds at the trough of think progress, and similar leftist propaganda mills, such that her ignorance warrants no response.
-
Looking at the CNS Family premium data over time, this yr we went on BSBC through the marketplace and this is the first yr since college that my premium went down for equal covg. We had a couple years where our plan went up by 11-16%. It leveled out the last few yrs, but it was pretty rough ridin' crazy for a three or four yr period a while ago.
-
The exchange was cheaper than employer subsidized coverage cns?
-
By $100
-
I mean, we get the buy up PPO and not the high deductible plan since we have young and active kids.
-
I mean, we get the buy up PPO and not the high deductible plan since we have young and active kids.
there you go.
-
All dumbasses think their premium is cheaper when really their out of pocket about 1000% more and they are too stupid to realize it.
-
Politico says they're going up in most states. A lot. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html)
Surprise KSUW lies once again
The attacks could easily give the impression that the health care law is causing premiums to go through the roof around the country. They’re not. In reality, in most states, premiums for coverage in the Obamacare health insurance exchanges for 2015 are rising at about the normal rate for health insurance throughout the country. In some places, they’re even going down.
But there are a few states that are facing more extreme premium increases from some insurers — and Louisiana and Iowa are two of them. Alaska, where Democratic Sen. Mark Begich is struggling to win a second term, is another one.
Even there, it’s not all insurers that are raising rates that much. Louisiana, for example, is only announcing rates for the insurers that are raising rates by 10 percent or more, so the picture that’s being made public is incomplete.
Sorry, as the article I linked says, premiums are going up in most states, and a lot in a few. But by all means, quibble away in defense of this turd of a law.
LOL where do you think it got the quote from dumbass
-
By its own account, Obamacare has had virtually zero effect on lowering the number of uninsured.
Saying that premiums are going up at normal rates is disingenuous as 1) it's by and large a false statement and 2) one of the principle purposes of the law was to curtail rapidly rising premiums (which are post facto referred to as "normal").
Edna long ago demonstrated that she feeds at the trough of think progress, and similar leftist propaganda mills, such that her ignorance warrants no response.
LOL more blatant lies from the Fake and KSUW
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/us/number-of-americans-without-health-insurance-falls-survey-shows.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
ACA has caused a decrease in the number of uninsured
ACA has actually cased a decrease in premiums in some states (from KSUW own source :ROFL:)
Yeah I'm sorry my ignorance is based on facts and not rhetoric, I know that something your camp has trouble with. Don't get too frothy in your response.
-
Politico says they're going up in most states. A lot. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html)
Surprise KSUW lies once again
The attacks could easily give the impression that the health care law is causing premiums to go through the roof around the country. They’re not. In reality, in most states, premiums for coverage in the Obamacare health insurance exchanges for 2015 are rising at about the normal rate for health insurance throughout the country. In some places, they’re even going down.
But there are a few states that are facing more extreme premium increases from some insurers — and Louisiana and Iowa are two of them. Alaska, where Democratic Sen. Mark Begich is struggling to win a second term, is another one.
Even there, it’s not all insurers that are raising rates that much. Louisiana, for example, is only announcing rates for the insurers that are raising rates by 10 percent or more, so the picture that’s being made public is incomplete.
Sorry, as the article I linked says, premiums are going up in most states, and a lot in a few. But by all means, quibble away in defense of this turd of a law.
LOL where do you think it got the quote from dumbass
JFC. That was my point you dumbshit. I'm not hiding anything.
-
Edna thinks every insured person is insured because of ACA and every non voter couldn't do so because of the ID requirement. She is a dimwit.
By its own account, ACA is a complete failure. By anecdote it's single handily responsible for all that is good and nothing that is bad.
-
Politico says they're going up in most states. A lot. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obamacare-insurance-rates-2014-elections-111813.html)
Surprise KSUW lies once again
The attacks could easily give the impression that the health care law is causing premiums to go through the roof around the country. They’re not. In reality, in most states, premiums for coverage in the Obamacare health insurance exchanges for 2015 are rising at about the normal rate for health insurance throughout the country. In some places, they’re even going down.
But there are a few states that are facing more extreme premium increases from some insurers — and Louisiana and Iowa are two of them. Alaska, where Democratic Sen. Mark Begich is struggling to win a second term, is another one.
Even there, it’s not all insurers that are raising rates that much. Louisiana, for example, is only announcing rates for the insurers that are raising rates by 10 percent or more, so the picture that’s being made public is incomplete.
Sorry, as the article I linked says, premiums are going up in most states, and a lot in a few. But by all means, quibble away in defense of this turd of a law.
LOL where do you think it got the quote from dumbass
JFC. That was my point you dumbshit. I'm not hiding anything.
Serious question: Is english your first language?
you are obviously making the point that those increases were contingent on the ACA, which isn't true.
There is a reason why red states are turning to ACA, because its working better than the old system. Continue to live in fear though.
-
Blatant lies
-
My opinions are based upon facts, not rhetoric
-
Red States are turning to ACA
-
Well, this dumbass understands how to read a benefits coverage detail. The only out of pocket increse was the one for emergency room use.
-
Well, this dumbass understands how to read a benefits coverage detail. The only out of pocket increse was the one for emergency room use.
Sorry, meant dumbasses generally, not specifically you, dumbass.
-
Red States are turning to ACA
ooops my bad, blue states like Iowa and West Virginia
lulz
-
Roberts is going to get another chance to apply the ACA as written. Will he redeem himself?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/07/supreme-court-obama-health-care/18387167/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/07/supreme-court-obama-health-care/18387167/)
-
Hit myself in the head with a hammer, but there are some things I like about the Affordable Care Act, but itnneeds to be fixed. Now we can get some sense built into by Republicans.
-
Hit myself in the head with a hammer, but there are some things I like about the Affordable Care Act, but itnneeds to be fixed. Now we can get some sense built into by Republicans.
I bet they start by passing a repeal of Obamacare that they already know is just going to get vetoed.
-
I bet they start by passing a repeal of Obamacare that they already know is just going to get vetoed.
Good. As long as it doesn't distract from the rest of the agenda, make the president continue to put his stamp on something the public broadly disfavors. Then start dismantling the more odious parts of the law.
-
Another embarassing display of honesty from Jonathon Gruber surfaces.
Recall that Mr. Gruber, along with Rahm's brother Zeke Emanuel, was the chief architects of Obamacare. In 2013, Gruber admitted that the law was intentionally drafted to be as confusing as possible, and to mislead the CBO. Gruber, like many of the hardcore leftists working in the background, is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky, for which the ends justify any means - lie, cheat, steal, but just win.
This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.
obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-was-key-because-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-would-have-killed-obamacare (http://obamacare-architect-lack-of-transparency-was-key-because-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-would-have-killed-obamacare)
This is not the first time video has surfaced of Gruber making embarrasing, and potentially damaging admissions. This coming spring, at least 4 justices on the Supreme Court have decided to consider the case of King v Burwell, which challenges the legality of granting federal subsidies to people who buy insurance from exchanges set up by the federal government (in 23 red states that refused to set up their own exchanges). The law plainly states that the subsidies are only available to those who enrolled "through an Exchange established by the State" but the government now argues this was a typo and the subsidies are available to everyone.
Gruber didn't think it was a typo when he wrote it. He explained, on multiple occassions, that states who did not set up their own exchanges would not be eligible for subsidies, as a way to encourage (coerce) them into doing so. He now claims to have made a mistake. :lol: http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/07/25/mit-gruber-obamacare-architect-calls-his-statements-video-mistake/q1kkjC9zpQXLJuxhlY2HbJ/story.html (http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/07/25/mit-gruber-obamacare-architect-calls-his-statements-video-mistake/q1kkjC9zpQXLJuxhlY2HbJ/story.html)
-
Prof. Jonathan Adler best explains why the plaintiffs should succeed in King v. Burwell, and I would ordinarily agree but for Roberts' bizarre - almost smacking of blackmail - switcheroo in the last individual mandate case. As such, I'd say it's more a 50/50 proposition.
To recap the question at issue: Section 1311 of the ACA calls upon states to establish health insurance exchanges, and Section 1321 requires the federal government to establish exchanges in states which fail to do so (or fail to enact other mandated reforms). Section 1401 provides for tax credits for the purchase of qualifying health insurance plans in “exchanges established by the State under Section 1311.” The challengers in this case argue this means what it says: that tax credits are only authorized in exchanges established by the states. The government argues that the phrase “established by the State” does not mean that the exchange actually has to have been established by the state because other provisions establish some degree of equivalence between Section 1311 and Section 1321 exchanges and the plaintiffs’ interpretation would undermine the goal of expanding health insurance coverage.
Contrary to what many claim, this is not a case about a single phrase in a single, isolated provision in a gargantuan statute. The law, read as a whole, with attention to each and every relevant provision, supports the plaintiffs’ case. No one disputes that, as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote last Term in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA that “the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” But we must also remember, as Justice Scalia wrote in that same majority opinion, that agencies may not “rewrite[e] unambiguous statutory terms” nor “revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” Further, as Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the Court last Term in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, courts have “no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that . . . Congress ‘must have intended’ something” other than what the statute’s text actually says.
The problem with the government’s position is that it requires pretending as if the repeated phrase “established by the State” has no real meaning – as if it is mere surplusage of no relevance to the actual meaning and effect of the law’s provisions — even though it was added in multiple places within Section 1401 at multiple times; even though “State” is defined as the fifty states and the District of Columbia; even though there is language drawing equivalency between territorial exchanges and state exchanges, but no such language for federal exchanges; even though the statute contains no reference to tax credits in federal exchanges, and so on.
The government and its defenders say that no portion of the ACA can be read to deny the availability of tax credits to low-income individuals, yet the ACA indisputably imposes an income floor for tax credit eligibility that means the poorest of the poor get no help from the law in purchasing insurance. They argue that it is implausible Congress would have conditioned an important benefit (tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies) on state cooperation, even though Congress does this all the time, has done this before with health insurance, expressly considered doing this in other draft health care reform measures, and did this within other portions of the ACA. They claim Congress would not impose guaranteed issue and community rating without providing subsidies for the purchase of insurance, yet the ACA did that in the child-only market. They claim Congress would never have left achievement of the Act’s goal of expanding health coverage vulnerable to state intransigence, yet it did so with Medicaid, just as other cooperative federalism programs enacted by Congress are vulnerable to state intransigence. And so on again. Everything they say Congress would never do, it has done, often within the ACA itself.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-a-welcome-grant-for-a-straightforward-statutory-case-2/ (http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-a-welcome-grant-for-a-straightforward-statutory-case-2/)
-
Acolytes :curse:
-
Interesting story on the average dude who did the investigation nobody in the MSM cared to do, digging up Gruber's past statements about Obamacare. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-11/meet-the-mildmannered-investment-advisor-whos-humiliating-the-administration-over-obamacare (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-11/meet-the-mildmannered-investment-advisor-whos-humiliating-the-administration-over-obamacare)
MSM's response: "Meh. Get back to us when it involves a Republican, especially Sarah Palin."
-
The msm actually said that? :curse:
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/12/another-tape-surfaces-obamacare-architect-calling-american-people-stupid/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/12/another-tape-surfaces-obamacare-architect-calling-american-people-stupid/)
Obamacare architect Jonathon Gruber says the American people were too stupid to understand that a tax against insurance companies was really a tax against policyholders. He might be right about that - but people do overwhelmingly dislike Obamacare, so maybe they're not that stupid afterall.
A new tape has surfaced showing Gruber, once again, claiming the health care law's authors took advantage of the "stupid" American public.
The tape, played on Fox News' "The Kelly File," showed Gruber speaking at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis.
Referring to the so-called "Cadillac tax" on high-end health plans, he said: "They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference."
Gruber specifically was referring to the way the "Cadillac tax" was designed -- he touted their plan to, instead of taxing policy holders, tax the insurance companies that offered them. He suggested that taxing individuals would have been politically unpalatable, but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn't understand the difference.
-
Always worth another look, especially now that we know he knew the truth. There is a difference between "too stupid to understand" and being lied to by someone you believed was honest.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/)
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/12/howard_dean_obamacare_written_by_elitists_who_dont_fundamentally_understand_the_american_people.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/11/12/howard_dean_obamacare_written_by_elitists_who_dont_fundamentally_understand_the_american_people.html)
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/13/media-blackout-shields-obamacare-architect-who-bet-on-public-stupidity/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/13/media-blackout-shields-obamacare-architect-who-bet-on-public-stupidity/)
Even MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, who makes no secret of being a liberal, admitted yesterday that “had it been a Republican, the media would have been exploding.”
-
Dr. Krauthammer weighs in on the Gruber Confessions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-gruber-confession/2014/11/13/474595bc-6b6b-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-gruber-confession/2014/11/13/474595bc-6b6b-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html)
This October 2013 video shows MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, a principal architect of Obamacare, admitting that, in order to get it passed, the law was made deliberately obscure and deceptive. It constitutes the ultimate vindication of the charge that Obamacare was sold on a pack of lies.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” said Gruber. “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.” This was no open-mic gaffe. It was a clear, indeed enthusiastic, admission to an academic conference of the mendacity underlying Obamacare.
First, Gruber said, the bill’s authors manipulated the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which issues gold-standard cost estimates of any legislative proposal: “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.” Why? Because “if CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.” And yet, the president himself openly insisted that the individual mandate — what you must pay the government if you fail to buy health insurance — was not a tax.
Worse was the pretense that Obamacare wouldn’t cost anyone anything. On the contrary, it’s a win-win, insisted President Obama, promising that the “typical family” would save $2,500 on premiums every year.
Skeptics like me pointed out the obvious: You can’t subsidize 30 million uninsured without someone paying something. Indeed, Gruber admits, Obamacare was a huge transfer of wealth — which had to be hidden from the American people, because “if you had a law which .?.?. made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
Remember: The whole premise of Obamacare was that it would help the needy, but if you were not in need, if you liked what you had, you would be left alone. Which is why Obama kept repeating — PolitiFact counted 31 times — that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”
But of course you couldn’t, as millions discovered when they were kicked off their plans last year. Millions more were further shocked when they discovered major hikes in their premiums and deductibles. It was their wealth that was being redistributed.
As NBC News and others reported last year, the administration knew this all along. But White House political hands overrode those wary about the president’s phony promise. In fact, Obama knew the falsity of his claim as far back as February 2010, when, at a meeting with congressional leaders, he agreed that millions would lose their plans.
Now, it’s not unconstitutional to lie. Nor are laws enacted by means of deliberate deception thereby rendered invalid. But it is helpful for citizens to know the cynicism with which the massive federalization of their health care was crafted.
It gets even worse, thanks again to Gruber. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case claiming that the administration is violating its own health-care law, which clearly specifies that subsidies can be given only to insurance purchased on “exchanges established by the state.” Just 13 states have set up such exchanges. Yet the administration is giving tax credits to plans bought on the federal exchange — serving 37 states — despite what the law says.
If the plaintiffs prevail, the subsidy system collapses and, with it, Obamacare itself. Which is why the administration is frantically arguing that “exchanges established by the state” is merely sloppy drafting, a kind of legislative typo. And that the intent all along was to subsidize all plans on all exchanges.
Advertisement
Re-enter Professor Gruber. On a separate video in a different speech, he explains what Obamacare intended: “If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.” The legislative idea was to coerce states into setting up their own exchanges by otherwise denying their citizens subsidies.
This may have been a stupid idea, but it was no slip. And it’s the law, as written, as enacted and as intended. It can be changed by Congress only, not by the executive. Which is precisely what the plaintiffs are saying. Q.E.D.
It’s refreshing that “the most transparent administration in history,” as this administration fancies itself, should finally display candor about its signature act of social change. Inadvertently, of course. But now we know what lay behind Obama’s smooth reassurances — the arrogance of an academic liberalism, so perfectly embodied in the Gruber Confession, that rules in the name of a citizenry it mocks, disdains and deliberately, contemptuously deceives.
-
It's fitting that liberal arrogance exposes the president and this crap bill.
-
It's fitting that liberal arrogance exposes the president and this crap bill.
The honesty is actually pretty refreshing, but it's also kind of a middle finger to the American people.
-
Another Gruber video emerges, this time explaining how Obama oversold the issue of Obamacare "controlling costs" because that's what most Americans actually care about, as opposed to expanding insurance coverage to the unisured.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/politics/tapper-gruber/ (http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/politics/tapper-gruber/)
Washington (CNN) -- As Congress voted on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in 2010, one of the bill's architects, MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, told a college audience that those pushing the legislation pitched it as a bill that would control spiraling health care costs even though most of the bill was focused on something else and there was no guarantee the bill would actually bend the cost curve.
In recent days, the past comments of Gruber -- who in this 2010 speech notes that he "helped write the federal bill" and "was a paid consultant to the Obama administration to help develop the technical details as well" -- have been given renewed attention. In previously posted but recently noticed speeches, Gruber discusses how those pushing the bill took part in an "exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," taking advantage of voters' "stupidity" to create a law that would ultimately be good for them.
In this fourth video, Gruber's language is not as stark as in three previous instances, but his suggestion that Obamacare proponents engaged in less-than-honest salesmanship remains.
"Barack Obama's not a stupid man, okay?" Gruber said in his remarks at the College of the Holy Cross on March 11, 2010. "He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn't actually care that much about the uninsured. In fact a lot of the uninsured don’t care about the uninsured. They think they’re young and healthy and don’t need insurance. What the American public cares about is costs. And that's why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control. How it's going to lower the cost of health care, that's all they talk about. Why? Because that's what people want to hear about because a majority of American care about health care costs."
If you dig far enough back into this thread, I made this very same point about how this law was being sold on cost control because that's what people actually care about, but the only real prupose of the law was to redistribute wealth. Thank you, Mr. Gruber, for having the arrogance to actually tell the truth about how this bill was sold on a pack of lies.
Ah, here we go...
Yes, many people who already had insurance will be get shittier insurance, and we'll all get shittier healthcare to an extent as a result of crowding another 15-30 million people into doctor's offices and further cutting reimbursement rates, but the purpose of the ACA was never to help the majority of Americans. The purpose of the ACA, like so many liberal-socialist programs, is to redistribute the wealth. "Social justice" and all that.
But ObamaCare was never about ... reducing premiums. It was just another massive handout, this time to people with income up to 400% of the poverty line. Remember, we already had Medicaid - this was essentially just a massive expansion of Medicaid. And it is what Democrats do: they spend tax dollars to buy votes and perpetuate their power. They are parasites.
-
Literally everyone already knew this.
-
I recently purchased a plan through the Marketplace (10/1). Just got my notice that my 2015 premiums are increasing by 23% :facepalm: OBAMA!!! :shakesfist:
-
My premiums went down 5 bucks!
-
Literally everyone already knew this.
"Literally everyone." :lol: I'll posite that most conservatives knew Obama was lying and were pissed about it, at least some libtards knew Obama was lying and were just fine with it ('cause Alinsky and all), and then there were a lot of libtards and other gullible fools who actually paid any attention but swallowed the lie hook, line, and sinker.
-
This is abusive and outrageous.
-
I mean seriously, is $225/month for a male in his mid-twenties for a high deductible plan normal?
-
just make it single payer already, jeez
-
I'm amazed at the lack of outrage that the president lied, not only to congress and the senate, but directly to the people to get the largest tax increase in US history. Bizarre. Network news hasn't even reported it as of today, which isn't unexpected to most people.
-
I mean seriously, is $225/month for a male in his mid-twenties for a high deductible plan normal?
It is now, but before you could get a catastrophic coverage plan for around $50.
-
I mean seriously, is $225/month for a male in his mid-twenties for a high deductible plan normal?
Yeah, pretty much. My insurance is paid by my employer. It covers my wife and me for about $1200 per month. It is low deductible and pretty good all around, though. I think it was around $400 before I married.
-
I mean seriously, is $225/month for a male in his mid-twenties for a high deductible plan normal?
It is when you have to pay for a ton of stuff you don't actually need insurance for, and when you're paying for an increasingly sick pool of people now that insurers have to insure people who are already sick. It's sort of like socialized medicine, only now you pay for it through ridiculous premiums as opposed to higher taxes. And just wait until you see the limited number of doctors/hospitals that will accept your shitty insurance.
Obamacare is the single biggest domestic fuckup in American history. Hopefully King v. Burwell will gut it next summer, and the GOP can then finish it off.
-
I'm amazed at the lack of outrage that the president lied, not only to congress and the senate, but directly to the people to get the largest tax increase in US history. Bizarre. Network news hasn't even reported it as of today, which isn't unexpected to most people.
There is plenty of outrage, manifested in the midterm election results. It is true that there would be far greater outrage if the networks weren't stonewalling yet another Obama scandal. Looking back, it's truly amazing the volume of water the Fourth Estate has carried for easily the worst president in American history.
-
Obamacare is the single biggest domestic fuckup in American history. Hopefully King v. Burwell will gut it next summer, and the GOP can then finish it off.
No hyperbole here. Take that Dred
-
Obamacare is the single biggest domestic fuckup in American history. Hopefully King v. Burwell will gut it next summer, and the GOP can then finish it off.
No hyperbole here. Take that Dred
I was speaking in terms of legislation, and I used to qualify it as "one of" - but I honestly cannot think of a more destructive and oppressive legislative blunder, ever. It is terrible on almost every level.
-
jim crow laws, less oppressive than obamacare
-
just make it single payer already, jeez
practically immoral that we haven't gotten there already
-
jim crow laws, less oppressive than obamacare
Those were horrible and oppressive state and local laws. A person could escape them by moving to another state or town.
-
obamacare def needs to be improved (see single payer), but i fail to see how something that gives affordable healthcare to millions of people is "oppressive". to believe that is rough ridin' stupid.
-
obamacare def needs to be improved (see single payer), but i fail to see how something that gives affordable healthcare to millions of people is "oppressive". to believe that is rough ridin' stupid.
Spracne disagrees with you.
It took away affordable healthcare for more people than it gave.
-
obamacare def needs to be improved (see single payer), but i fail to see how something that gives affordable healthcare to millions of people is "oppressive". to believe that is rough ridin' stupid.
Spracne disagrees with you.
It took away affordable healthcare for more people than it gave.
Not so fast! I don't really know how I feel about this whole kerfuffle, so I find it highly unlikely that you can speak credibly w/r/t my beliefs. As a consumer, I simply want to pay the least possible amount of money. I will admit for purely selfish reasons that parts of the ACA benefit me, and I would not want to see us permanently return to the previous paradigm of minimize/shed risk.
-
jim crow laws, less oppressive than obamacare
Those were horrible and oppressive state and local laws. A person could escape them by moving to another state or town.
good grief, should have just let that one slide maybe
-
jim crow laws, less oppressive than obamacare
Those were horrible and oppressive state and local laws. A person could escape them by moving to another state or town.
good grief, should have just let that one slide maybe
Probably right.
-
I mean seriously, is $225/month for a male in his mid-twenties for a high deductible plan normal?
I had one for $80 per month through coventry in 2012. Bought it on the internet
-
Maybe stop defending the ACA as something that is for the greater good, rather than attack ksu
k thx,
reality
-
I had one for $80 per month through coventry in 2012. Bought it on the internet
where do you live? my isp blocks that site
-
I had one for $80 per month through coventry in 2012. Bought it on the internet
where do you live? my isp blocks that site
66208
-
now it all makes sense
-
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=1&referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/politics/cost-of-coverage-under-affordable-care-act-to-increase-in-2015.html?_r=1&referrer=)
-
I had one for $80 per month through coventry in 2012. Bought it on the internet
where do you live? my isp blocks that site
66208
FSD and ben ji are neighbors! :D
-
I had one for $80 per month through coventry in 2012. Bought it on the internet
where do you live? my isp blocks that site
66208
FSD and ben ji are neighbors! :D
:runaway:
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/poll-obamacare-approval-112948.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/poll-obamacare-approval-112948.html)
It shouldn't be that hard to repeal a law that consistently polls well under 40% approval. Do what you can to gut it, run on it, win and repeal it.
-
Is misleading the public not a big deal now?
-
Is misleading the public not a big deal now?
I think it depends on the political party.
-
Who would have guessed it? Obama admin lied about Obamacare enrollment, inflating the numbers by nearly a half million.
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/inflated-obamacare-enrollment-dental-113064.html?hp=rc2_4 (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/inflated-obamacare-enrollment-dental-113064.html?hp=rc2_4)
-
So real non partisan question, what happens when it is repealed? Will the markets get all screwed out? I mean, you can't flip a switch and just go back to 2012
-
So real non partisan question, what happens when it is repealed? Will the markets get all screwed out? I mean, you can't flip a switch and just go back to 2012
Because the switch that turned on in 2012 ended up being some mentally challenged version of the game mouse trap, im guessing everyone would either be relieved or not actually notice.
-
They're not going to repeal it.
-
Gruber speaks truth yet again. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/jonathan-gruber-warned-of-obamacare-premium-spike-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/24/jonathan-gruber-warned-of-obamacare-premium-spike-/)
-
Here's a fun confluence of two of Obama's biggest follies! Obamacare encourages employers to hire illegals instead of citizens because they don't have to pay a penalty for not insuring the illegals.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/)
-
When is Obamacare supposed to bring down the entire health insurance industry? I've completely lost track of all its devastating consequences for our country, but that's one I was particularly intetested in.
-
Chuck Schumer admits Obamacare a monumental flop for democrats.
http://fusion.net/story/30263/chuck-schumer-obamacare-comments-aca/ (http://fusion.net/story/30263/chuck-schumer-obamacare-comments-aca/)
After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus, but unfortunately Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform,” Schumer said.
“The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed,” he added. “But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not for changes in their health care.”
-
With Mary's loss yesterday, it's now official: 4 years after a 60-Dem Senate majority rammed Obamacare down our throats, exactly half of those senators are already gone from office - a majority of them being replaced by republicans.
If there is any justice in the passage of Obamacare, it has been just as toxic for the Democrat party as it has for America.
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
yes! and my life is so much worse now! :curse:
-
i didnt know cops worried about healthcare costs so much
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.us%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F05%2Fthe_more_you_know_nbc.gif&hash=3c49e9aef5c793e8c322202a452feb3da2a02c68)
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
Who's giving people healthcare?
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
Who's giving people healthcare?
Yeah, this system sucks. We need single payer.
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
Who's giving people healthcare?
Yeah, this system sucks. We need single payer.
Sounds like Hillary's 2016 campaign message.
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
Who's giving people healthcare?
Yeah, this system sucks. We need single payer.
Sounds like Hillary's 2016 campaign message.
Getting health care costs under control by 2020 should be the goal, and electing Hillary might just be the best way to get there. We will just have to see who else runs.
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
Who's giving people healthcare?
Yeah, this system sucks. We need single payer.
Sounds like Hillary's 2016 campaign message.
Getting health care costs under control by 2020 should be the goal, and electing Hillary might just be the best way to get there. We will just have to see who else runs.
Ok. If you really believe that more government intervention will "get healthcare costs under control" without seriously undermining quality of care, I can't help you. You would be so lacking in any common sense and rationality that any debate would be futile.
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
Who's giving people healthcare?
Yeah, this system sucks. We need single payer.
Sounds like Hillary's 2016 campaign message.
Getting health care costs under control by 2020 should be the goal, and electing Hillary might just be the best way to get there. We will just have to see who else runs.
Ok. If you really believe that more government intervention will "get healthcare costs under control" without seriously undermining quality of care, I can't help you. You would be so lacking in any common sense and rationality that any debate would be futile.
Define "seriously undermining quality of care". I really don't have see any problem with the way every other first world country handles health care at a much lower cost than the US pays.
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
Who's giving people healthcare?
Yeah, this system sucks. We need single payer.
Sounds like Hillary's 2016 campaign message.
Getting health care costs under control by 2020 should be the goal, and electing Hillary might just be the best way to get there. We will just have to see who else runs.
Ok. If you really believe that more government intervention will "get healthcare costs under control" without seriously undermining quality of care, I can't help you. You would be so lacking in any common sense and rationality that any debate would be futile.
Define "seriously undermining quality of care". I really don't have see any problem with the way every other first world country handles health care at a much lower cost than the US pays.
You should tell that to the Canadians who migrate here in droves for surgical procedures. But if you want to pay higher taxes for a "free" hosptial system that will do a bang-up job prescribing you some antibiotics or pain relievers - just don't expect more serious care in a timely fashion - then Canada's just the system for you! :thumbs: :facepalm:
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
Who's giving people healthcare?
Yeah, this system sucks. We need single payer.
Sounds like Hillary's 2016 campaign message.
Getting health care costs under control by 2020 should be the goal, and electing Hillary might just be the best way to get there. We will just have to see who else runs.
Ok. If you really believe that more government intervention will "get healthcare costs under control" without seriously undermining quality of care, I can't help you. You would be so lacking in any common sense and rationality that any debate would be futile.
Define "seriously undermining quality of care". I really don't have see any problem with the way every other first world country handles health care at a much lower cost than the US pays.
You should tell that to the Canadians who migrate here in droves for surgical procedures. But if you want to pay higher taxes for a "free" hosptial system that will do a bang-up job prescribing you some antibiotics or pain relievers - just don't expect more serious care in a timely fashion - then Canada's just the system for you! :thumbs: :facepalm:
Wow, that sounds terrible. How much longer are we living than Canadians on average?
-
ugh, giving people healthcare just makes me so angry that I can't even see straight :curse:
Who's giving people healthcare?
Yeah, this system sucks. We need single payer.
Sounds like Hillary's 2016 campaign message.
Getting health care costs under control by 2020 should be the goal, and electing Hillary might just be the best way to get there. We will just have to see who else runs.
Ok. If you really believe that more government intervention will "get healthcare costs under control" without seriously undermining quality of care, I can't help you. You would be so lacking in any common sense and rationality that any debate would be futile.
Define "seriously undermining quality of care". I really don't have see any problem with the way every other first world country handles health care at a much lower cost than the US pays.
You should tell that to the Canadians who migrate here in droves for surgical procedures. But if you want to pay higher taxes for a "free" hosptial system that will do a bang-up job prescribing you some antibiotics or pain relievers - just don't expect more serious care in a timely fashion - then Canada's just the system for you! :thumbs: :facepalm:
Wow, that sounds terrible. How much longer are we living than Canadians on average?
Oh, ok, so life expectancy is the relevant metric! Sorry grandma, you'll have to wait 18 months for that hip replacement - but the good news is that statistics say you're expected to live longer than those hosers to the south, eh?
You know what you should do? Head on up to the northern border and scoff at all those Canadian medical tourists - "dumbasses, statistically speaking, your life expectancy is already better than ours."
-
You know what would really make a long-term impact on the cost of healtchare? Banning shitty foods. #FoodForThought
-
What metric would you suggest to evaluate a country's healthcare system? Life expectancy makes the most sense to me. :dunno: I take it the Canadians are living longer than we are, then? How do you explain that?
-
What metric would you suggest to evaluate a country's healthcare system? Life expectancy makes the most sense to me. :dunno: I take it the Canadians are living longer than we are, then? How do you explain that?
Lifestyle
-
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2010/jun/us-ranks-last-among-seven-countries
This seems like a fair evaluation to me.
-
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2010/jun/us-ranks-last-among-seven-countries
This seems like a fair evaluation to me.
USA doesn't finish last in anything buddy.
More like 6th runner up to having the best healthcare system
-
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/2010/jun/us-ranks-last-among-seven-countries
This seems like a fair evaluation to me.
USA doesn't finish last in anything buddy.
More like 6th runner up to having the best healthcare system
Yeah, in some categories we finished 6th out of 7, and that isn't too bad. Money well spent, imo.
-
What metric would you suggest to evaluate a country's healthcare system? Life expectancy makes the most sense to me. :dunno: I take it the Canadians are living longer than we are, then? How do you explain that?
Lifestyle
Lifestyle, crime, motor vehicle accidents, occupations, differences in reporting live versus dead births.... Life expectancy is probably the worst metric for evaluating healthcare.
-
What metric would you suggest to evaluate a country's healthcare system? Life expectancy makes the most sense to me. :dunno: I take it the Canadians are living longer than we are, then? How do you explain that?
Lifestyle
Lifestyle, crime, motor vehicle accidents, occupations, differences in reporting live versus dead births.... Life expectancy is probably the worst metric for evaluating healthcare.
How about ranking them based upon quality, efficiency, access, healthy lives, and equity?
-
What metric would you suggest to evaluate a country's healthcare system? Life expectancy makes the most sense to me. :dunno: I take it the Canadians are living longer than we are, then? How do you explain that?
Lifestyle
Lifestyle, crime, motor vehicle accidents, occupations, differences in reporting live versus dead births.... Life expectancy is probably the worst metric for evaluating healthcare.
How about ranking them based upon quality, efficiency, access, healthy lives, and equity?
Yes, those all sound easily quantifiable - I especially like the "equity" one. Better yet, this evaluation should be performed by a consortium of entities from single-payer countries.
It is extremely difficult to perform truly apples-to-apples comparisons, but one thing I might look at is long-term survival rate for various diseases. I might also look at who's traveling where to get the treatment they need. For example, people travel to America from all over the world to get treatment they can't or don't want to wait to receive in their own countries. Americans travel to other countries for cheaper drugs and experimental treatments prohibited by the FDA.
-
Is there hard data about canadians coming to the us for health care? So we can compare to the life expectancy data.
-
Is there hard data about canadians coming to the us for health care? So we can compare to the life expectancy data.
It's sort of difficult to compare since I don't think Americans can legally go to some country with better healthcare than we have to get the socialized treatment.
-
Rage, I don't think you quite understand the demographics of this country. The cost of healthcare is due to the staggering number of idiots that live in this country. It makes me laugh when people compare the US to Scandinavian countries as if we're similar to those countries in any way. How does our healthcare system compare to China and Russia? Those are easily the most comparable countries to ours.
-
I don't know enough about the various studies and the validity of their methods and metrics to offer an informed rebuttal, but suggesting that our health is poor because our healthcare is poor sort of begs the question, doesn't it?
-
Anyone that thinks single payer is anything more than a race to the bottom is an ignorant bad person. America isn't a bunch of white people that are A-OK living on $16k per year so long as there is eurorail and free condoms. America is the people who left that psuedo-serfdom for something far better.
-
Let's increase the supply of medical professionals to ease the demand.
-
I'll take single payer in exchange for a 30 hour work week and month long summer vacation.
-
eff yeah
-
That also might seriously reduce the supply of sick people. That and the #deathpanels.
-
I'll take single payer in exchange for a 30 hour work week and month long summer vacation.
And living with your parents until you're 35 when you've finally saved up enough for a 550 sq/ft condo. It's a meaningless life lived in comfortable poverty. You'd make 50% more doing nothing here.
-
It's nice to know I can take a breather occasionally, have a nice dinner with the family, maybe watch a little TV, and then come back on duty to find that FSD has been owning the libtards in my absence. :cheers:
-
Moot point. Republicans will have fixed now that they are in charge
-
Moot point. Republicans will have fixed now that they are in charge
Did you realize that Obama is still El Capitan? Maybe Congress should issue some sort of "Legislative Action" that unilaterally repeals Obamacare?
-
I'll take single payer if it comes with Oktoberfest.
-
Moot point. Republicans will have fixed now that they are in charge
Did you realize that Obama is still El Capitan? Maybe Congress should issue some sort of "Legislative Action" that unilaterally repeals Obamacare?
I think they can override a veto. Someone might need to confirm
-
They'll write it over the next two years and it'll be ready for jeb to sign.
-
The future of American Single-Payer, also known as Universal Medicaid. Half of all doctors listed as serving Medicaid patients are unavailable, investigation finds (http://www.kansas.com/news/nation-world/national/article4377052.html)
But hey, I guess that means that half are! :thumbs:
-
The future of American Single-Payer, also known as Universal Medicaid. Half of all doctors listed as serving Medicaid patients are unavailable, investigation finds (http://www.kansas.com/news/nation-world/national/article4377052.html)
But hey, I guess that means that half are! :thumbs:
luckily we'll never go to single payer
-
Eurorail sounds great, sign me up.
-
Everyone is wasting breath. The republicans are fixing this and I'm certain that we'll have an outline by the end of the summer.
The candidates will have to have the outline in time to campaign with it.
-
Everyone is wasting breath. The republicans are fixing this and I'm certain that we'll have an outline by the end of the summer.
The candidates will have to have the outline in time to campaign with it.
Like this? http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/371090/patient-care-act-vs-obamacare-reihan-salam (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/371090/patient-care-act-vs-obamacare-reihan-salam)
-
sure.
-
Let's increase the supply of medical professionals to ease the demand.
Yeah, spending money to open more med schools and get more doctors out there would be a nice first step. We also should stop listening to everything the AMA has to say.
-
watch Jonathan Gruber squirm:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?323115-1/hearing-jonathan-gruber-marilyn-tavenner-health-care-enrollment (http://www.c-span.org/video/?323115-1/hearing-jonathan-gruber-marilyn-tavenner-health-care-enrollment)
-
So I was reading an article yesterday about obamacare/Medicaid and how a lot of states are reducing their Medicaid reimbursement rates by like 50% in 2015 (i.e. to the point where pretty much no doctor will treat patients with Medicaid). Anyhow, all the states making the biggest cuts are democratic states (New York, RI and Cali are making the biggest cuts), what's up with that? Do democrats hate poor people? Seems like they're really trying to eff them over pretty bad. Thoughts?
-
So it turns out that adding another 10-20 million people to Medicaid was not a great idea. But really, who could have predicted that? :dunno:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/us/obamacare-medicaid-fee-increases-expiring.html?referrer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/us/obamacare-medicaid-fee-increases-expiring.html?referrer=)
WASHINGTON — Just as millions of people are gaining insurance through Medicaid, the program is poised to make deep cuts in payments to many doctors, prompting some physicians and consumer advocates to warn that the reductions could make it more difficult for Medicaid patients to obtain care.
The Affordable Care Act provided a big increase in Medicaid payments for primary care in 2013 and 2014. But the increase expires on Thursday — just weeks after the Obama administration told the Supreme Court that doctors and other providers had no legal right to challenge the adequacy of payments they received from Medicaid.
The impact will vary by state, but a study by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, estimates that doctors who have been receiving the enhanced payments will see their fees for primary care cut by 43 percent, on average.
Stephen Zuckerman, a health economist at the Urban Institute and co-author of the report, said Medicaid payments for primary care services could drop by 50 percent or more in California, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania, among other states.
In his budget request in March, President Obama proposed a one-year extension of the higher Medicaid payments. Several Democratic members of Congress backed the idea, but the proposals languished, and such legislation would appear to face long odds in the new Congress, with Republicans controlling both houses.
Dr. David A. Fleming, the president of the American College of Physicians, which represents specialists in internal medicine, said some patients would have less access to care after the cuts. It would make no sense to reduce Medicaid payments “at a time when the population enrolled in Medicaid is surging,” he said.
Dr. George J. Petruncio, a family physician in Turnersville, N.J., described the cuts as a “bait and switch” move. “The government attempted to entice physicians into Medicaid with higher rates, then lowers reimbursement once the doctors are involved,” he said.
But Nicole Brossoie, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, which runs the state’s Medicaid program, said the increase was not meant to be permanent. “The enhanced rates will not be extended in New Jersey,” Ms. Brossoie said. “It was always understood to be temporary.”
The White House says Medicaid is contributing to the “largest coverage gains in four decades,” with 9.7 million people added to the Medicaid rolls since October 2013, bringing the total to 68.5 million. More than one-fifth of Americans are now covered by Medicaid.
But federal officials have not set forth a strategy to expand access to care with enrollment, and in many states Medicaid payment rates for primary care services, like routine office visits and the management of chronic illnesses, will plunge back to 2012 levels, widely seen as inadequate.
-
Low prpremium -- well kiss my butt and laudy-da. Obamaslick makes it sounf like he saved the middle class. Hope you have a good banker if you get sick. total out of pocket is out of sight and most policies have a 50 percent co-pay on medicine. You will get really sick when you get your bill from the Doctor. Thanks Obutthole.; President.
-
Low prpremium -- well kiss my butt and laudy-da. Obamaslick makes it sounf like he saved the middle class. Hope you have a good banker if you get sick. total out of pocket is out of sight and most policies have a 50 percent co-pay on medicine. You will get really sick when you get your bill from the Doctor. Thanks Obutthole.; President.
@nicname
-
Low prpremium -- well kiss my butt and laudy-da. Obamaslick makes it sounf like he saved the middle class. Hope you have a good banker if you get sick. total out of pocket is out of sight and most policies have a 50 percent co-pay on medicine. You will get really sick when you get your bill from the Doctor. Thanks Obutthole.; President.
@nicname
:lol:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FLOL.gif&hash=051f3fb1b611b245e24b959f45bf9c47c5ede604)(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FLOL.gif&hash=051f3fb1b611b245e24b959f45bf9c47c5ede604)(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FLOL.gif&hash=051f3fb1b611b245e24b959f45bf9c47c5ede604)(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FLOL.gif&hash=051f3fb1b611b245e24b959f45bf9c47c5ede604)(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2FLOL.gif&hash=051f3fb1b611b245e24b959f45bf9c47c5ede604)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/health-care-fixes-backed-by-harvards-experts-now-roil-its-faculty.html?_r=3 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/health-care-fixes-backed-by-harvards-experts-now-roil-its-faculty.html?_r=3)
For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.
Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.
...
In Harvard’s health care enrollment guide for 2015, the university said it “must respond to the national trend of rising health care costs, including some driven by health care reform,” otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act. The guide said that Harvard faced “added costs” because of provisions in the health care law that extend coverage for children up to age 26, offer free preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies and, starting in 2018, add a tax on high-cost insurance, known as the Cadillac tax.
-
Suck it Harvard
-
From our ivory towers we govern the unwashed masses.
-
hopefully Harvard faculty will do the right thing and support single-payer next time
-
Nobody with a brain wants single-payer. We currently provide it to the indigent and it's awful.
-
Nobody with a brain wants single-payer. We currently provide it to the indigent and it's awful.
But just imagine how much better it would be it we put everyone on Medicaid and raised taxes by 20% (somebody else's taxes, of course).
-
take money out of defense, the whole world becomes a better place.
-
take money out of defense, the whole world becomes a better place.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEAEcPRe.jpg&hash=0d3a4b54b9fc7ef02d31335841da5d00193ce2d3)
-
take money out of defense, the whole world becomes a better place.
I vote we take it out of medicaid, wait a second.....obamacare!!! :shakesfist:
I'd rather not trade my fabulous medical care for shitty doctors and less army. You'd think the keynsian progressotards would be all about military, because senseless extravagant government spending.
-
Nobody with a brain wants single-payer. We currently provide it to the indigent and it's awful.
I didnt know your parents and grandparents were poor. Hope they paid in.
-
take money out of defense, the whole world becomes a better place.
I vote we take it out of medicaid, wait a second.....obamacare!!! :shakesfist:
I'd rather not trade my fabulous medical care for shitty doctors and less army. You'd think the keynsian progressotards would be all about military, because senseless extravagant government spending.
Giving people a long healthy life with lifesaving care is not senseless. Giving out trillions in contracts for a bunch of tanks and planes we do not need is.
-
Nobody with a brain wants single-payer. We currently provide it to the indigent and it's awful.
I didnt know your parents and grandparents were poor. Hope they paid in.
It's amazing people aren't begging for widespread medicare, isnt it? It's just so good it's irresistible!!! I can't wait until I can ditch this oppressive BCBS PPO!!!!!!
-
Nobody with a brain wants single-payer. We currently provide it to the indigent and it's awful.
I didnt know your parents and grandparents were poor. Hope they paid in.
It's amazing people aren't begging for widespread medicare, isnt it? It's just so good it's irresistible!!! I can't wait until I can ditch this oppressive BCBS PPO!!!!!!
Remember when the libtards were holding up the VA as their awesome example of single payer in the US? :lol: Now it's Medicaid. Good upgrade, guys. :lol: :thumbs:
-
Harry can't Reid due to his eye injury. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reid-says-hes-doing-fine-has-not-been-able-read_824257.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/reid-says-hes-doing-fine-has-not-been-able-read_824257.html)
That's Ok, Harry - since when was it important to actually read the legislation you're voting on?
-
Everyone is wasting breath. The republicans are fixing this and I'm certain that we'll have an outline by the end of the summer.
The candidates will have to have the outline in time to campaign with it.
Like this? http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/371090/patient-care-act-vs-obamacare-reihan-salam (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/371090/patient-care-act-vs-obamacare-reihan-salam)
read and enjoyed. seems good to me on its face. interested in the objections seeing as it's from a (AFAIK) pretty conservative publication.
-
Everyone is wasting breath. The republicans are fixing this and I'm certain that we'll have an outline by the end of the summer.
The candidates will have to have the outline in time to campaign with it.
Like this? http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/371090/patient-care-act-vs-obamacare-reihan-salam (http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/371090/patient-care-act-vs-obamacare-reihan-salam)
read and enjoyed. seems good to me on its face. interested in the objections seeing as it's from a (AFAIK) pretty conservative publication.
I just think that like Obamacare, this doesn't really solve the problem. Insurance companies competing for business is a good thing, but healthcare still costs and ungodly amount, and insurance companies are still going to have to charge a premium that covers it. We should be building new med schools, and subsidizing students so they can graduate with less debt. That way we get more doctors, less debt, and lower prices. We also should treat medical patents differently than patents in other fields. Maybe allow third parties to make generic versions from day one with a royalty due the patent holder, and allow the patent holder to collect for a longer period than current or something.
-
Dems now seeking to delay penalties until after 2016 for those who didn't dutifully timely sign up for healthcare.
The abject consequences of "free healthcare" for the entitled lesser half keep getting in the way of election cycles. The only way to avoid it is executive unilateral re-writing of statutes (constitution fail).
-
Obamacare - still hemorrhaging money and the state exchanges are dropping like flies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/almost-half-of-obamacare-exchanges-are-struggling-over-their-future/2015/05/01/f32eeea2-ea03-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/almost-half-of-obamacare-exchanges-are-struggling-over-their-future/2015/05/01/f32eeea2-ea03-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html)
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/hawaiis_205_million_obamacare_exchange_will_shut_down.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/hawaiis_205_million_obamacare_exchange_will_shut_down.html)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-24/oregon-may-shut-health-site-to-join-obamacare-exchange (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-24/oregon-may-shut-health-site-to-join-obamacare-exchange)
-
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243188-overhead-costs-exploding-under-obamacare (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243188-overhead-costs-exploding-under-obamacare)
May 27, 2015 - 11:08 AM EDT
Overhead costs exploding under ObamaCare, study finds
BY SARAH FERRIS 1600 Shares
TWEET SHARE MORE
Five years after the passage of ObamaCare, there is one expense that’s still causing sticker shock across the healthcare industry: overhead costs.
The administrative costs for healthcare plans are expected to explode by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars over the next decade, according to a new study published by the Health Affairs blog.
The $270 billion in new costs, for both private insurance companies and government programs, will be “over and above what would have been expected had the law not been enacted,” one of the authors, David Himmelstein, wrote Wednesday.
Those costs will be particularly high this year, when overhead is expected to make up 45 percent of all federal spending related to the Affordable Care Act. By 2022, that ratio will decrease to about 20 percent of federal spending related to the law.
The study is based on data from both the government’s National Health Expenditure Projections and the Congressional Budget Office. Both authors are members of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer system.
"This number – 22.5 percent of all new spending going into overheard – is shocking even to me, to be honest. It’s almost one out of every four dollars is just going to bureaucracy," the study's other author, Steffie Woolhandler, said Wednesday.
She said private insurers have been expanding their administrative overhead despite some regulations from the Obama administration to control those costs, such as the medical loss ratio, which requires a certain amount of premium dollars to be spent directly on healthcare. She argues that a better approach would be a type of Medicare-for-all system.
The extra administrative costs amount to the equivalent of $1,375 per newly insured person per year, the authors write.
About two-thirds of the new overhead costs are the result of rising enrollment in private plans, which the authors say carries “high costs for administration and profits.”
The rest is the result of expanded government programs, such as Medicaid. It also includes the cost of running ObamaCare exchanges at both the federal and state levels.
The federal exchange, as well as the 13 state-run exchanges, have all been boosted by grant money, though those funds will run out by 2016. The exchange will then need to rely on fees to plan premiums.
-
Anyone else think it's rough ridin' ridiculous that Congress decided we can use hsa and flexible spending accounts on pseudo science bullshit like homeopathy and chiropractors, but not preventative health like really expensive gyms, personal trainers, and premade healthy meals? I'm outraged and pissed.
-
Anyone else think it's rough ridin' ridiculous that Congress decided we can use hsa and flexible spending accounts on pseudo science bullshit like homeopathy and chiropractors, but not preventative health like really expensive gyms, personal trainers, and premade healthy meals? I'm outraged and pissed.
Or prescription formula that's $40 for a 14 oz can.. :curse:
-
Anyone else think it's rough ridin' ridiculous that Congress decided we can use hsa and flexible spending accounts on pseudo science bullshit like homeopathy and chiropractors, but not preventative health like really expensive gyms, personal trainers, and premade healthy meals? I'm outraged and pissed.
Or prescription formula that's $40 for a 14 oz can.. :curse:
Its my tax free money, let me spend it how i wanna!
-
Anyone else think it's rough ridin' ridiculous that Congress decided we can use hsa and flexible spending accounts on pseudo science bullshit like homeopathy and chiropractors, but not preventative health like really expensive gyms, personal trainers, and premade healthy meals? I'm outraged and pissed.
Doesn't Obamacare mandate that those crap pseudo science treatments be covered by insurance? We should let people buy the coverage they actually want.
-
Anyone else think it's rough ridin' ridiculous that Congress decided we can use hsa and flexible spending accounts on pseudo science bullshit like homeopathy and chiropractors, but not preventative health like really expensive gyms, personal trainers, and premade healthy meals? I'm outraged and pissed.
Doesn't Obamacare mandate that those crap pseudo science treatments be covered by insurance? We should let people buy the coverage they actually want.
Yeah, same thing. That's my gripe, insurers want actual preventative care, but they exclude things that would actually make people healthy because they're frivolous costs, and include spiritual pseudo science horseshit.
-
Apparently...
Obama:Insurance
Jabeez:Thread Titles
How did you even do that? :confused:
-
Obama:US Healthcare Problems
God:Universe
-
Saw this article on the Eagle today.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/28/268095/health-care-law-supporters-encounter.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/28/268095/health-care-law-supporters-encounter.html)
The Eagle's headline was "Judge takes health care suit seriously" :lol: I guess the editor lives in the same bubble as most MSM journos.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Thursday took seriously a politically ballyhooed lawsuit filed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives challenging the Obama administration’s implementation of the health care law.
In an 80-minute hearing, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer resisted Justice Department claims that the House lacks the legal standing necessary to sue. While noting she has “no idea” what she ultimately will decide, Collyer leveled her hardest questions at the administration.
“It is, I think, a very serious disagreement,” Collyer said, adding that “whether the House has standing is a very different question than whether the (administration’s) action is lawful.”
Appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, Collyer repeatedly, and perhaps tellingly, hammered Justice Department attorney Joel McElvain with sharp comments like “You’re not getting my point,” “You are dodging my question” and “This is the problem with your brief. It’s just not direct.”
The attorney hired to represent the House, George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, seemed to have an easier time during the oral argument held before an audience of 75 people. Many reporters, but apparently no House members, were in the fourth-floor courtroom.
This will take a few more years to finally get a judgment that Obama violated the constitution. Another example of his administration's lawless "eff it, we're going to do what we want and if a court ever calls us on it it will be year down the road" approach.
-
Saw this article on the Eagle today.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/28/268095/health-care-law-supporters-encounter.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/28/268095/health-care-law-supporters-encounter.html)
The Eagle's headline was "Judge takes health care suit seriously" :lol: I guess the editor lives in the same bubble as most MSM journos.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Thursday took seriously a politically ballyhooed lawsuit filed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives challenging the Obama administration’s implementation of the health care law.
In an 80-minute hearing, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer resisted Justice Department claims that the House lacks the legal standing necessary to sue. While noting she has “no idea” what she ultimately will decide, Collyer leveled her hardest questions at the administration.
“It is, I think, a very serious disagreement,” Collyer said, adding that “whether the House has standing is a very different question than whether the (administration’s) action is lawful.”
Appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, Collyer repeatedly, and perhaps tellingly, hammered Justice Department attorney Joel McElvain with sharp comments like “You’re not getting my point,” “You are dodging my question” and “This is the problem with your brief. It’s just not direct.”
The attorney hired to represent the House, George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, seemed to have an easier time during the oral argument held before an audience of 75 people. Many reporters, but apparently no House members, were in the fourth-floor courtroom.
This will take a few more years to finally get a judgment that Obama violated the constitution. Another example of his administration's lawless "eff it, we're going to do what we want and if a court ever calls us on it it will be year down the road" approach.
Lol "lawless"
Ted Cruz thanks you for cleaning his balls today.
-
Saw this article on the Eagle today.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/28/268095/health-care-law-supporters-encounter.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/28/268095/health-care-law-supporters-encounter.html)
The Eagle's headline was "Judge takes health care suit seriously" :lol: I guess the editor lives in the same bubble as most MSM journos.
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Thursday took seriously a politically ballyhooed lawsuit filed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives challenging the Obama administration’s implementation of the health care law.
In an 80-minute hearing, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer resisted Justice Department claims that the House lacks the legal standing necessary to sue. While noting she has “no idea” what she ultimately will decide, Collyer leveled her hardest questions at the administration.
“It is, I think, a very serious disagreement,” Collyer said, adding that “whether the House has standing is a very different question than whether the (administration’s) action is lawful.”
Appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, Collyer repeatedly, and perhaps tellingly, hammered Justice Department attorney Joel McElvain with sharp comments like “You’re not getting my point,” “You are dodging my question” and “This is the problem with your brief. It’s just not direct.”
The attorney hired to represent the House, George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, seemed to have an easier time during the oral argument held before an audience of 75 people. Many reporters, but apparently no House members, were in the fourth-floor courtroom.
This will take a few more years to finally get a judgment that Obama violated the constitution. Another example of his administration's lawless "eff it, we're going to do what we want and if a court ever calls us on it it will be year down the road" approach.
Lol "lawless"
Ted Cruz thanks you for cleaning his balls today.
There were specific deadlines written in the law. Obama ignored them. He ignored the law. Lawless. The Constitution requires that the President "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." He takes an oath to do the same. When the law gives you a date, and you arbitrarily ignore that date, that's lawless.
-
I don't know a better word for refusing to enforce the law than "lawless".
-
:lol:
-
Speaking of which, this about sums up Obama's policy...
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2015%2F05%2FPresidential-Lgeacies-copy.jpg%3Fresize%3D580%252C435&hash=06855e5cb45430170d3a582d117393044692e857)
-
God's Newspaper in Hutchinson reported that premiuma for exchange policies will go up 20 to 50 percent in the next couple of years. Tennessee will increase by 30 percent. Affordable? Healthcare nuts and gym rats, someday you wI'll get sick, and someday croak.
-
That's odd. Kansas health insurance companies are proposing rate increases for next year between 20 and 40%. http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article22844553.html (http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article22844553.html)
It's almost as if requring insurance companies to provide coverage to people who are already sick is causing insurers' costs to go up. A lot. And people with subsidized insurance are using it more - not less.
Wo could have ever predicted those things? :dunno:
-
health care should be a human right and an american right. if the health insurance industry and the industrial health complex cannot effectively and efficiently provide for that right, then they need to be destroyed.
-
health care should be a human right and an american right. if the health insurance industry and the industrial health complex cannot effectively and efficiently provide for that right, then they need to be destroyed.
How much health care is each person entitled to?
-
as much as they need
-
Over the past 5 years, I've gone from the right, to the middle, and now to the left on this issue. Hey KSUW, If you're so concerned about the cost of your premiums, maybe you should just work a little harder or be a little more talented so that you'll make more money.
-
it takes a truly evil-hearted person to be pro health insurance
-
You've all been financially devastated by Obamacare. You just don't know it.
-
as much as they need
Yeah Jesus Christ, kazdub
-
as much as they need
Who decides how much they "need" and more importantly, how soon they need it?
-
it takes a truly evil-hearted person to be pro health insurance
I'm far from "pro health insurance." I'm pro people buying routine medical care out pocket with transparent pricing and only using insurance the way any other insurance is actually used. Obamacare puts the insurance carriers on steroids, and then we all pay for the rise in premiums. Some of you really have no idea how this works.
-
as much as they need
Who decides how much they "need" and more importantly, how soon they need it?
who decides now?
-
Over the past 5 years, I've gone from the right, to the middle, and now to the left on this issue. Hey KSUW, If you're so concerned about the cost of your premiums, maybe you should just work a little harder or be a little more talented so that you'll make more money.
You could apply that "from each according to their ability" socialist mentality to any number of things. It's still socialism.
-
Over the past 5 years, I've gone from the right, to the middle, and now to the left on this issue. Hey KSUW, If you're so concerned about the cost of your premiums, maybe you should just work a little harder or be a little more talented so that you'll make more money.
You could apply that "from each according to their ability" socialist mentality to any number of things. It's still socialism.
That's pretty funny, since I was mimicking popular right-wing logic in my post.
-
it takes a truly evil-hearted person to be pro health insurance
I'm far from "pro health insurance." I'm pro people buying routine medical care out pocket with transparent pricing and only using insurance the way any other insurance is actually used. Obamacare puts the insurance carriers on steroids, and then we all pay for the rise in premiums. Some of you really have no idea how this works.
Do you think someone without money should be refused even affordable healthcare?
-
Over the past 5 years, I've gone from the right, to the middle, and now to the left on this issue. Hey KSUW, If you're so concerned about the cost of your premiums, maybe you should just work a little harder or be a little more talented so that you'll make more money.
You could apply that "from each according to their ability" socialist mentality to any number of things. It's still socialism.
That's pretty funny, since I was mimicking popular right-wing logic in my post.
You didn't do a very good job of it. Conservatives believe people can improve their lives, and their families' well being, through hard work. They don't believe you should have to work harder to pay somebody else's way.
-
it takes a truly evil-hearted person to be pro health insurance
I'm far from "pro health insurance." I'm pro people buying routine medical care out pocket with transparent pricing and only using insurance the way any other insurance is actually used. Obamacare puts the insurance carriers on steroids, and then we all pay for the rise in premiums. Some of you really have no idea how this works.
Do you think someone without money should be refused even affordable healthcare?
I think they should receive the life-saving care already mandated by law prior to Obamacare. And a big fat bill.
-
Then they don't or can't pay and the costs are transferred where?
-
"Rights" don't cost money.
-
"Rights" don't cost money.
glad to see you're coming to the correct side of the issue
-
"Rights" don't cost money.
Ya seen the price of a can of 5.56 these days, pardner?
-
Freedom, the most important right of all, isn't free. Everybody knows that.
-
What about the right to an attorney? Is that free?
-
A trial by a jury of my peers? No per diem?
-
Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but I think life is an inalienable right.
-
sorry poor kids, you don't get to go to school, this ain't no rough ridin' socialist paradise
-
it takes a truly evil-hearted person to be pro health insurance
I'm far from "pro health insurance." I'm pro people buying routine medical care out pocket with transparent pricing and only using insurance the way any other insurance is actually used. Obamacare puts the insurance carriers on steroids, and then we all pay for the rise in premiums. Some of you really have no idea how this works.
Do you think someone without money should be refused even affordable healthcare?
I think they should receive the life-saving care already mandated by law prior to Obamacare. And a big fat bill.
Sounds like you want people who have chronic conditions to die because they can't pay for drug therapies.
-
*Meant to say suffer and then die.
-
I oppose keeping poor people alive because I am terrified of global warming and desire a more enlightened society.
- congruent libtard thought process
-
Affordable health care is a misnomer. Health insurance is not a human right, it's a financial instrument meant to mitigate against catastrophic events. To say everyone is entitled to "free" healthcare is to say everyone is entitled to food and shelter and water and education. All of these things are already readily available and more or less provided by our society free of cost to the lowest common denominator. The problem is the overwhelming majority of the lowest common denominator flat our refuses to accept and enrich themselves with these gifts of society, and no matter how the gift is packaged, nothing changes.
So, you can act like a thoughtless idiot and pretend you're a better person for saying "healthcare is a human right", or you can critically think, identify a problem and work towards a solution that actually betters society. Libtardedness is a religion full of indoctrinated lemmings, they are serial enablers or a serious societal problem.
Let us not overlook the fact that none of these "free" "human rights" can be paid for other than by promising the income of an unborn generation.
-
Let's fix it, together!
-
being pro health insurance is such a weirdo stance
-
Idea one: change from charging for treatments to charging for outcomes. Healthcare providers are paid a certain amount to maintain a persons health and they pay out refunds for each medical problem!
-
i think there's an obvious flaw with that puni
-
i think there's an obvious flaw with that puni
Is it fixable?
-
probably not. idea 2?
-
Affordable health care is a misnomer. Health insurance is not a human right, it's a financial instrument meant to mitigate against catastrophic events. To say everyone is entitled to "free" healthcare is to say everyone is entitled to food and shelter and water and education. All of these things are already readily available and more or less provided by our society free of cost to the lowest common denominator. The problem is the overwhelming majority of the lowest common denominator flat our refuses to accept and enrich themselves with these gifts of society, and no matter how the gift is packaged, nothing changes.
So, you can act like a thoughtless idiot and pretend you're a better person for saying "healthcare is a human right", or you can critically think, identify a problem and work towards a solution that actually betters society. Libtardedness is a religion full of indoctrinated lemmings, they are serial enablers or a serious societal problem.
Let us not overlook the fact that none of these "free" "human rights" can be paid for other than by promising the income of an unborn generation.
You carelessly conflate health insurance and healthcare, but more importantly...
This is America. We don't condemn innocent persons just so that no guilty persons escape justice. As a God-fearing American, I know that ours is not the judgment of fellow man--Ours is only the trying to live in a Christly manner. The rest is not our business.
-
being pro health insurance is such a weirdo stance
What a stupid rough ridin' thing to say. Also the most succinct demonstration of ignorance and misplaced aggression that I've seen, so congrats.
-
FSD, don't you think the downtrodden would perform better at all that bootstraps stuff if they weren't bankrupt and crippled by their medical concerns?
-
Affordable health care is a misnomer. Health insurance is not a human right, it's a financial instrument meant to mitigate against catastrophic events. To say everyone is entitled to "free" healthcare is to say everyone is entitled to food and shelter and water and education. All of these things are already readily available and more or less provided by our society free of cost to the lowest common denominator. The problem is the overwhelming majority of the lowest common denominator flat our refuses to accept and enrich themselves with these gifts of society, and no matter how the gift is packaged, nothing changes.
So, you can act like a thoughtless idiot and pretend you're a better person for saying "healthcare is a human right", or you can critically think, identify a problem and work towards a solution that actually betters society. Libtardedness is a religion full of indoctrinated lemmings, they are serial enablers or a serious societal problem.
Let us not overlook the fact that none of these "free" "human rights" can be paid for other than by promising the income of an unborn generation.
You carelessly conflate health insurance with healthcare, but more importantly...
This is America. We don't condemn innocent persons just so that no guilty persons escape justice. As a God-fearing American, I know that ours is not the judgment of fellow man--Ours is only the trying to live in a Christly manner. The rest is not our business.
Accusing me of conflating healthcare and health insurance might be the most perverted thing ever written in the pit. This is a thread about Obamacare, the Genesis of the most egregious conflation of the fundamental concepts of health insurance and health care.
You are foolish and have been manipulated into believing that our society was cold and dark before, but that somehow rebranding the existing system into bureaucratic largesse cures the contrived insensitivities of years prior. It's at best a slight of hand, and anyone with a brain can see that.
-
lol
-
FSD, don't you think the downtrodden would perform better at all that bootstraps stuff if they weren't bankrupt and crippled by their medical concerns?
Your premise is false, as the downtrodden are in the exact same position, or worse, as they were before this abortion of legislation.
I do envy the left for successfully framing the discussion as "the sick and poor are dying on the steps of hospitals because they are denied healthcare". That is fantasy. The fact of the matter is that poor people could have purchased a shitty high deductible hmo before just like they can now (except they can't because the Web page is broken). None of them are doing it because they still don't have cash to pay premiums or deductibles.
You idiots have literally convinced yourselves that opposing the ACA means letting people die in the street and that supporting it is righteous. You sound like the rough ridin' phelps.
-
the aca did some good but mostly sucks. it sucks because it's still a health insurance model and health insurance is probably the most immoral major industry in the country
-
i mean, fsd just laid it out perfectly why free healthcare is the only obvious solution
-
I bet if the founding fathers would have started this country today they would have listed free health care in the bill of rights, at least for white males.
-
the aca did some good but mostly sucks. it sucks because it's still a health insurance model and health insurance is probably the most immoral major industry in the country
Aeticulate what is immoral about health insurance.
-
Sorry, I guess I am in the wrong thread and you are angry about it. I was reflecting on health care more generally.
The medical industrial insurance complex is what I oppose. It is an insatiable and unsustainable tumorous beast.
I do like the individual mandate as a way to make health insurance actually function like real insurance.
I also like obamacare for getting us that much closer to burning it all down.
-
the aca did some good but mostly sucks. it sucks because it's still a health insurance model and health insurance is probably the most immoral major industry in the country
Health Insurance used to be a good business back in the minimize-and-shed-risk days. It is slightly less horrible now.
FSD, sick people aren't dying on the steps of the hospital. They're being admitted, treated for 2.5 days, then discharged with no way to continue their care or any other tools for promoting a care transition. They then receive and are subsequently hassled with medical bills that are lolhigh to the point that they are discouraged from pursuing continuing medical care. If they allow themselves to become sufficiently impoverished, they may qualify for Medicaid or other state programs, but even then it takes a certain amount of intelligence and savvy in order to satisfy the endless processes of qualification and re-certification, and all that before we even get to the healthcare part of the equation, not to mention that many of these people already have poor health literacy.
-
*I don't think the ACA is free healthcare and I definitely don't think it is fulfilling our human American right to healthcare.
-
The "medical insurance complex". Good gawd
You might as well have a pull string.
-
What percent of our GDP is pure health insurance industry? Probably more than 1
-
the aca did some good but mostly sucks. it sucks because it's still a health insurance model and health insurance is probably the most immoral major industry in the country
Health Insurance used to be a good business back in the minimize-and-shed-risk days. It is slightly less horrible now.
FSD, sick people aren't dying on the steps of the hospital. They're being admitted, treated for 2.5 days, then discharged with no way to continue their care or any other tools for promoting a care transition. They then receive and are subsequently hassled with medical bills that are lolhigh to the point that they are discouraged from pursuing continuing medical care. If they allow themselves to become sufficiently impoverished, they may qualify for Medicaid or other state programs, but even then it takes a certain amount of intelligence and savvy in order to satisfy the endless processes of qualification and re-certification, and all that before we even get to the healthcare part of the equation, not to mention that many of these people already have poor health literacy.
What's amazing is that you seem to have identified [a] problem, yet the solution you implicitly adopt unquestionably compounds said problem.
-
What percent of our GDP is pure health insurance industry? Probably more than 1
What percentage is agriculture?
#pullstringtalkingpoints
-
You are a person with no ears who doesn't listen and yells out of your two mouth sides and anus simultaneously.
-
:lol:
-
Real smart Democrats call it the Affordable Care Act, but premiums go up 20 to 40 percent. Us poor stupid drooling groin scrarchers jus don't get it.
-
You are a person with no ears who doesn't listen and yells out of your two mouth sides and anus simultaneously.
I'm sorry nobody at your high school know who you are. Probably a violation of your human rights
-
high school smack!
-
high school smack!
This is immoral.
-
Idea 2: whatever Denmark does?
-
In this thread, I became aware that FSD is from St. Louis.
-
Spewing nebulous unsubstantiated platitudes like "healthcare is a human right" and "health insurance is immoral" is so righteous and enlightened . I want a poster with a dood walking on the beach with two sets of footprints behind him, and one of the platitudes drawn in the surf next to him.
The flipside of that poster should read, "I don't know what the eff I'm talking about, but we should do what Europe does because that's what I was programmed to say"
-
Don't you want to fix anything?
-
Don't you want to fix anything?
can't wait for fsd's programmed response
-
Maybe I need to start a separate brainstorm thread.
-
It's like watching two mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) children attempting to employ the socratic method.
-
It's like watching two mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) children attempting to employ the socratic method.
I did that earlier and it was awesome and totally effective.
Don't you want to fix anything? If so, how?
-
It's a dog eat dog world out there in utopia. Better get a chair at the governing table.
-
I'm hearing "go back to how it was on leave it to beaver"
-
I'm hearing "go back to how it was on leave it to beaver"
You know "the Man" would never allow it, nor would the military industrial complex, the medical insurance complex, the Raytown sports complex or your uncle's duplex. Let us instead build a campfire and talk about how great it would be if nobody ever got sick, and everone had a unicorn to ride to their own personal beach.
-
I honesty can't tell what you want. What do you want?
-
I honesty can't tell what you want. What do you want?
I want you to understand how naive, ignorant and non-substantive your entire pov is.
-
I honesty can't tell what you want. What do you want?
I want you to understand how naive, ignorant and non-substantive your entire pov is.
imagine for a moment that you have done so with complete success. Now what do you want a heathcare system in america to look like?
-
Holy carp. This thread has grown by three pages since I went to bed last night. It's basically a bloody mess of libtard bodies with FSD standing at the center.
-
i see 2 people simultaneously worshipping the medical insurance industry and screaming about obamacare expanding it
-
I mean, I feel like my life is EXACTLY the same as it was prior to the ACA. I know that I am just delusional, though, and that I've actually been ruined financially.
-
i see 2 people simultaneously worshipping the medical insurance industry and screaming about obamacare expanding it
Again, if you think I am "worshipping the medical insurance industry" you aren't paying attention.
it takes a truly evil-hearted person to be pro health insurance
I'm far from "pro health insurance." I'm pro people buying routine medical care out pocket with transparent pricing and only using insurance the way any other insurance is actually used. Obamacare puts the insurance carriers on steroids, and then we all pay for the rise in premiums. Some of you really have no idea how this works.
The way people currently use health insurance isn't insurance at all. It's prepaid healthcare. The use of health insurance in this way massively distorts the healthcare market.
-
I honesty can't tell what you want. What do you want?
I want you to understand how naive, ignorant and non-substantive your entire pov is.
imagine for a moment that you have done so with complete success. Now what do you want a heathcare system in america to look like?
I posted my bar napkin plan nearly two years ago, and it hasn't changed.
I agree. Obamacare must be dismantled, and we generally need to return to a free market system that treats health insurance as actual insurance in order to make it more affordable, but something should be done for the current uninsured with preexisting conditions, particularly young people through no fault of their own. My bar napkin plan:
1. Repeal Obamacare.
2. Permit the purchase of health insurance from anywhere you want, which would effectively nullify the ridiculous minimum coverage mandates of certain states and promote a free market in shopping for insurance products that people actually want and can afford.
3. Dramatically curtail medical malpractice liability, particularly for medicaid and other "free" healthcare situations, which will reduce "defensive medicine" and the associated costs.
4. Encourage growth of HDHCP/HSAs with greater tax incentives.
5. Subsidize temporary high risk pools, phasing out eligibility over the next 4-5 years, for those with preexisting conditions. I'm betting we could subsidize these pools for a mere fraction of what it would cost to fund this current turd of a law.
It is not a perfect solution - nothing is - but it's way better than what we have now.
-
how would the exhorbitant prices be controlled? I dont think it's possible to unexplode the cost bomb without burning the whole system down and reimagining it
-
how would the exhorbitant prices be controlled? I dont think it's possible to unexplode the cost bomb without burning the whole system down and reimagining it
Are you suggesting that if healthcare was sold in a free market the same as pretty much any other good or service, it wouldn't bring down costs? I disagree. The problem is that insurance companies distort that market by acting as a middle man that obfuscates and drives up prices. Consumers tend to overpurchase because "insurance will pay for it", and the doctors bill as much as possibly can, knowing that they won't get 100% from the insurers. It's ridiculous.
Try this some time. Go into an ER and ask the doctor/nurse/anybody who works there "I don't have insurance (or I have a HDHP) - what's this going to cost if I just want to pay for it right now, out of pocket." Nobody can tell you. Nobody. They have a person in the ER in charge of "registration" who's sole job is to collect your insurance info - she has no idea how much the service will cost. Try the same thing at your doctor's office. Maybe you'll get better information - probably not.
The market for healthcare is completely mumped up, and it's mainly because of how we use insurance. Obamacare makes this problem a lot worse - not better.
-
i'm saying we cant get from there to here without burning it down
-
and i dont know
-
idea 3: train everybody in the public schools with elite medical skills and wikipedia so they can self adminster medicine to themselves and their friends
-
idea 4: pretty much logans run but maybe an older cutoff
-
I pay more in deductibles and premium for the same coverage (well guess I have access to herpes and Transgender counselling) I had before for no reason other than obamacare. And before you quip that premiums would have gone up anyways, I can tell you you are wrong. We self insure through the business and our premiums would have gone down.
I'm not ruined, but I've essentially been taxed another $3000 per year for nothing.
-
I pay more in deductibles and premium for the same coverage (well guess I have access to herpes and Transgender counselling) I had before for no reason other than obamacare. And before you quip that premiums would have gone up anyways, I can tell you you are wrong. We self insure through the business and our premiums would have gone down.
I'm not ruined, but I've essentially been taxed another $3000 per year for nothing.
If that really happened to you, no one should care because you're statistically insignficant.
-
I pay more in deductibles and premium for the same coverage (well guess I have access to herpes and Transgender counselling) I had before for no reason other than obamacare. And before you quip that premiums would have gone up anyways, I can tell you you are wrong. We self insure through the business and our premiums would have gone down.
I'm not ruined, but I've essentially been taxed another $3000 per year for nothing.
He's not the only one.
If that really happened to you, no one should care because you're statistically insignficant.
-
Except it's not nothing :dunno:
-
I pay more in deductibles and premium for the same coverage (well guess I have access to herpes and Transgender counselling) I had before for no reason other than obamacare. And before you quip that premiums would have gone up anyways, I can tell you you are wrong. We self insure through the business and our premiums would have gone down.
I'm not ruined, but I've essentially been taxed another $3000 per year for nothing.
He's not the only one.
If that really happened to you, no one should care because you're statistically insignficant.
Yes, I am certain that there are others who are also statistically insignificant.
-
I don't doubt that a small minority of people would have seen their premiums decline.
It's well documented that an overwhelming majority have seen their premiums increase for the same policy with a higher deductible. That is mumped up.
-
Other mumped up things: Inflation.
-
Other mumped up things: Inflation.
Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. :lol: So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.
-
Other mumped up things: Inflation.
Out of pocket health care costs are going up at about 6% average per year. If you have an average income, it's going up a whole lot more.
-
FSD is lying, guys
-
I want a poster with a dood walking on the beach with two sets of footprints behind him, and one of the platitudes drawn in the surf next to him.
i made one of those for jeremy guthrie. it was really good.
-
Other mumped up things: Inflation.
Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. :lol: So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.
Other mumped up things:
Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations
These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.
-
Other mumped up things: Inflation.
Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. :lol: So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.
Other mumped up things:
Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations
These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.
I think I'll rely on the industry experts quoted in the articles above. I'm going to give that a little more weight than "chum1" on goEMAW. Now if it was poonhound69, that'd be different.
-
Other mumped up things: Inflation.
Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. :lol: So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.
Other mumped up things:
Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations
These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.
I think I'll rely on the industry experts quoted in the articles above. I'm going to give that a little more weight than "chum1" on goEMAW. Now if it was poonhound69, that'd be different.
Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.
-
Other mumped up things: Inflation.
Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. :lol: So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.
Other mumped up things:
Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations
These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.
The price of healthcare is only rising about 1.8% per year. Premiums and out of pocket deductables are up 6%. Please post data.
-
Please post data.
That's a little vague. What do you want to know?
-
Other mumped up things: Inflation.
Oh good lord, we're back to the "inflation" excuse. :lol: So sad. The defense of this crap law is so intellectually and morally bankrupt. The libtards wouldn't know common sense if it slapped them in the face.
Other mumped up things:
Increases in:
Physician costs
Hospital costs
Medical equipment costs
New medical technology costs
New procedures/treatments
Prescription drug costs
Prescription drug usage
Preventive care coverage (ubiquitous in health plans prior to any mandates)
Usage of preventive care
State regulations
Non-ACA federal regulations
These things contribute to premiums far, far more than the ACA. You're right that that isn't based on common sense. It's based on data.
I think I'll rely on the industry experts quoted in the articles above. I'm going to give that a little more weight than "chum1" on goEMAW. Now if it was poonhound69, that'd be different.
Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.
Again, I'm relying upon the folks quoted in the articles. If you have a different source other than "chum1" feel free to share. Otherwise stop being a dumbass.
-
Huh. Even the liberal publications agree that rates are shooting up due to Obamacare.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428.html (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428.html)
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7423912 (http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7423912)
But I'm just "taking sides." I guess if I was a libtard and was constantly being reminded of my stupidity, if be annoyed, too.
-
Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.
Again, I'm relying upon the folks quoted in the articles. If you have a different source other than "chum1" feel free to share. Otherwise stop being a dumbass.
When two articles seem to contradict each other, as they always do in matters of politics, how do you decide which one to believe? I mean, I know what you actually do is pick the one that you think is the conservative/non-liberal one based on your presupposed ideology. What I'm asking is how you convince yourself that it represents the truth? Or are you not concerned with what is true? Or do you simply assume it is true precisely because you think that it coincides with your ideology? Like, maybe you think that's sufficient for it to be true. Is that how it works?
-
If I recall correctly, chum is one of those obamacare enrollment facilitator/promoters, so he's just doing his job here.
-
I don't like early voting because it allows people to cast votes before campaigns are over. I also don't like the "rock the vote" mills the democrats set up in the inner cities to unethical [and probably illegally] package democrat votes.
I'm unaware of a policy rationale in favor of early voting, other than convenience [and the aforementioned cheating].
-
Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.
Again, I'm relying upon the folks quoted in the articles. If you have a different source other than "chum1" feel free to share. Otherwise stop being a dumbass.
When two articles seem to contradict each other, as they always do in matters of politics, how do you decide which one to believe? I mean, I know what you actually do is pick the one that you think is the conservative/non-liberal one based on your presupposed ideology. What I'm asking is how you convince yourself that it represents the truth? Or are you not concerned with what is true? Or do you simply assume it is true precisely because you think that it coincides with your ideology? Like, maybe you think that's sufficient for it to be true. Is that how it works?
I try my best to use common sense. But again, I've even given you articles from liberal publications that point to Obamacare. You have yet to provide anything other than chum1, which is not very convincing. Stop being so dense. Use your head. Read the articles.
-
Withholding judgement is also an option. You don't always have to pick a side. You also don't always have to pick the same side.
Again, I'm relying upon the folks quoted in the articles. If you have a different source other than "chum1" feel free to share. Otherwise stop being a dumbass.
When two articles seem to contradict each other, as they always do in matters of politics, how do you decide which one to believe? I mean, I know what you actually do is pick the one that you think is the conservative/non-liberal one based on your presupposed ideology. What I'm asking is how you convince yourself that it represents the truth? Or are you not concerned with what is true? Or do you simply assume it is true precisely because you think that it coincides with your ideology? Like, maybe you think that's sufficient for it to be true. Is that how it works?
I try my best to use common sense. But again, I've even given you articles from liberal publications that point to Obamacare. You have yet to provide anything other than chum1, which is not very convincing. Stop being so dense. Use your head. Read the articles.
I think I get it. So, you'd count application of some idea to which you subscribe - something like, "when you give rich people more money, they create more jobs" - as using common sense? That clears things up for me, though I'd personally consider that sort of thing an empirical matter.
-
I wish I could vote online, like I file my taxes, do my banking, work and pay bills.
-
I wish I could vote online, like I file my taxes, do my banking, work and pay bills.
You could easily have 500,000,000 votes cast in a presidential election. :users:
-
I don't like early voting because it allows people to cast votes before campaigns are over. I also don't like the "rock the vote" mills the democrats set up in the inner cities to unethical [and probably illegally] package democrat votes.
I'm unaware of a policy rationale in favor of early voting, other than convenience [and the aforementioned cheating].
Why is helping people practice their democratic right so unethical? There's no demand that you vote democrat after you sign up.
-
I try my best to use common sense. But again, I've even given you articles from liberal publications that point to Obamacare. You have yet to provide anything other than chum1, which is not very convincing. Stop being so dense. Use your head. Read the articles.
Okay, I read them. They do not address the issue I was discussing: that large premium increases are caused by the ACA, though they do speculate about the possibility. They primarily say that exchange plan premiums may or may not have large increases next year, which addresses a completely different issue and is also thoroughly noncommittal.
-
I try my best to use common sense. But again, I've even given you articles from liberal publications that point to Obamacare. You have yet to provide anything other than chum1, which is not very convincing. Stop being so dense. Use your head. Read the articles.
Okay, I read them. They do not address the issue I was discussing: that large premium increases are caused by the ACA, though they do speculate about the possibility. They primarily say that exchange plan premiums may or may not have large increases next year, which addresses a completely different issue and is also thoroughly noncommittal.
Ok. :rolleyes: A simple Google News search will reveal hundreds of articles quoting experts as saying that Obamacare is the primary cause of these large proposed increases. You have yet to post a single, solitary source to the contrary. Dodge all you want by calling this "speculation" - I'll just call a dumbass a dumbass.
-
its true that more healthy people are covered now that before, right? shouldnt that make prices eventually go down? is it just insurance companies being greedy red lobster dicks about it all?
-
I try my best to use common sense. But again, I've even given you articles from liberal publications that point to Obamacare. You have yet to provide anything other than chum1, which is not very convincing. Stop being so dense. Use your head. Read the articles.
Okay, I read them. They do not address the issue I was discussing: that large premium increases are caused by the ACA, though they do speculate about the possibility. They primarily say that exchange plan premiums may or may not have large increases next year, which addresses a completely different issue and is also thoroughly noncommittal.
Ok. :rolleyes: A simple Google News search will reveal hundreds of articles quoting experts as saying that Obamacare is the primary cause of these large proposed increases. You have yet to post a single, solitary source to the contrary. Dodge all you want by calling this "speculation" - I'll just call a dumbass a dumbass.
It's speculation becuase it's about 2016 rates, which haven't yet been established. I don't care about this stupid link any more than I care about your stupid links, but here's something contrary on increases that actually happened for 2015 rates:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/10/31/key-study-on-obamacare-2015-premium-rates-is-out-and-you-wont-believe-whats-going-to-happen/
-
its true that more healthy people are covered now that before, right? shouldnt that make prices eventually go down? is it just insurance companies being greedy red lobster dicks about it all?
No, for two reasons. First, more healthy people are covered, but not the number they needed to make up for all the older/sicker people added to the plans. Insurers don't really track which enrollees are "healthy" or "sick" - but they do at least track the ages of enrollees, and younger people are presumed to be healthier. Analysts said the plans needed about 40% of the new enrollees to be under 35 to make the whole thing fiscally sustainable. The actual number of enrollees under 35 appears to be closer to 24-30%.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/01/14/obamacare_demographics_not_enough_young_people_have_signed_up_yet.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/01/14/obamacare_demographics_not_enough_young_people_have_signed_up_yet.html)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/not-enough-young-people-are-buying-obamacare-2014-01-14 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/not-enough-young-people-are-buying-obamacare-2014-01-14)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/young-people-obamacare-problem-_n_4280469.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/young-people-obamacare-problem-_n_4280469.html)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-enrollment-mystery-2-million-222400666.html (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-enrollment-mystery-2-million-222400666.html)
And, according to surveys, of the young people who are signing up, a disproportionate number appear to be sick - not healthy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/06/25/young-obamacare-enrollees-more-likely-to-have-serious-health-problems/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/06/25/young-obamacare-enrollees-more-likely-to-have-serious-health-problems/)
Second, it's likely that even the "healthy" people seem to be getting more "preventative treatment" under their newfound (and newly subsidized by us) coverage, which also drives up costs. That part is difficult to quanitfy, but makes sense.
-
Speaking of things that are immaterial, the overall percentage of people with insurance before and after the ACA is immaterially different, and largely obviate by mild improvements in the job market.
Increased deductibles should be factored into the obamacare analysis. Mine increased 800%. It's disingenuous to argue about premiums and not account for increased deductibles.
The fact of the matter is everything this law was supposed to do, it has done the opposite or nothing at all. Worse, it has made healthcare generally worse for a large number of people without doing anything for the remaining super minority. It's a joke.
-
Well, I have to think that the shitty Obamacare "bronze" and "silver" plans, even with their sky high deductibles, are helping at least some people in need of expensive ongoing treatment who were previously uninsured. But I would agree that those folks are a very small minority in comparison to everyone else who's being mumped over by this law. Like I said in my bar napkin plan, we probably could have subsidized high risk pools for those folks for a fraction of the overall cost of this crap law.
-
:whistle1:
-
Is this where our dicks come out?
-
Neocon am radio hosts are really unhappy with scotus. Hannity last night says everyone should start calling it "supreme Court of the United States care" instead of obamacare, but that seems a bit wordy
-
Neocon am radio hosts are really unhappy with scotus. Hannity last night says everyone should start calling it "supreme Court of the United States care" instead of obamacare, but that seems a bit wordy
yeah, no way that sticks
-
CrapCare. Wait until in a couple of years when employers are force to abandon their premium health plans, so called Cadillac plans, and millions have high deductible high premium silver sewer plans, and insurance companies limit coverage.
-
Sorry Mr. President just because SCOTUS ruled a provision of Ohdammit Care is lawful, does not mean this law is untouchable as you tried to state in your post vote comments. The idea may be noble, but this thing called you call good legislation is a mess.
-
so is this thing a success or a failure?
-
Stepping stone to the real success
-
so is this thing a success or a failure?
What was it supposed to do?
-
It was intended to make insurance more affordable
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1190.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz454%2FMotiveWeight%2FJust-keep-going-1.gif&hash=69f9f6e5dc3e8ff6a7eedd0fe954ed21ce3f0190)
-
so is this thing a success or a failure?
Serious answer, I think that depends on your definition of success.
If your goal was to make insurance more affordable for those who already had insurance (which was most people) it's an abject failure. It has made things worse.
If your goal was to spend over a trillion dollars getting about 15-20 million people either added to the Medicaid rolls or on terrible insurance with deductibles they can't really afford, then it's been pretty successful.
-
so is this thing a success or a failure?
it's been pretty successful.
:horrorsurprise:
-
so is this thing a success or a failure?
it's been pretty successful.
:horrorsurprise:
That was heavily edited and misleading.
-
so is this thing a success or a failure?
it's been pretty successful.
:horrorsurprise:
That was heavily edited and misleading.
Nothing was added.
-
i watched the video, can confirm
-
Hell.
-
So, insurance companies are dropping out exchanges like hot cakes, the premiums for these shitty high deductible plans are sky rocketing, enrollment sucks, and United Healthcare announced today it might drop the exchange plans.
Why haven't we laughed at the ill fate of this moranic and predictably failed legislation lately?
-
Single payer here we come :driving:
-
Single payer is a pejorative in america.
-
It's going to be "FREE"!!
-
:Woot:
-
Sin gle pay er clap clap clap clap clap
Obams new exactly what he was doing.
-
Thankfully, my wife and I still work for large employers that can purchase reasonably low cost HDHPs, and they even contribute to our HSAs, so we haven't really been burned yet.
But man, this is not a good time for small employers and people shopping individually. I mean, unless you're on Medicaid or eligible for some of my money to subsidize you insurance. But ironically, even the folks on subsidies are purchasing plans with high deductibles they can't really afford.
Man what a crap law.
-
Thankfully, my wife and I still work for large employers that can purchase reasonably low cost HDHPs, and they even contribute to our HSAs, so we haven't really been burned yet.
But man, this is not a good time for small employers and people shopping individually. I mean, unless you're on Medicaid or eligible for some of my money to subsidize you insurance. But ironically, even the folks on subsidies are purchasing plans with high deductibles they can't really afford.
Man what a crap law.
:lol:
-
Poor people already have single payer you dimwits (icymi, it's awful). What is incomprehensible is why you want so many people to become poor(er). Penis envy? Probs
Can you imagine how humiliating it must be for B.O. to have his signature legislation be a derailed rolling stock dumpster conflagration. What a loser. :ROFL:
-
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/261617-unitedhealth-ceo-regrets-entering-obamacare-marketplace (http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/261617-unitedhealth-ceo-regrets-entering-obamacare-marketplace)
The CEO of UnitedHealthCare on Tuesday said he regretted the decision to enter the ObamaCare marketplace last year, which the company says has resulted in millions of dollars in losses.
“It was for us a bad decision,” UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley said at an investor’s meeting in New York, according to Bloomberg Business.
UnitedHealth, the country’s largest insurer, announced last month that it would no longer advertise its ObamaCare plans over the next year and may pull out completely in 2016 — a move that sent shockwaves across the healthcare sector.
Hemsley’s remarks double down on his earlier warning that the ObamaCare exchanges remain weaker than expected after two years and that it will take far longer for insurers to profit from the millions of new enrollees.
The company had already eyed ObamaCare’s federal marketplace cautiously since it launched in 2013. UnitedHealth only began selling plans on the exchanges last year.
Now, UnitedHealth officials have said that move will result in a half-billion dollars in losses over two years.
Hemsley said it was smart to sit out of the exchanges for the first year, but that the company should have held out another year.
“In retrospect, we should have stayed out longer,” he said, adding that he believes the marketplace will take more than “a season or two” to develop.
“We did not believe it would form this slowly, be this porous, or become this severe,” he said.
-
Poor insurance companies
-
Poor insurance companies
Yeah, I don't feel sorry for them either. They got in bed with Obama on this crap law with the promise of millions of new customers and billions in bailouts if anything went wrong. Turns out the new customers consumed more healthcare, and they received less bailout money, than expected. Boo hoo.
-
MIR, Jakesie and Trim headed to court shortly. :excited:
Jakesie overslept. :lol:
Just didn't feel like helping myself.
You weren't the only one.
:frown:
-
For non-poor people this system is definitely worse than how it was before. Healthcare in other countries isn't cheaper because they have a single payer, its cheaper because by law they mandate what can be charged for healthcare.
-
That UHC stuff is a bunch of diversionary tactic bullshit. If they're losing a HALF BILLION dollars on exchange plans, that's on them, not exchange plans. Those plans don't cost anywhere near that much to administer. Also, two years to profitability is insanely fast for the insurance industry. (Or any other industry, probably. ???) And there are companies that are on target to achieve that with exchange plans.
-
My 2016 Healthcare premiums . . . going up (again).
Parents premiums . . . going up (again).
Obama really took care of the chosen ones and the drug companies (pricing exemptions). Croony capitalism at its best.
Sad
-
I have UHC, they didn't cover my flu vaccine and I called about the shingles vaccine and they won't cover it until I turn 60. So much for preventive healthcare. I guess UHC has no real interest in keeping costs down. Insurance company choosing profit over proper procedure, who knew.
-
I have UHC, they didn't cover my flu vaccine and I called about the shingles vaccine and they won't cover it until I turn 60. So much for preventive healthcare. I guess UHC has no real interest in keeping costs down. Insurance company choosing profit over proper procedure, who knew.
I would absolutely agree that the Flu shots should be free, always. Other preventative vaccines like Shingles should be nominal cost at most. That keeps people out of doctors offices and away from consuming stretched medical resources.
Mrs. SODJ got Shingles in her early 40's and it was a miserable experience. Multiple doctors visits and prescriptions.
-
my new job pays for all my health care and deductible, so I guess the lesson here is to work harder and maybe you can all get a better job, too.
-
my new job pays for all my health care and deductible, so I guess the lesson here is to work harder and maybe you can all get a better job, too.
I can't complain too much, because my job covers about 90% of the premiums and reimburses 50-100% depending on the care received on deductibles.
Where it really hurts is the small business owners and people who work for small businesses . . . but they're probably cheating on their taxes, right cRusty?
-
my new job pays for all my health care and deductible, so I guess the lesson here is to work harder and maybe you can all get a better job, too.
Yup. Big employers are the last refuge of a crumbling system. At least, you know, until people can actually buy the coverage they need from whomever they want....
-
I don't work for a big company.
-
I just have to pay out of pocket for services until deductible. Nothing monthly.
-
my new job pays for all my health care and deductible, so I guess the lesson here is to work harder and maybe you can all get a better job, too.
Same
Actually they give me money for the hsa equal to about 90 percent of the deductible
-
Wife and I are separately insuring this year because it's way cheaper in premiums to do it that way, and we'll both get money from our employers for our HSAs. Even if we both run up big bills and max out the two deductibles, we come out ahead.
-
When I worked for a shitty company I had to pay premiums also. Ts&Ps dax
-
Sounds like obamacare has really mumped us all :frown:
-
We have UHC, they're great, yeah premiums went up but so what. We had over 70k in med bills couple years ago, and all we paid was our max out of pocket expense of 5k. This year due to an injury for my daughter we had 25k med bills, once again paid 5k out of pocket max. Also checkups for the kids and flu shots are covered as preventative maintenance.
Go insurance companies!
-
Sounds like obamacare has really mumped us all :frown:
My coverage has gotten progressively worse each year. I do not like the ACA but I'm not going to blame greedy insurance companies on it.
-
Here is the next fight. Where will Team Obama illegally appropriate the bailout to prop up its precious law? (Oh, and another reason to love Rubio.) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/as-exchanges-falter-team-obamacare-fights-for-an-insurer-bailout/article/2577088 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/as-exchanges-falter-team-obamacare-fights-for-an-insurer-bailout/article/2577088)
Until recently, the insurance giants saw Obamacare as a cash cow. They are now finding the law's insurance marketplaces to be sickly quagmires causing billions in losses.
In response, the Obamacare insiders — the wealthy and powerful operatives who alternate between top government jobs and top industry jobs — are hustling to find more bailout money for insurers. Republicans, if they are able to hold their ground in the face of lobbyist pressure, can block the bailout of Obamacare and its corporate clientele.
United Healthcare, the nation's largest insurer, last week announced it was suffering huge losses in the exchanges. "We cannot sustain these losses" UHC's CEO said in a conference call, saying conditions for the insurer were "worsening." The company forecast $700 million in losses on the exchanges. Fellow insurance giant Aetna also said it expected to lose money on the exchanges, and other insurers said enrollment was lower than they expected.
Hours after UHC's dire announcement, the Obama administration issued an interesting statement of its own — that it would find a way to get insurers the bailout money congressional Republicans had voted to deny them.
Here's the background: Obamacare included a few provisions intended to smooth over bumps in implementation. One was called "risk corridors" — a three-year safety net for insurers who do much worse than expected, paid for by an extra tax on insurers who do much better.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) had announced in October that insurers losses for 2014 entitled them to $2.87 billion in bailout payments through "risk corridors." The problem is that super-profitable insurers did not pay nearly that much into the bailout fund.
In late 2014, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., inserted into the so-called Cromnibus spending bill a provision that prohibited CMS from paying out more in risk corridor payments than it takes in. Profitable insurers — not taxpayers — must subsidize their less profitable peers.
Since insurers' excess losses in 2014 outweighed their excess profits by an 8-to-1 margin, each money-losing insurer will get only one eighth of the bailout money it would otherwise recoup.
Where o where will these crony capitalist whores get their taxpayer bailout? :cry:
-
Sounds like obamacare has really mumped us all :frown:
My coverage has gotten progressively worse each year. I do not like the ACA but I'm not going to blame greedy insurance companies on it.
The most likely culprit after Big Oil, Wall Street Fat Cats and Evil Corporations. . . at least in libtard fantasy land.
I mean, the insurance companies are being forced to subsidize the crap ACA, which really isn't congruent with greed. And the law dictates precisely what coverage must be offered and at what permissible rates. Libtards gonna libtard I guess.
-
When I worked for a shitty company I had to pay premiums also. Ts&Ps dax
Just 10% of the premiums CRPLJB. They're taking from you somewhere else, I'm sure.
-
When I worked for a shitty company I had to pay premiums also. Ts&Ps dax
Just 10% of the premiums CRPLJB. They're taking from you somewhere else, I'm sure.
That was rusty's argument years ago, yet he has apparently flip flopped recently.
-
When I worked for a shitty company I had to pay premiums also. Ts&Ps dax
Just 10% of the premiums CRPLJB. They're taking from you somewhere else, I'm sure.
That was rusty's argument years ago, yet he has apparently flip flopped recently.
No way.
-
:surprised:
-
and yeah, no crap they're taking it away from my salary dipshits. :lol:
just work harder and quit whining
-
my new job pays for all my health care and deductible, so I guess the lesson here is to work harder and maybe you can all get a better job, too.
This was one of the arguments against implementing Obamacare years ago.
-
Sounds like obamacare has really mumped us all :frown:
My coverage has gotten progressively worse each year. I do not like the ACA but I'm not going to blame greedy insurance companies on it.
The most likely culprit after Big Oil, Wall Street Fat Cats and Evil Corporations. . . at least in libtard fantasy land.
I mean, the insurance companies are being forced to subsidize the crap ACA, which really isn't congruent with greed. And the law dictates precisely what coverage must be offered and at what permissible rates. Libtards gonna libtard I guess.
It dictates what the bare minimums are and plans are getting stripped down to do just that but whatever, you do you. You are so thirsty for a fight that you are arguing with someone that doesn't favor the ACA. Would it make you feel better if I called it Obamacare and called Obama names?
-
Single payer here we come! :Woot:
-
Single payer here we come! :Woot:
LOL, no
-
Obamacare is so shitty that MIR and I agree it's shitty. How shitty? That shitty. :cheers:
-
Sounds like everybody here has some good healthcare! T's and P's dax and mir.
-
Naw, I'm good.
-
We'll all be fine. It's America that will be totally ruined by Obamacare.
-
Sounds like obamacare has really mumped us all :frown:
My coverage has gotten progressively worse each year. I do not like the ACA but I'm not going to blame greedy insurance companies on it.
The most likely culprit after Big Oil, Wall Street Fat Cats and Evil Corporations. . . at least in libtard fantasy land.
I mean, the insurance companies are being forced to subsidize the crap ACA, which really isn't congruent with greed. And the law dictates precisely what coverage must be offered and at what permissible rates. Libtards gonna libtard I guess.
It dictates what the bare minimums are and plans are getting stripped down to do just that but whatever, you do you. You are so thirsty for a fight that you are arguing with someone that doesn't favor the ACA. Would it make you feel better if I called it Obamacare and called Obama names?
Yes, that would amuse me.
Also, everyone does the bare minimum when it comes to regulatory compliance, idiot. That's like the number 1 argument against regulating the crap out of everything. Everybody spends all their time making sure they're doing the bare minimum.
-
how can we stop spending redic amounts of money on babies and old people? Depending on what study you look at something like 5 % of the population generate 50% of health care expenditures and 20% generate 80%, much of it being driven by complicated infant care and end stages of life care.
-
ok death panelist willie
-
so probably nothing then?
-
i could probably be talked into a maximum age limit
-
I'm sure the 5% of people paying 80% of the taxes would like to know.
What we know doesn't work: ACA
-
i could probably be talked into a maximum age limit
im going to need some kind of commitment on the infants too
-
Hmm. No, I don't think so
-
oh, i might need to partner with sys on this one
-
I got shingles my first semester at KSU (2006) it wasn't fun but it wasn't that bad. The doctor gave me some pill to take that basically dried them out and sped up the healing.
-
Sounds like obamacare has really mumped us all :frown:
My coverage has gotten progressively worse each year. I do not like the ACA but I'm not going to blame greedy insurance companies on it.
The most likely culprit after Big Oil, Wall Street Fat Cats and Evil Corporations. . . at least in libtard fantasy land.
I mean, the insurance companies are being forced to subsidize the crap ACA, which really isn't congruent with greed. And the law dictates precisely what coverage must be offered and at what permissible rates. Libtards gonna libtard I guess.
It dictates what the bare minimums are and plans are getting stripped down to do just that but whatever, you do you. You are so thirsty for a fight that you are arguing with someone that doesn't favor the ACA. Would it make you feel better if I called it Obamacare and called Obama names?
Yes, that would amuse me.
Also, everyone does the bare minimum when it comes to regulatory compliance, idiot. That's like the number 1 argument against regulating the crap out of everything. Everybody spends all their time making sure they're doing the bare minimum.
:blah:
-
how can we stop spending redic amounts of money on babies and old people? Depending on what study you look at something like 5 % of the population generate 50% of health care expenditures and 20% generate 80%, much of it being driven by complicated infant care and end stages of life care.
japan has way more old people, spends way less and gets better results. it's much more about how we overpay most of the people involved in medicine and have a really inefficient system in general.
-
how can we stop spending redic amounts of money on babies and old people? Depending on what study you look at something like 5 % of the population generate 50% of health care expenditures and 20% generate 80%, much of it being driven by complicated infant care and end stages of life care.
japan has way more old people, spends way less and gets better results. it's much more about how we overpay most of the people involved in medicine and have a really inefficient system in general.
how do we start market correcting what we pay these medical folks?
-
how do we start market correcting what we pay these medical folks?
we aren't going to, so why bother thinking about it?
-
Sounds like everybody here has some good healthcare! T's and P's dax and mir.
LOL, I have "good healthcare" and I'm sure dax does as well. How good a certain person's individual plan may be isn't the sign of whether the ACA is working or not. This goes without saying but either the collective comments itt about healthcare and insurance coverage are way out of proportion with the american public or some of you are lying.
The ACA has helped some people, likely not many itt, so in some ways it is working but it is nowhere close to reforming our healthcare system and it won't without some fixes.
-
how can we stop spending redic amounts of money on babies and old people? Depending on what study you look at something like 5 % of the population generate 50% of health care expenditures and 20% generate 80%, much of it being driven by complicated infant care and end stages of life care.
japan has way more old people, spends way less and gets better results. it's much more about how we overpay most of the people involved in medicine and have a really inefficient system in general.
Also, Japanese people are way healthier. You'll never read on a Japanese K-State fan blog how some dude ate 6 full size pigs in a blanket in one sitting.
-
that may be a bad example
-
Sounds like everybody here has some good healthcare! T's and P's dax and mir.
LOL, I have "good healthcare" and I'm sure dax does as well. How good a certain person's individual plan may be isn't the sign of whether the ACA is working or not. This goes without saying but either the collective comments itt about healthcare and insurance coverage are way out of proportion with the american public or some of you are lying.
The ACA has helped some people, likely not many itt, so in some ways it is working but it is nowhere close to reforming our healthcare system and it won't without some fixes.
Agreed, except for that last part about "some fixes." Obamacare is beyond reform. The whole framework is faulty. How was (1) mandating minimum coverage levels most people don't need, (2) encouraging people to rely more on health insurance for purchasing healthcare, and (3) guaranteed issue to people already sick, going to do anything but dramatically increase premiums and healthcare costs?
-
how can we stop spending redic amounts of money on babies and old people? Depending on what study you look at something like 5 % of the population generate 50% of health care expenditures and 20% generate 80%, much of it being driven by complicated infant care and end stages of life care.
japan has way more old people, spends way less and gets better results. it's much more about how we overpay most of the people involved in medicine and have a really inefficient system in general.
Also, Japanese people are way healthier. You'll never read on a Japanese K-State fan blog how some dude ate 6 full size pigs in a blanket in one sitting.
Not unless Takeru Kobayashi is a K-State fan.
-
how can we stop spending redic amounts of money on babies and old people? Depending on what study you look at something like 5 % of the population generate 50% of health care expenditures and 20% generate 80%, much of it being driven by complicated infant care and end stages of life care.
japan has way more old people, spends way less and gets better results. it's much more about how we overpay most of the people involved in medicine and have a really inefficient system in general.
Also, Japanese people are way healthier. You'll never read on a Japanese K-State fan blog how some dude ate 6 full size pigs in a blanket in one sitting.
Not unless Takeru Kobayashi is a K-State fan.
You think he would brag about 6? Pffft.
-
Sounds like everybody here has some good healthcare! T's and P's dax and mir.
LOL, I have "good healthcare" and I'm sure dax does as well. How good a certain person's individual plan may be isn't the sign of whether the ACA is working or not. This goes without saying but either the collective comments itt about healthcare and insurance coverage are way out of proportion with the american public or some of you are lying.
The ACA has helped some people, likely not many itt, so in some ways it is working but it is nowhere close to reforming our healthcare system and it won't without some fixes.
Agreed, except for that last part about "some fixes." Obamacare is beyond reform. The whole framework is faulty. How was (1) mandating minimum coverage levels most people don't need, (2) encouraging people to rely more on health insurance for purchasing healthcare, and (3) guaranteed issue to people already sick, going to do anything but dramatically increase premiums and healthcare costs?
1) because insurance is there for when you need it, like all insurance. the problem is that when people carry nothing that socializes the payment of those healthcare costs to those who do pay.
2) this doesn't make sense as it reads...are you suggesting we pay cash? because that isn't possible for catastrophic incidents for 99% of us, because the payments of healthcare have been socialized to us and we have an over inflated cost system.
3) These sick people have always had access to healthcare, they didn't have access to systems of payment. Look at the causation between coverage and condition.
-
One of the worst parts about this whole plan is all the illiterate idiots who voted for this stooge and think they're getting "cheap" coverage because their premium went down $20 per month, but have no idea their deductible went from $500 to $5000. Then they get sick and blame the insurance company when they get a $1000 bill. The people getting mumped the hardest think they're getting a great deal. They have no idea they're financing, yet again, the baby boomer ponzi schemes. Straight line D baby. They're the party who"cares". Carpetbaggers.
But hey, that mandatory std coverage is a hit! Also, free mammograms for all single men.
-
Sounds like everybody here has some good healthcare! T's and P's dax and mir.
LOL, I have "good healthcare" and I'm sure dax does as well. How good a certain person's individual plan may be isn't the sign of whether the ACA is working or not. This goes without saying but either the collective comments itt about healthcare and insurance coverage are way out of proportion with the american public or some of you are lying.
The ACA has helped some people, likely not many itt, so in some ways it is working but it is nowhere close to reforming our healthcare system and it won't without some fixes.
Agreed, except for that last part about "some fixes." Obamacare is beyond reform. The whole framework is faulty. How was (1) mandating minimum coverage levels most people don't need, (2) encouraging people to rely more on health insurance for purchasing healthcare, and (3) guaranteed issue to people already sick, going to do anything but dramatically increase premiums and healthcare costs?
1) because insurance is there for when you need it, like all insurance. the problem is that when people carry nothing that socializes the payment of those healthcare costs to those who do pay.
2) this doesn't make sense as it reads...are you suggesting we pay cash? because that isn't possible for catastrophic incidents for 99% of us, because the payments of healthcare have been socialized to us and we have an over inflated cost system.
3) These sick people have always had access to healthcare, they didn't have access to systems of payment. Look at the causation between coverage and condition.
Briefly, because this has all been discussed, repeatedly ITT:
1. I'm well aware that insurance spreads risk. That's not the point. The point is that is it is absurd to force everyone to buy minimum levels of coverage, including certain procedures they can't possibly ever need. That minimum coverage didn't actually save money or stop premiums from rising. The theory failed.
2. No, I'm suggesting people should treat health insurance like all other insurance - to pay for catastrophic events they can otherwise afford, but pay for routine maintenance out of pocket. The theory that Obamacare would save money by providing all that free "preventive care" was bullshit. What we found was that people just consumed a lot more care because it was "free." Only it's not actually free, and drives up costs. Again, if you want healthcare to be cheaper, you have to introduce free market competition where consumers make choices with their wallets. Introducing the insurance middle man destroys that. Thus, Obamacare makes things worse by making people more dependent on insurance - not less.
3. Right, you're again making the theoretical argument behind Obamacare, that the insured were already subsidizing people without insurance anyway, so we can save money by insuring them. It was bullshit. It didn't work. By adding them to the insurance rolls, they consumed even more health care. And not enough young healthy people volunteered to pay for expensive insurance they almost certainly don't need to help offset the sick.
So in summary, you can repeat all the arguments in favor of Obamacare until you're blue in the face. We tried it. All your theories that we can somehow centrally manage healthcare better than the free market have been proven failures.
-
can you really measure the effects of preventative care after a year or whatever?
-
can you really measure the effects of preventative care after a year or whatever?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/upshot/no-giving-more-people-health-insurance-doesnt-save-money.html?referer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/upshot/no-giving-more-people-health-insurance-doesnt-save-money.html?referer=)
-
that just agrees with ww that we need age limits and death panels
-
don't most single payer countries effectively have age limits and death panels?
-
Ksw just compared healthcare to auto or home maintenance.
-
What right does government have to force people to buy anything just because they breathe?
-
ptolemy has Fab on repeat tonight
-
What right does government have to force people to buy anything just because they breathe?
Yeah, I didn't think the government had that right, either, but John Roberts disagreed, sort of. He ruled that the individual mandate is a tax - even though the Dems swore up and down it wasn't. So according to the Supreme Court, the government can force you to do anything it damn well wants as long as it only hits you with a tax for not complying. That still doesn't seem Consitutional to me, but it evidently made a lot of sense to John Roberts at the time...
-
What right do they have to tell me to wear a seat belt!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
What right do they have to tell me to wear a seat belt!
You don't have the right to drive a car, so.... yeah, the government can sanction you for not wearing a seatbelt.
Obamacare is breaking new ground - the government can now require you to buy something by simple virtue of being alive, and evidently it can require you buy or do anything else as long as the punishment is a "tax."
-
And the last "profitable" Obamacare co-op is now losing millions.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_INSURANCE_CO_OP_TROUBLE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-10-16-00-23 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_INSURANCE_CO_OP_TROUBLE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-10-16-00-23)
The lone health insurance cooperative to make money last year on the Affordable Care Act's public insurance exchanges is now losing millions and cutting off individual enrollment for 2016.
Maine's Community Health Options lost more than $17 million in the first nine months of this year, after making $10.9 million in the same period last year. A spokesman said higher-than-expected medical costs have hurt the cooperative.
The announcement casts further doubt on the future of insurance cooperatives, small nonprofit insurers that were created during the ACA's creation to inject competition in insurance markets. These co-ops immediately struggled to build their businesses. A dozen of the 23 created have already folded.
An Associated Press review of financial statements from 10 of the 11 surviving co-ops shows that they lost, on average, more than $21 million in the first nine months of the year. Those losses range from $3.9 million reported by Maryland's Evergreen Health Cooperative to $50.7 million booked by Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company in Illinois.
"Clearly the remaining health care co-ops are in dire circumstances," said Robert Laszewski, a health care consultant and former insurance executive who has been a frequent critic of the Affordable Care Act. "I don't know how any of them can survive another year."
-
"It is probably impossible for a startup in the health insurance space to make any significant money in the first couple years," said Standard & Poor's analyst Deep Banerjee.
:dunno:
-
Chum thinks "out of business" is some kind of going concern on the obamacare exchanges.
It's pretty rough ridin' funny how rapidly this idiotic plan failed.
-
Chum thinks "out of business" is some kind of going concern on the obamacare exchanges.
This sentence does not make sense.
-
Chum thinks "out of business" is some kind of going concern on the obamacare exchanges.
This sentence does not make sense.
Yes it does.
-
The lone health insurance cooperative to make money last year on the Affordable Care Act's public insurance exchanges is now losing millions and cutting off individual enrollment for 2016.
Maine's Community Health Options lost more than $17 million in the first nine months of this year, after making $10.9 million in the same period last year. A spokesman said higher-than-expected medical costs have hurt the cooperative.
The announcement casts further doubt on the future of insurance cooperatives, small nonprofit insurers that were created during the ACA's creation to inject competition in insurance markets. These co-ops immediately struggled to build their businesses. A dozen of the 23 created have already folded.
An Associated Press review of financial statements from 10 of the 11 surviving co-ops shows that they lost, on average, more than $21 million in the first nine months of the year. Those losses range from $3.9 million reported by Maryland's Evergreen Health Cooperative to $50.7 million booked by Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company in Illinois.
"Clearly the remaining health care co-ops are in dire circumstances," said Robert Laszewski, a health care consultant and former insurance executive who has been a frequent critic of the Affordable Care Act. "I don't know how any of them can survive another year."
You mean a plan with no price controls was ineffective in mitigating cost? eff, who knew that health care conglomos, pharma companies, and insurance companies wouldn't voluntarily make their exorbitant profits a lower priority to help the American public? SHOCKED, STUNNED
-
Rudimentary business principles :curse:
-
The flailing is pretty funny.
-
I'm not sure it was reasonable to assume that all new exchange insurers would succeed or that they'd be profitable in the first couple of years. It's like any other business. Some fail, some succeed, right?
-
I'm not sure it was reasonable to assume that all new exchange insurers would succeed or that they'd be profitable in the first couple of years. It's like any other business. Some fail, some succeed, right?
The is a cute attempt to conflate free market concepts (which are obviously undermined by aca) with the policy of the aca (to create options and control price). So, lol
-
A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study estimated the value of Medicaid to its recipients at between 20¢ and 40¢ per dollar of expenditure, with the majority of the value going to health-care providers like doctors and hospitals. By comparison, the Earned Income Tax Credit—a cash transfer program designed to enhance the incomes of the working poor—delivers around 90¢ of value to its recipients per dollar of expenditure. Given that more than half of Obamacare’s reduction in the numbers of the uninsured has been from its expansion of Medicaid, this makes the law look more like welfare for the medical-industrial complex than support for the needy.
Some of the law’s opponents need to acknowledge that for many Americans, modern health care is unaffordable without significant public assistance. Simply criticizing Medicaid is not enough. We need to envision alternatives to conventional insurance that deliver a basic basket of health services at a cost we can afford.
Both sides also need to recognize that the changes in incentives necessary to bend the cost curve will be highly unwelcome to many Americans. Markets for health care are the perfect example of the old saying that “every dollar of waste is someone’s income.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-health-of-obamacare-1449848377
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/irs-chief-blame-rotten-customer-service-data-hacks-on-obamacare/article/2583035 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/irs-chief-blame-rotten-customer-service-data-hacks-on-obamacare/article/2583035)
-
Something that now exists: Health insurance plans that provide only coverage for services that is mandatory. But the only services it is mandatory for plans to cover are preventive in nature. So, with one of these plans, you'd be covered for things like annual cholesterol screenings, but not for things like a broken leg or cancer.
-
Something that now exists: Health insurance plans that provide only coverage for services that is mandatory. But the only services it is mandatory for plans to cover are preventive in nature. So, with one of these plans, you'd be covered for things like annual cholesterol screenings, but not for things like a broken leg or cancer.
That's like having a home warranty instead of property and casualty coverage. :sdeek:
-
:party:
-
http://revenuesandprofits.com/pharma-industry-merger-and-acquisition-analysis-1995-2015/
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frevenuesandprofits.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F02%2FMerger-and-Acquisition-Analysis-of-Pharma-Industry-1995-2015.png&hash=a18469307ce47101a62d031c7188a244cee135ad)
-
United Healthcare, the nation's largest private health insurance company, is quitting the Obamacare exchanges in most states after losing more than $1 billion. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITEDHEALTH_ACA_EXCHANGES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-19-09-14-34 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITEDHEALTH_ACA_EXCHANGES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-19-09-14-34)
I presume those losses are on top of the massive "risk corridor" payments it received from tax payers.
Evidently, United Healthcare discovered, along with many other insurers, that Obamacare insurance is basically just expanded Medicaid. Big surprise.
-
my bro in law works for them!
-
Some insurers argue that Americans are waiting until they get sick to sign up and then finding a way to qualify during the so-called special enrollment period, which is traditionally open to those who change jobs, get married or divorced or have a baby. The Obama administration has since said it would tighten the rules for joining Obamacare during this period.
-
Wow. Looks like they lost half of that billion in just the past four months, according to that same outstanding CEO to whom we should probably pay attention.
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=22838.msg1481675#msg1481675
-
You want to know how the Titanic sunk? Some humpback whale breached right beside it and splashed some water on the deck.
A billion dollars on exchange plans? GMAFB.
-
Some insurers argue that Americans are waiting until they get sick to sign up and then finding a way to qualify during the so-called special enrollment period, which is traditionally open to those who change jobs, get married or divorced or have a baby. The Obama administration has since said it would tighten the rules for joining Obamacare during this period.
Um. Even if they "tighten up" that rule, they'll still be able to enroll the following year. That's the whole guaranteed issue thing. I am totally shocked that requiring insurers to cover a crap ton more people with preexisting conditions has raised costs and premiums. Did not see that coming.
-
Someday we'll completely shut down this immoral industry
-
Some insurers argue that Americans are waiting until they get sick to sign up and then finding a way to qualify during the so-called special enrollment period, which is traditionally open to those who change jobs, get married or divorced or have a baby. The Obama administration has since said it would tighten the rules for joining Obamacare during this period.
Um. Even if they "tighten up" that rule, they'll still be able to enroll the following year. That's the whole guaranteed issue thing. I am totally shocked that requiring insurers to cover a crap ton more people with preexisting conditions has raised costs and premiums. Did not see that coming.
The preexisting thing isn't the issue. Actually accepting people with conditions isn't inherently the issue. The problem is that eff face blows out his knee, quits his job (that probably didn't offer insurance to begin with) and claims the special window to get ACA exchange insurance. Now instead of having a year's worth of premiums, or at least knowing this clown was a potential customer, an insurance company has to pay out $35K in the first week of having them as a client. Now imagine if they person is hit with a cancer diagnosis or something like a transplant.
So for now we've shifted that cost onto insurance companies, instead of the state/fed medicaid system (or socialized through bankruptcy) and they don't like it.
-
Some insurers argue that Americans are waiting until they get sick to sign up and then finding a way to qualify during the so-called special enrollment period, which is traditionally open to those who change jobs, get married or divorced or have a baby. The Obama administration has since said it would tighten the rules for joining Obamacare during this period.
Um. Even if they "tighten up" that rule, they'll still be able to enroll the following year. That's the whole guaranteed issue thing. I am totally shocked that requiring insurers to cover a crap ton more people with preexisting conditions has raised costs and premiums. Did not see that coming.
The preexisting thing isn't the issue. Actually accepting people with conditions isn't inherently the issue. The problem is that eff face blows out his knee, quits his job (that probably didn't offer insurance to begin with) and claims the special window to get ACA exchange insurance. Now instead of having a year's worth of premiums, or at least knowing this clown was a potential customer, an insurance company has to pay out $35K in the first week of having them as a client. Now imagine if they person is hit with a cancer diagnosis or something like a transplant.
So for now we've shifted that cost onto insurance companies, instead of the state/fed medicaid system (or socialized through bankruptcy) and they don't like it.
What you just described constitutes "preexisting conditions." It means expecting insurance to pay for an injury or illness you sustained before you got the insurance. And it doesn't work economically, for reasons that should have been obvious from the beginning. Unfortunately, many liberal politicians, and the people who support them, live in an economic fantasy land. (See, e.g., Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, etc.).
And this is one of the primary reasons Obamacare is a disaster. Insurance companies glommed onto this turd because they thought enough healthy people would enroll and, if not, they'd be bailed out with tax dollars. Win/win. Only it's not turning out that way. The healthy and young aren't enrolling in sufficient numbers - either because they've got perfectly good coverage through work or they'd rather just pay/dodge the tax penalty for being uninsured - and the risk corridor subsidies aren't sufficient to cover the losses.
-
Yea, that sounds like pre-existing conditions to me. The only way you can realistically allow people with pre-existing conditions to participate is if you have a legitimate individual mandate forcing everyone to pay in from the beginning. Obamacare is really weak on the latter, making it pretty awful all around.
-
It's amazing how insurance companies overlooked all of these totally obvious problems. Conclusion: insurance companies are really dumb about making money.
-
Yea, that sounds like pre-existing conditions to me. The only way you can realistically allow people with pre-existing conditions to participate is if you have a legitimate individual mandate forcing everyone to pay in from the beginning. Obamacare is really weak on the latter, making it pretty awful all around.
Yeah the law was doomed by not having a massive penalty that would have pushed people into the market.
But you guys are kinda right about prexisiting conditions. Previously they would target high risk things. Forinstance, when I was buying private insurance because my job didn't offer anything my left knee was excluded because of a surgery I had in HS. They also excluded my right knee just because. The other issue is lifetime caps, but that is only tangentially related. The problem from the old system is that insurance companies regularly invented prior conditions and killed your coverage. This is actually one of the best things about the ACA because people would always find a way to get their surgery or treatment. They would either get on medicaid, default, on the charges, or work out a payment plan. Most of the time though the payment for the already socialized costs would be pushed onto people with insurance.
-
I sure hope insurance companies learned their lesson about needing to account for pre-existing conditions!
-
Single Payer please.
-
Single Payer please.
Absolutely agree! Pay for your own damn health care. You pay for your own car repair, house repair, property upkeep, food, etc. Why is paying for your own health care any different?
-
Exactly, just let the government be the insurance company and let's be done with it.
-
Exactly, just let the government be the insurance company and let's be done with it.
Wrong. Making government pay for your health care is making me pay for your health care. You pay for you. I will pay for me.
-
Poor people should die in the streets
-
Exactly, just let the government be the insurance company and let's be done with it.
Wrong. Making government pay for your health care is making me pay for your health care. You pay for you. I will pay for me.
You already pay for my health care and I pay for your health care in the form of insurance companies.
-
Why exactly should young healthy people be forced to insure old and unhealthy people who decided they didn't want to pay for health insurance until they got sick? That seems like an absolutely terrible policy.
-
Exactly, let's get rid of this insurance nonsense
-
Exactly, let's get rid of this insurance nonsense
Same question, dumbfuck
-
straight cash homie ought to cleanse our gene pool to an acceptable level
-
I can't believe that people don't think basic healthcare should be a right as an American citizen. We are the most powerful country to ever exist on the face of the world and we can't take care of people who get the flu.
-
Heard an interview with an Aussie guy a month or so ago. He said they have a combo system where the basics are covered by the govt, but there is a private market for anything you may wish in addition to the basics. He said he pays something like $600 a year and its great. When asked about access, he said that if you have some non emergency stuff, you may wait a couple weeks to a month. He said if you have an accident and need a surgery, you get it that day.
-
I can't believe that people don't think basic healthcare should be a right as an American citizen. We are the most powerful country to ever exist on the face of the world and we can't take care of people who get the flu.
Interesting fantasy you've contrived there.
-
I can't believe that people don't think basic healthcare should be a right as an American citizen.
From where would such a "right" emanate?
-
You already pay for my health care and I pay for your health care in the form of insurance companies.
Wrong again. If I pay premiums for health insurance, I am paying a private corporation to insure my health care costs in accordance with the terms of the private contract between me and the insurance company.
-
I can't believe that people don't think basic healthcare should be a right as an American citizen.
From where would such a "right" emanate?
Flying Spaghetti Monster
-
Heard an interview with an Aussie guy a month or so ago. He said they have a combo system where the basics are covered by the govt, but there is a private market for anything you may wish in addition to the basics. He said he pays something like $600 a year and its great. When asked about access, he said that if you have some non emergency stuff, you may wait a couple weeks to a month. He said if you have an accident and need a surgery, you get it that day.
I like the general sound of that. One of the biggest issues with Americans is that we tend to think if we didn't come up with the idea it is probably not that good. Our healthcare system is actually pretty far behind many other developed countries.
People also need to realize that everyone with insurance in this country is already subsidizing basic healthcare costs of the poor and uninsured. Hospitals typically just write off those expenses and pass them on to patients that actually pay.
-
Heard an interview with an Aussie guy a month or so ago. He said they have a combo system where the basics are covered by the govt, but there is a private market for anything you may wish in addition to the basics. He said he pays something like $600 a year and its great. When asked about access, he said that if you have some non emergency stuff, you may wait a couple weeks to a month. He said if you have an accident and need a surgery, you get it that day.
I like the general sound of that. One of the biggest issues with Americans is that we tend to think if we didn't come up with the idea it is probably not that good. Our healthcare system is actually pretty far behind many other developed countries.
People also need to realize that everyone with insurance in this country is already subsidizing basic healthcare costs of the poor and uninsured. Hospitals typically just write off those expenses and pass them on to patients that actually pay.
What are considered "basics"? Is preventative care a "basic"?
-
I'm not sure, but I would be pretty surprised if poor/uninsured people go to get preventative care in our system. Also don't know about the Aussie system but I would assume that's included in basic. There is a reason insurers want you to get preventative care.
-
I'm not sure, but I would be pretty surprised if poor/uninsured people go to get preventative care in our system. Also don't know about the Aussie system but I would assume that's included in basic. There is a reason insurers want you to get preventative care.
No, but if they did have coverage to get preventative care it would save a bunch of money later, so in this "Basics Only" system it should be covered.
-
You already pay for my health care and I pay for your health care in the form of insurance companies.
Wrong again. If I pay premiums for health insurance, I am paying a private corporation to insure my health care costs in accordance with the terms of the private contract between me and the insurance company.
do you pay more than me in premiums since I'm younger and never get sick?
-
Heard an interview with an Aussie guy a month or so ago. He said they have a combo system where the basics are covered by the govt, but there is a private market for anything you may wish in addition to the basics. He said he pays something like $600 a year and its great. When asked about access, he said that if you have some non emergency stuff, you may wait a couple weeks to a month. He said if you have an accident and need a surgery, you get it that day.
I like the general sound of that. One of the biggest issues with Americans is that we tend to think if we didn't come up with the idea it is probably not that good. Our healthcare system is actually pretty far behind many other developed countries.
People also need to realize that everyone with insurance in this country is already subsidizing basic healthcare costs of the poor and uninsured. Hospitals typically just write off those expenses and pass them on to patients that actually pay.
What are considered "basics"? Is preventative care a "basic"?
The interview was on a completely different topic and only covered like three or four questions on this, but yeah, it sounded like it covered the general practicianer, emergency room stuff, and the other basic stuff you would expect a normal person to need on an annual basis. This guy was also on a bunch of meds for nerve damage(again unrelated interview topics), so I would imagine either the govt did something with that or that could be the reason he has the $600 extra annual coverage.
-
Heard an interview with an Aussie guy a month or so ago. He said they have a combo system where the basics are covered by the govt, but there is a private market for anything you may wish in addition to the basics. He said he pays something like $600 a year and its great. When asked about access, he said that if you have some non emergency stuff, you may wait a couple weeks to a month. He said if you have an accident and need a surgery, you get it that day.
They also have closed borders and a huge waiting list to get in. If you can't prove you won't be a drag on society, you aren't getting in.
-
do you pay more than me in premiums since I'm younger and never get sick?
Don't know what you pay but I probably pay less than you even though I'm older because some of us elites have great insurance plans because we negotiated them as a condition of our employment.
-
Heard an interview with an Aussie guy a month or so ago. He said they have a combo system where the basics are covered by the govt, but there is a private market for anything you may wish in addition to the basics. He said he pays something like $600 a year and its great. When asked about access, he said that if you have some non emergency stuff, you may wait a couple weeks to a month. He said if you have an accident and need a surgery, you get it that day.
They also have closed borders and a huge waiting list to get in. If you can't prove you won't be a drag on society, you aren't getting in.
So build a wall and then free healthcare for everyone. Win win. :cheers:
-
In this country you have a right to be fat, gross, and unhealthy. You do not have the right to be fat, gross, and unhealthy and have your neighbor foot the bill.
-
CANCER
By John Stossel Published April 20, 2016
I write this from the hospital. Seems I have lung cancer.
My doctors tell me my growth was caught early and I'll be fine. Soon I will barely notice that a fifth of my lung is gone. I believe them. After all, I'm at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. U.S. News & World Report ranked it No. 1 in New York. I get excellent medical care here.
But as a consumer reporter, I have to say, the hospital's customer service stinks. Doctors keep me waiting for hours, and no one bothers to call or email to say, "I'm running late." Few doctors give out their email address. Patients can't communicate using modern technology.
I get X-rays, EKG tests, echocardiograms, blood tests. Are all needed? I doubt it. But no one discusses that with me or mentions the cost. Why would they? The patient rarely pays directly. Government or insurance companies pay.
I fill out long medical history forms by hand and, in the next office, do it again. Same wording: name, address, insurance, etc.
I shouldn't be surprised that hospitals are lousy at customer service. The Detroit Medical Center once bragged that it was one of America's first hospitals to track medication with barcodes. Good! But wait -- ordinary supermarkets did that decades before.
Customer service is sclerotic because hospitals are largely socialist bureaucracies. Instead of answering to consumers, which forces businesses to be nimble, hospitals report to government, lawyers and insurance companies.
Whenever there's a mistake, politicians impose new rules: the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act paperwork, patient rights regulations, new layers of bureaucracy...
Nurses must follow state regulations that stipulate things like, "Notwithstanding subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, a nurse practitioner, certified under section sixty-nine hundred ten of this article and practicing for more than three thousand six hundred hours may comply with this paragraph in lieu of complying with the requirements of paragraph (a)..."
Try running a business with rules like that.
Adding to that is a fear of lawsuits. Nervous hospital lawyers pretend mistakes can be prevented with paper and procedure. Stressed hospital workers ignore common sense and follow rigid rules.
In the intensive care unit, night after night, machines beep, but often no one responds. Nurses say things like "old machines," "bad batteries," "we know it's not an emergency." Bureaucrats don't care if you sleep. No one sues because he can't sleep.
Some of my nurses were great -- concerned about my comfort and stress -- but other hospital workers were indifferent. When the customer doesn't pay, customer service rarely matters.
The hospital does have "patient representatives" who tells me about "patient rights." But it feels unnatural, like grafting wings onto a pig.
I'm as happy as the next guy to have government or my insurance company pay, but the result is that there's practically no free market. Markets work when buyer and seller deal directly with each other. That doesn't happen in hospitals.
You may ask, "How could it? Patients don't know which treatments are needed or which seller is best. Medicine is too complex for consumers to negotiate."
But cars, computers and airplane flights are complex, too, and the market still incentivizes sellers to discount and compete on service. It happens in medicine, too, when you get plastic surgery or Lasik surgery. Those doctors give patients their personal email addresses and cell phone numbers. They compete to please patients.
What's different about those specialties? The patient pays the bill.
Leftists say the solution to such problems is government health care. But did they not notice what happened at Veterans Affairs? Bureaucrats let veterans die, waiting for care. When the scandal was exposed, they didn't stop. USA Today reports that the abuse continues. Sometimes the VA's suicide hotline goes to voicemail.
Patients will have a better experience only when more of us spend our own money for care. That's what makes markets work.
John Stossel is the host of "Stossel" (Fridays at 9 PM/ET), a weekly program highlighting current consumer issues with a libertarian viewpoint. Stossel also appears regularly on Fox News Channel (FNC) providing signature analysis. Click here for more information on John Stossel.
-
I agree that customer service at a hospital is terrible. They rarely tell the patient or the family members what is going on.
-
do you pay more than me in premiums since I'm younger and never get sick?
Don't know what you pay but I probably pay less than you even though I'm older because some of us elites have great insurance plans because we negotiated them as a condition of our employment.
Man subsidizing your old sick ass is really unfair to me.
-
do you pay more than me in premiums since I'm younger and never get sick?
Don't know what you pay but I probably pay less than you even though I'm older because some of us elites have great insurance plans because we negotiated them as a condition of our employment.
Man subsidizing your old sick ass is really unfair to me.
His employer is probably paying his share....
-
I think 'lemy has no idea how insurance works, fascinating
-
do you pay more than me in premiums since I'm younger and never get sick?
Don't know what you pay but I probably pay less than you even though I'm older because some of us elites have great insurance plans because we negotiated them as a condition of our employment.
Man subsidizing your old sick ass is really unfair to me.
His employer is probably paying his share....
We both pay the same , he just uses shitloads more. I think it's called a parasite.
-
Soylent Green in 2022 :lick:
-
I think
You prejudiced perception of your post with the first two words.
-
I can't believe that people don't think basic healthcare should be a right as an American citizen.
From where would such a "right" emanate?
Yeah the constitution definitely doesn't say anything about life and happiness in it.
(honestly though I'd argue that it's to the point where the lack of healthcare threatens our basic liberties and equal protection under the law. I know many wont see it that way, but I do.)
-
Yeah the constitution definitely doesn't say anything about life and happiness in it.
(honestly though I'd argue that it's to the point where the lack of healthcare threatens our basic liberties and equal protection under the law. I know many wont see it that way, but I do.)
Rights emanate from our Creator. The Constitution has no power to grant rights. There are no rights to healthcare granted by our Creator. Were that so, it would be saying we have a right to enslave another human being into service, because healthcare is a service provided by people. Slavery is immoral and actually outlawed by the 13th Amendment.
So, per the Constitution, we cannot possess a right to healthcare services.
-
:lol:
-
Anyone peddling the idea that health insurance is a fundamental right, is a lunatic. Good grief, your claims of cognition are belied by the crap some of you people lap up and regurgitate.
-
Anyone peddling the idea that health insurance is a fundamental right, is a lunatic. Good grief, your claims of cognition are belied by the crap some of you people lap up and regurgitate.
the fact that you thought I meant health insurance shows your level of ignorance.
-
I can't believe that people don't think basic healthcare should be a right as an American citizen.
From where would such a "right" emanate?
Yeah the constitution definitely doesn't say anything about life and happiness in it.
(honestly though I'd argue that it's to the point where the lack of healthcare threatens our basic liberties and equal protection under the law. I know many wont see it that way, but I do.)
I'm sure you're purposely being obtuse here, but the right is the PURSUIT of those things. Nowhere is the Constitution saying you have a right to be happy.
-
The whole "life" thing is pretty clear cut tho
-
Ya, it is. I'd like to hear why you think that is relevant though?
-
I'd like to hear why you don't think it's relevant.
-
Aren't these things from the Declaration of Independence? That whole thing was just an excuse to breakup with England.
-
I think it's perfectly acceptable for one to believe that sometimes people have rights that are not explicitly listed in government documents. I also think it's perfectly acceptable for one to believe that sometimes people should be given things to which they do not have a right.
-
Should, maybe. Must, no.
-
News flash you guys are already paying for poor people going to emergency room in the form of higher insurance premiums. Who cares if it's a constitutionally protected right, everyone receiving basic healthcare is cheaper in the long run.
-
Is anyone debating that?
-
Man somebody clean up the body bags in here :sdeek:
-
I can't believe that people don't think basic healthcare should be a right as an American citizen.
From where would such a "right" emanate?
Yeah the constitution definitely doesn't say anything about life and happiness in it.
(honestly though I'd argue that it's to the point where the lack of healthcare threatens our basic liberties and equal protection under the law. I know many wont see it that way, but I do.)
I'm sure you're purposely being obtuse here, but the right is the PURSUIT of those things. Nowhere is the Constitution saying you have a right to be happy.
Yeah which is why I added the whole other part. But I'd argue that the modern healthcare system is so far out of control that our forefathers would never have imagined this system. Most importantly for me the Constitution is setting up a system of equal opportunity and chance in America. We've progressed to such a state where healthcare is now a limiting issue for people to gain true Independence and freedom.
-
so insurance companies are mad because they are having to insure sick people?
-
The entire idea behind the constitution was to create a government that didn't take everything people had every chance it got. It's probably not the best place to start as the foundation for another underfunded social welfare state tax and spend program.
-
Interesting take that giving people healthcare is taking everything they own
-
yeah,
"THAT COSTS WHAT TO CURE!!!"
-
I wonder how tall Lib7 money tree has grown?
-
What exactly do you idiots think Healthcare is, and how do you plan to "give it" to everyone.
-
lib, are you in good physical shape?
-
Remove the cost barrier
-
lib, are you in good physical shape?
No, not at all
-
lib, are you in good physical shape?
No, not at all
Are you educated enough to know better? Do you not have the means to acquire healthy habits? Perhaps it's genetic?
-
lib lost both legs above the knee
-
lib, are you in good physical shape?
No, not at all
Are you educated enough to know better? Do you not have the means to acquire healthy habits? Perhaps it's genetic?
I'm not sure what relevance this is?
-
What exactly do you idiots think Healthcare is, and how do you plan to "give it" to everyone.
Can only lead a horse to water unfortunately
-
The entire idea behind the constitution was to create a government that didn't take everything people had every chance it got. It's probably not the best place to start as the foundation for another underfunded social welfare state tax and spend program.
I think you should take a lap and re-read the constitution, because that is nowhere close to what it says. Hint, it takes a lot, and it expects a lot, all under the purpose of creating a government and society of equal opportunity.
-
lib lost both legs above the knee
now I feel bad for judging his mowing habits
-
can't even pull himself up by his own bootstraps :frown:
-
Libliblibliblibliblib? More like limplimplimplimplimplimplimp
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
-
I think it's perfectly acceptable for one to believe that sometimes people have rights that are not explicitly listed in government documents. I also think it's perfectly acceptable for one to believe that sometimes people should be given things to which they do not have a right.
Whether "listed" or not, a natural right is something that IS. We all have an inherent right to life and liberty. Those cannot be taken away by anyone else.
"acceptable for...people to be given things to which they do not have a right" You cannot be given anything without private property being taken from someone else, and that is depriving them of liberty. Taking from another is theft.
-
so insurance companies are mad because they are having to insure sick people?
Can you purchase house insurance AFTER your house burns down. If you choose not to buy insurance, what entitles you to ask for us to replace it?
-
I think it's perfectly acceptable for one to believe that sometimes people have rights that are not explicitly listed in government documents. I also think it's perfectly acceptable for one to believe that sometimes people should be given things to which they do not have a right.
Whether "listed" or not, a natural right is something that IS. We all have an inherent right to life and liberty. Those cannot be taken away by anyone else.
"acceptable for...people to be given things to which they do not have a right" You cannot be given anything without private property being taken from someone else, and that is depriving them of liberty. Taking from another is theft.
Man, I got 'lemy to be in favor of socialized medicine :gocho:
-
so insurance companies are mad because they are having to insure sick people?
Can you purchase house insurance AFTER your house burns down. If you choose not to buy insurance, what entitles you to ask for us to replace it?
Can you purchase a house that isn't insured?
-
Lemy lives in a house 50 miles from the nearest fire station with knob and tube wiring and heats his home with a fire ring in the living room but wants to pay the same insurance rates as everyone else.
-
Straight cash homie. I doubt any lender is going to let you be uninsured tho
-
Sure you can. Pay cash.
-
Ptolemy is doing better than he deserves
-
Definitely adding to the Osqueezem Cost Like Hell Living Index. It will get worse under HMT MG.
-
Here's a boring discussion of actual issues.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20160418/NEWS/304189996
-
More bad news for the aca:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/12/judge-rules-for-house-republicans-in-obamacare-lawsuit.html
-
activist judge
-
It is being reported that the Obamacare rates will jump 20 to 30% for next year. People will get a big surprise when they sign up in November. Obama's parting as.he leaves -- kiss my butt America.
-
Has anyone on here actually had any change in their coverage? I have had literally ZERO change in anything.
-
Not since being on the exchange. My rates dropped when joining the exchange, though.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
Has anyone on here actually had any change in their coverage? I have had literally ZERO change in anything.
Sounds right. I said it like a hundred times in this thread, but nearly all of the ACA changes that affect people who get insurance through their employers actually went into effect well before 2013, when the Exchanges started. For some reason, people waited until that time to start going nuts about the ACA.
ACA requirements began going into effect in 2010. In addition to that, many states had already adopted regulations similar to aspects of the ACA - on pre-existing conditions, for example. So, the growing pains were pretty much a thing of the past by the time 2013 came around.
-
Has anyone on here actually had any change in their coverage? I have had literally ZERO change in anything.
Sounds right. I said it like a hundred times in this thread, but nearly all of the ACA changes that affect people who get insurance through their employers actually went into effect well before 2013, when the Exchanges started. For some reason, people waited until that time to start going nuts about the ACA.
ACA requirements began going into effect in 2010. In addition to that, many states had already adopted regulations similar to aspects of the ACA - on pre-existing conditions, for example. So, the growing pains were pretty much a thing of the past by the time 2013 came around.
seems odd that every conservative said Obamacare was the worst thing in the world and everyone was super pissed and all the Democrats said it was the most amazing accomplishment since the New Deal and lo and behold it is just very meh.
-
Has anyone on here actually had any change in their coverage? I have had literally ZERO change in anything.
I think the people most effected are young healthy people who used to be able to get by with catastrophic insurance. I don't think my coverage has changed, but as they've been implementing the ACA, my insurance rates have gone way up.
-
Has anyone on here actually had any change in their coverage? I have had literally ZERO change in anything.
Sounds right. I said it like a hundred times in this thread, but nearly all of the ACA changes that affect people who get insurance through their employers actually went into effect well before 2013, when the Exchanges started. For some reason, people waited until that time to start going nuts about the ACA.
ACA requirements began going into effect in 2010. In addition to that, many states had already adopted regulations similar to aspects of the ACA - on pre-existing conditions, for example. So, the growing pains were pretty much a thing of the past by the time 2013 came around.
seems odd that every conservative said Obamacare was the worst thing in the world and everyone was super pissed and all the Democrats said it was the most amazing accomplishment since the New Deal and lo and behold it is just very meh.
Definitely a shocker!
-
I have no idea what my insurance costs or what it used to cost
-
Has anyone on here actually had any change in their coverage? I have had literally ZERO change in anything.
I think the people most effected are young healthy people who used to be able to get by with catastrophic insurance. I don't think my coverage has changed, but as they've been implementing the ACA, my insurance rates have gone way up.
don't most of those people just stay on their parent's insurance?
-
Not sure exactly how that works but I know there is at least an age limit.
-
wait... insurance costs have gone up over the last five years?
Obama :shakesfist:
-
Not sure exactly how that works but I know there is at least an age limit.
I think it's 26 when the basement dwellers have to buy there own, or mom and dad have to pay for a separate policy.
-
I think the problem is that health care rates are outpacing wages and inflation.
-
Premiums have Increased.28% for.me, but its.the increased deductibles and out of pocket that rips a new one. Also they aren't covering a lot of stuff.
-
I think the problem is that health care rates are outpacing wages and inflation.
Certainly didn't happen pre Obama Care.
-
Maybe Trump will get rid of Obamacare and get us single payer when the dems take back congress in 2 years.
-
Maybe Trump will get rid of Obabacare and get us single payer when the dems take back congress in 2 years.
That would be fantastic
-
In obamacare fantasy land having health coverage with a $7000 deductible and 60% copay is the same thing as a $500 deductible and 80% copay. And they dont mind paying a little more for substantially less insurance.
-
High deductible health plans started in the 90s.
-
And now a bunch of poor people who can't afford the deductible own them. #thinkprogress
-
I think the problem is that health care rates are outpacing wages and inflation.
Certainly didn't happen pre Obama Care.
And Obamacare was promised to change that.
-
Has anyone on here actually had any change in their coverage? I have had literally ZERO change in anything.
I have seen a pretty steep drop in coverage the last three years of Obamacare. The first year we were on a co-op that did some pretty wild crap like giving you three free office visits, no matter the specialist. They also gave every single member who got a checkup and did an online health survey a $100 visa gift card. Remember the checkup was free. Well that co-op went bankrupt after a year. Iowa's exchange was pretty much left with BC/BS and UHC. My wife and I went our separate ways on insurance both offering what our employers offered, BCBS for her UHC for me. Her plan has stayed the same the last two years, my plan has gotten slightly worse and more expensive. I can't even get a rough ridin' shingles vaccine until I'm 55. I had to pay for a flu vaccine because I had the nerve to go somewhere other than Walgreens.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/obamacare-death-spiral-update-1470436014
-
My employer doesn't even offer insurance. Thanks Obama.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
sd parents don't have to offer insurance but they do. sddad has had an employee die on the job (I was too young to remember this) and one get most of his hand chopped off. pretty sickening. cow farming is a tough gig.
-
Aetna projecting a "mid-single digit" loss on it's biz through the exchange. Dropping out of Obamacare.
-
Comrades at the United Socialist Peoples Healthcare and.Societal Norms.Control Agency said everything is fine. So good in fact the Supreme Commander is golfing with his family even though they are not covered by the People's Insurance.
-
To be fair, Aetna is threatening to pull out unless the govt approves their merger with Humanna. It's more of a threat than a biz move, it seems.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fplayer.slideplayer.com%2F28%2F9317898%2Fdata%2Fimages%2Fimg1.png&hash=7d681d9622ecf9206199587a5f586335890434e4)
SOURCE: Kaiser/HRET Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Benefits, 1999-2015 Average Annual Premium Increases for Family Coverage, 1999-2015.
-
The Peoples Insuance Agency will be raising its Silver Moa plans by 23%.
-
:ROFL:
Pinal County, Arizona, right next to Phoenix, was founded in 1875 and is home to roughly 400,000 people.
It's also the county that Obamacare forgot.
After Aetna's announcement that it will roll back 70% of its offerings in public exchanges, Pinal County appears to be the only county in the US with a public exchange but zero insurers offering Affordable Care Act plans in 2017.
http://www.businessinsider.com/pinal-county-arizona-has-no-obamacare-insurers-2016-8
-
This Mylan controversy hits right in the heart of the ultimate falling of the ACA. They are charging insurance companies over $1200 for a two pack of this medication that costs just over $100 in Canada. The ACA did absolutely nothing to control prices and without that, what's the point?
I wonder what Joe Manchin will say to his democrat colleagues since his daughter blamed Obamacare for this price hike while her salary increased 600%? This woman Heather Bresch is quite fascinating, it looks like her dad used his influence to get his daughter an MBA from Coal Aggy and she has turned Mylan into tax dodgers.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/08/23/ceo-of-mylan-pharmaceuticals-sees-671-salary-increase-in-8-years/#2c0d2b744b23
-
Blaming business for exploiting the failures of government is pretty stupid.
It's right up there with calling someone who opposes corporate welfare a hypocrite for preparing their tax return in compliance with the law.
-
Blaming business for exploiting the failures of government is pretty stupid.
It's right up there with calling someone who opposes corporate welfare a hypocrite for preparing their tax return in compliance with the law.
Are you conceding that I'm blaming Mylan for the ACA not having price controls? I didn't even hint at that. I'll blame Mylan for greedily increasing their profits by 600% by placing citizens in direct danger of death. I'll blame Mylan for fleecing insurance companies who will in turn pass that cost on to all of us. I'll blame Mylan for being tax dodgers. What do you want the government to do to make them pay their taxes?
-
No, he is obviously saying that setting regulations on businesses is bad and hurts biz and that the free market will figure it all out.
-
the mylan ceo should prolly be fired (for stupidity, not for ethical reasons), but there really is no argument to be made that this isn't the ultimately the fault of regulation. the fda created an artificial monopoly that allowed mylan to charge an insane price for a very basic and inexpensive drug/delivery device combination.
-
Blaming business for exploiting the failures of government is pretty stupid.
It's right up there with calling someone who opposes corporate welfare a hypocrite for preparing their tax return in compliance with the law.
Are you conceding that I'm blaming Mylan for the ACA not having price controls? I didn't even hint at that. I'll blame Mylan for greedily increasing their profits by 600% by placing citizens in direct danger of death. I'll blame Mylan for fleecing insurance companies who will in turn pass that cost on to all of us. I'll blame Mylan for being tax dodgers. What do you want the government to do to make them pay their taxes?
How did they place them in direct danger of death? They still have the epipens, albeit at an increase in cost.
-
Obama sold out to big pharma, that was discussed at length at the time.
-
Blaming business for exploiting the failures of government is pretty stupid.
It's right up there with calling someone who opposes corporate welfare a hypocrite for preparing their tax return in compliance with the law.
Are you conceding that I'm blaming Mylan for the ACA not having price controls? I didn't even hint at that. I'll blame Mylan for greedily increasing their profits by 600% by placing citizens in direct danger of death. I'll blame Mylan for fleecing insurance companies who will in turn pass that cost on to all of us. I'll blame Mylan for being tax dodgers. What do you want the government to do to make them pay their taxes?
How did they place them in direct danger of death? They still have the epipens, albeit at an increase in cost.
People can't afford them, emo. We have a kid here who has a expired one because she can't afford a new one. Also several businesses like mine, used to have them on hand but we can't afford them anymore. I had an ex girlfriend who had her life saved because of an epipen and she didn't even know she had a life threatening allergy. She got stung by an insect and went into anaphylaxis, we happened to have an epipen because those are good to have and it slowed the effect of her anaphylaxis until the ambulance got there. She did code in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, but they were able to revive her. Without that epipen she almost certainly would have died before the ambulance came.
-
They can afford them.
-
Oh, okay. LOL.
-
Don't those things expire in like 3 months?
-
Six, I believe.
-
You can stretch to 1-2 years I think if you're careful. I have a prescription for an epipen but don't currently own one because the odds of needing to use it are so small compared to the ridiculous price.
-
It's basically as if you were only allowed to use the newest iPhone to make any calls and then blaming people who couldn't call 911 during an emergency because they never got around to paying for their phone.
-
You can stretch to 1-2 years I think if you're careful. I have a prescription for an epipen but don't currently own one because the odds of needing to use it are so small compared to the ridiculous price.
You can afford it, just ask everyone's personal finance advisor, emo emaw.
-
Six, I believe.
Oh man! What would really top this off is if you have to buy it in the two pack and not singles. I mean, what's $200/month that you end up throwing away 99% of the time?
-
yogurt
-
Further note: I had a med cost issue about 10 yrs ago when pre-existing conditions were a thing.
I bought my stuff from an online Canadian pharmacy and they shipped it to my front door. It was less than 1/3rd, or something like that, the cost of what I could get it for cash at the local pharmacy.
Epi pen folks should just do that.
Also, patent laws that restrict generics in our country are evidently different in Canada. I was not only able to get a generic of a drug that didn't have a US generic, but the person who made the generic was the person who made the name brand.
-
I have a prescription for an epipen but don't currently own one because the odds of needing to use it are so small compared to the ridiculous price.
i've never gotten a prescription, but i should have had some on hand for various years of my life and didn't, because of the cost.
-
patent laws that restrict generics in our country are evidently different in Canada. I was not only able to get a generic of a drug that didn't have a US generic, but the person who made the generic was the person who made the name brand.
canada laws are different from us laws? that doesn't even sound legal. btw, mylan doesn't make epipens. pfizer makes them, but only mylan can sell them (in the us).
-
Blaming business for exploiting the failures of government is pretty stupid.
It's right up there with calling someone who opposes corporate welfare a hypocrite for preparing their tax return in compliance with the law.
Are you conceding that I'm blaming Mylan for the ACA not having price controls? I didn't even hint at that. I'll blame Mylan for greedily increasing their profits by 600% by placing citizens in direct danger of death. I'll blame Mylan for fleecing insurance companies who will in turn pass that cost on to all of us. I'll blame Mylan for being tax dodgers. What do you want the government to do to make them pay their taxes?
Using words like fleecing, greedily, and dodger doesn't make what they're doing any less legal. The policy and rules in place promote it. The ACA further incentivizes it. It's a heavily regulated industry with extremely high entry barriers. Your anger is misplaced, per usual, nobody is going to innovate new drugs for free.
-
It sounds like all the drugs big pharma is withholding from the general public because they think its funny to watch people die in the streets is readily bootlegable from canada, so anyone who dies for want of an epipen is clearly just following darwin's plan.
#thinkprogress
-
I didn't realize how horrible this crap was until it hit home with my mom. Some of the top surgeons in the world don't take the basic coverage that's needed now for life or death surgeries, because basic insurance isn't covered by it. All he did was get some homeless ppl on medication. rough ridin' POS.
-
Let's cover a bunch of pieces of shits that placed themselves in bad situations on their own vs taking care of the ppl who've been taking care of your economy for 50+ years.
-
The plan all along has been to have young people subsidize the old. Just another egregious example of the boomers raping future generations. Obama is just a stooge in the cycle.
-
It's sounds like for some people epipens are a nice to have thing, not a need to have. If they needed to have them they would do what it takes to get one, before they pay for any other thing they don't truly need. Like air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat, epipen, shelter. That's your order of priority.
-
And to be clear I do think it sucks, I do think it's wrong, but its not illegal.
-
no one thinks it's illegal, emo. it's a symptom of a flawed system when a syringe filled with epinephrine that costs maybe a buck fifty to manufacture is sold for $600.
i don't get what your thing about "people can afford them" and they're a want not a need is about. do you not know what epinephrine does? some % of people that don't have them, but should, will die. they're just rolling the dice.
-
Yea, it's not really even a moral issue but a public policy one. The government scrutinizes huge business mergers to make sure people don't end up spending too much for phone or cable service and then it comes around and creates a monopoly on potentially life saving medication.
Also, no one just wants to have an epi pen, and no one "needs" it until they're in about a 15 minute window to use it.
-
no one thinks it's illegal, emo. it's a symptom of a flawed system when a syringe filled with epinephrine that costs maybe a buck fifty to manufacture is sold for $600.
i don't get what your thing about "people can afford them" and they're a want not a need is about. do you not know what epinephrine does? some % of people that don't have them, but should, will die. they're just rolling the dice.
it is the exact same thing that allows him to go hunt for elk on federal land or take his family for free to a national park and also bitch about the federal government's bureau of land management and national parks owning a bunch of land.
-
They're stupidly rolling the dice, spending their money on one thing when it should be an epipen, is my point.
I just don't believe that the line between life and death is so razor thin that even $600 or whatever it is separates it. It's not the lack of $600 that will kill these people, it's their stupidity or ignorance to not do everything it takes to come up with the $600 to get something they need, while at the same time consuming things they don't truly need. It's an extreme example but being homeless and with epipen would logically be better than being with roof and without epipen. I assume we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Anyway, a generic will be out next year and folks can have them for pennies on the dollar and this issue will all go away.
-
Yea, I think your odds of an early death are a bit higher being homeless with an epi pen than having shelter without one. The point is they have made the medication expensive enough to where the cost benefit analysis weighs in favor of not buying one for people who have such a low chance of ever needing one (think, not peanut allergies but like bee stings). If I paid $600 for everything that had a .001% chance of saving my life then I really would be homeless.
-
Smdh
-
I know a dude who makes 70k a year with family of 3-4, he doesn't buy insurance, his wife has health probs that require very expensive meds, he called the pharma co. And told them he could not afford and they send him the meds for a few bucks. :horrorsurprise:
-
oh. i was thinking (hoping) you were making a smarter argument. oh well.
-
no one thinks it's illegal, emo. it's a symptom of a flawed system when a syringe filled with epinephrine that costs maybe a buck fifty to manufacture is sold for $600.
i don't get what your thing about "people can afford them" and they're a want not a need is about. do you not know what epinephrine does? some % of people that don't have them, but should, will die. they're just rolling the dice.
I mean I would have thought my story about my ex-girlfriend having her life saved by epinephrine when she didn't even know she had a life threatening allergy would have illustrated that for him, but it's apparently more important to be right about an incorrect preconceived notion than to actually acquire knowledge. Oh well.
-
They're stupidly rolling the dice, spending their money on one thing when it should be an epipen, is my point.
I just don't believe that the line between life and death is so razor thin that even $600 or whatever it is separates it. It's not the lack of $600 that will kill these people, it's their stupidity or ignorance to not do everything it takes to come up with the $600 to get something they need, while at the same time consuming things they don't truly need. It's an extreme example but being homeless and with epipen would logically be better than being with roof and without epipen. I assume we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You really don't know the rather large and sweeping false assumption you're making just to be right?
-
All of Hillary's secret service detail have epipens on the ready at all times.
-
no one thinks it's illegal, emo. it's a symptom of a flawed system when a syringe filled with epinephrine that costs maybe a buck fifty to manufacture is sold for $600.
i don't get what your thing about "people can afford them" and they're a want not a need is about. do you not know what epinephrine does? some % of people that don't have them, but should, will die. they're just rolling the dice.
I mean I would have thought my story about my ex-girlfriend having her life saved by epinephrine when she didn't even know she had a life threatening allergy would have illustrated that for him, but it's apparently more important to be right about an incorrect preconceived notion than to actually acquire knowledge. Oh well.
It's a stupid rough ridin' story unless you're advocating that everyone carry an epipen because they might have a life threatening allergy, in which case that's a rough ridin' stupid idea.
-
They're stupidly rolling the dice, spending their money on one thing when it should be an epipen, is my point.
I just don't believe that the line between life and death is so razor thin that even $600 or whatever it is separates it. It's not the lack of $600 that will kill these people, it's their stupidity or ignorance to not do everything it takes to come up with the $600 to get something they need, while at the same time consuming things they don't truly need. It's an extreme example but being homeless and with epipen would logically be better than being with roof and without epipen. I assume we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You really don't know the rather large and sweeping false assumption you're making just to be right?
Maybe I don't.
If these people are so cheap why don't they just buy the generic? It's muuuuuuuch cheaper and is even a 2-pack.
-
no one thinks it's illegal, emo. it's a symptom of a flawed system when a syringe filled with epinephrine that costs maybe a buck fifty to manufacture is sold for $600.
i don't get what your thing about "people can afford them" and they're a want not a need is about. do you not know what epinephrine does? some % of people that don't have them, but should, will die. they're just rolling the dice.
I mean I would have thought my story about my ex-girlfriend having her life saved by epinephrine when she didn't even know she had a life threatening allergy would have illustrated that for him, but it's apparently more important to be right about an incorrect preconceived notion than to actually acquire knowledge. Oh well.
It's a stupid rough ridin' story unless you're advocating that everyone carry an epipen because they might have a life threatening allergy, in which case that's a rough ridin' stupid idea.
That was preceded by a story about how businesses used to carry epipens but now they don't. It's significantly cheaper for us to have an aed than epipens, that's rough ridin' tragic.
Stop trying to be so contrary, you're terrible at it.
-
I missed the business part.
Why don't they just buy the cheaper generic?
-
Maybe it's part of their branding/marketing strategy? "Only genuine save your life type crap here."
-
They're stupidly rolling the dice, spending their money on one thing when it should be an epipen, is my point.
I just don't believe that the line between life and death is so razor thin that even $600 or whatever it is separates it. It's not the lack of $600 that will kill these people, it's their stupidity or ignorance to not do everything it takes to come up with the $600 to get something they need, while at the same time consuming things they don't truly need. It's an extreme example but being homeless and with epipen would logically be better than being with roof and without epipen. I assume we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You really don't know the rather large and sweeping false assumption you're making just to be right?
Maybe I don't.
If these people are so cheap why don't they just buy the generic? It's muuuuuuuch cheaper and is even a 2-pack.
If you're speaking of adrenaclick, firstly it isn't a generic, more importantly it isn't easy to acquire although I'm guessing the last week has been a boon for them. You have to have a prescription, in the United States only, for adrenaclick or the epipen, and because of the amount of money Mylan flooded the market with, it is rarely asked for, prescribed by doctors, or carried by pharmacists. I wouldn't be shocked to hear that Mylan pays doctors to prescribe epipen, that isn't rare by any means. I'm sure this will and has changed somewhat but its worth noting that adrenaclick isn't "cheap."
-
Hey guys, let's just all agree our national policy concerning the development of medical technology should be based upon some kid MIR knows who wants to keep an epipen in his fanny pack just-in-case, but can't swing the $300 for a two-pack.
-
Do you have to buy these things by the 2 pack? That's ridiculous, if so.
-
They're stupidly rolling the dice, spending their money on one thing when it should be an epipen, is my point.
I just don't believe that the line between life and death is so razor thin that even $600 or whatever it is separates it. It's not the lack of $600 that will kill these people, it's their stupidity or ignorance to not do everything it takes to come up with the $600 to get something they need, while at the same time consuming things they don't truly need. It's an extreme example but being homeless and with epipen would logically be better than being with roof and without epipen. I assume we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You really don't know the rather large and sweeping false assumption you're making just to be right?
Maybe I don't.
If these people are so cheap why don't they just buy the generic? It's muuuuuuuch cheaper and is even a 2-pack.
If you're speaking of adrenaclick, firstly it isn't a generic, more importantly it isn't easy to acquire although I'm guessing the last week has been a boon for them. You have to have a prescription, in the United States only, for adrenaclick or the epipen, and because of the amount of money Mylan flooded the market with, it is rarely asked for, prescribed by doctors, or carried by pharmacists. I wouldn't be shocked to hear that Mylan pays doctors to prescribe epipen, that isn't rare by any means. I'm sure this will and has changed somewhat but its worth noting that adrenaclick isn't "cheap."
I'm not sure the name of it. Small town pharmacy talk ya know.
How does a business stock something that requires a prescription?
-
They're stupidly rolling the dice, spending their money on one thing when it should be an epipen, is my point.
I just don't believe that the line between life and death is so razor thin that even $600 or whatever it is separates it. It's not the lack of $600 that will kill these people, it's their stupidity or ignorance to not do everything it takes to come up with the $600 to get something they need, while at the same time consuming things they don't truly need. It's an extreme example but being homeless and with epipen would logically be better than being with roof and without epipen. I assume we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You really don't know the rather large and sweeping false assumption you're making just to be right?
Maybe I don't.
If these people are so cheap why don't they just buy the generic? It's muuuuuuuch cheaper and is even a 2-pack.
If you're speaking of adrenaclick, firstly it isn't a generic, more importantly it isn't easy to acquire although I'm guessing the last week has been a boon for them. You have to have a prescription, in the United States only, for adrenaclick or the epipen, and because of the amount of money Mylan flooded the market with, it is rarely asked for, prescribed by doctors, or carried by pharmacists. I wouldn't be shocked to hear that Mylan pays doctors to prescribe epipen, that isn't rare by any means. I'm sure this will and has changed somewhat but its worth noting that adrenaclick isn't "cheap."
I'm not sure the name of it. Small town pharmacy talk ya know.
How does a business stock something that requires a prescription?
I'd guess it would be much easier for a daycare or a nature center to get a Rx than a tattoo parlor or a plumbing supply company but who knows my common sense radar may be completely off.
I'm not sure what your point was in asking such a stupid question, but if the point is that it is asinine that you need a prescription for an epipen or adrenaclick, I wholeheartedly agree.
-
They're stupidly rolling the dice, spending their money on one thing when it should be an epipen, is my point.
I just don't believe that the line between life and death is so razor thin that even $600 or whatever it is separates it. It's not the lack of $600 that will kill these people, it's their stupidity or ignorance to not do everything it takes to come up with the $600 to get something they need, while at the same time consuming things they don't truly need. It's an extreme example but being homeless and with epipen would logically be better than being with roof and without epipen. I assume we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You really don't know the rather large and sweeping false assumption you're making just to be right?
Maybe I don't.
If these people are so cheap why don't they just buy the generic? It's muuuuuuuch cheaper and is even a 2-pack.
If you're speaking of adrenaclick, firstly it isn't a generic, more importantly it isn't easy to acquire although I'm guessing the last week has been a boon for them. You have to have a prescription, in the United States only, for adrenaclick or the epipen, and because of the amount of money Mylan flooded the market with, it is rarely asked for, prescribed by doctors, or carried by pharmacists. I wouldn't be shocked to hear that Mylan pays doctors to prescribe epipen, that isn't rare by any means. I'm sure this will and has changed somewhat but its worth noting that adrenaclick isn't "cheap."
I'm not sure the name of it. Small town pharmacy talk ya know.
How does a business stock something that requires a prescription?
I'd guess it would be much easier for a daycare or a nature center to get a Rx than a tattoo parlor or a plumbing supply company but who knows my common sense radar may be completely off.
I'm not sure what your point was in asking such a stupid question, but if the point is that it is asinine that you need a prescription for an epipen or adrenaclick, I wholeheartedly agree.
I didn't have a point, just asking a question. I do however wonder how many businesses stock epipens, and how many of those will no longer do so purely due to this increase in price.
-
I haven't surveyed by any means but in my industry there are a lot fewer camps that keep them on site. We still have trainer pens and trainon how to use them but don't carry the actual pens.
-
Can you just get a pre-filled syringe of epinephrine? You could use one of these to administer it.
https://www.amazon.com/AUTOJECT-SELF-MUMFORD-Choice-One/dp/B004N10F7U
-
you can get a vial of epinephrine and fill your own syringe if you ever need to, but you have to specifically ask a doctor to prescribe that for you. you can't substitute a vial of epinephrine for an epipen script even though it's the exact same thing.
and because our medical system likes to pretend that cost is completely irrelevant to medical decisions, basically no american doctor ever asks their patient - hey, would you prefer a script for a $10 vial of epinephrine or for two $600 epipens?
-
It's because all those hot pharma sales reps are blowing the doctors.
-
don't even get me started on why you need a doctor's permission to purchase the medical treatment you know you need in the first place.
-
With Mrs. Wacky's situation, we thought about adding her to my insurance plan here at work. I currently pay $38 a paycheck for my medical insurance and my work covers most of the remainder. Guess how much it would be a paycheck if I added Mrs. Wacky right now? $277 a paycheck!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/UwZjcSqyRQis0/giphy.gif)
-
rough ridin' breeders
-
That's a rounding error for someone making as much as you are
-
rough ridin' breeders marriage
-
WC you have no idea my friend.
-
I'm terrified moving forward, friend.
-
With Mrs. Wacky's situation, we thought about adding her to my insurance plan here at work. I currently pay $38 a paycheck for my medical insurance and my work covers most of the remainder. Guess how much it would be a paycheck if I added Mrs. Wacky right now? $277 a paycheck!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/UwZjcSqyRQis0/giphy.gif)
Who pays the rest of the remainder?
-
Work pays $152.86 for single insurance and I pay $38.33
If I cover my spuse. They pay 152.86 and I would pay $277.02
Family: company $152.86. Employee: $397.42
:runaway:
-
rough ridin' breeders marriage
you broke it down in your last post - assumed your work just had "single" and "more than single", not a "more than single, non-breeders"
-
Married couples with no kids really do get screwed over on insurance policies. We should be incentivizing people having less kids, not more. These policies where you get to have 15 kids and pay exactly the same rate as your coworker who has none need to go.
-
I hope she finds a job soon. :crossfingers:
-
People that have jobs with insurance are the ones we need to incentivize to keep having kids
-
Married couples with no kids really do get screwed over on insurance policies. We should be incentivizing people having less kids, not more. These policies where you get to have 15 kids and pay exactly the same rate as your coworker who has none need to go.
the non-breeders are like over a million miles ahead in a bunch of other ways so you can just deal with it
-
you made the selfish decision to have children, cf3. no one else did. it is not ethical for you to force others to assist you in caring for them.
-
Married couples with no kids really do get screwed over on insurance policies. We should be incentivizing people having less kids, not more. These policies where you get to have 15 kids and pay exactly the same rate as your coworker who has none need to go.
the non-breeders are like over a million miles ahead in a bunch of other ways so you can just deal with it
Like what?
-
Wacks, that is adorable.
-
My work pays the full amount for employee, spouse, and family so sometimes I get a little annoyed that the breeders get more benefit than I do. Like go ahead and give me some of that cash you're saving from me not selfishly bringing children into the world
-
You should really amp up the amount of high risk behavior you participate in. Get you money's worth.
-
Wacks, that is adorable.
:)
-
Guys, I tried to cancel my work health insurance bc I'm covered by my wife for free but they said I can't bc I didn't do it within 30 days so that isn't fair to everyone else. ???
-
Kim, have a kid, then they have to let you.
-
I escalated it up the HR chain and that's when I realized that HR people are robots who will not bend the rules no matter how illogical the rules may be.
-
Married couples with no kids really do get screwed over on insurance policies. We should be incentivizing people having less kids, not more. These policies where you get to have 15 kids and pay exactly the same rate as your coworker who has none need to go.
the non-breeders are like over a million miles ahead in a bunch of other ways so you can just deal with it
Like what?
kids are expensive. i bet you could think of some examples if you thought about it
-
You choose to have that expense
-
tell me more Mr Science!
-
I'm asking more in a sense of taxes , insurance, etc. Systems that are already established and for some reason penalize non-breeding, not that you have to buy diapers and more food.
-
No one pays taxes on insurance premiums.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
No one pays taxes on insurance premiums.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I think he meant tax breaks for breeding
-
not paying taxes on employer sponsored insurance is a tax break (that breeders get more of than responsible citizens).
-
you made the selfish decision to have children, cf3. no one else did. it is not ethical for you to force others to assist you in caring for them.
-
It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.
-
It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.
Sounds made up
-
My work pays the full amount for employee, spouse, and family so sometimes I get a little annoyed that the breeders get more benefit than I do. Like go ahead and give me some of that cash you're saving from me not selfishly bringing children into the world
Take it easy, you'll be the last one laid off.
-
It takes a village to care for the little turds. libs needs relish in doing his part in caring for the wards of the state. I like breaks for breeders. It counters all of the free geezer stuff.
-
Why is not getting a tax break "penalizing"? Do you think the government penalizes people who donate less than 40% of their income to charity?
-
It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.
Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?
-
It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.
Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?
China is probably a good example there.
-
It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.
Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?
Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes?
-
It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.
Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?
Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes?
Not necessarily, if the numbers of contributing and those using the services are different (i.e. because of age differences). Also at some point we are going to run out of natural resources, like water. (See India)
-
It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.
Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?
Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes?
Not necessarily, if the numbers of contributing and those using the services are different (i.e. because of age differences). Also at some point we are going to run out of natural resources, like water. (See India)
Isn't the argument that govt run health care is a net savings to society? Because of preventative health care, decrease in lost production work days, etc? By that, one could deduce that rearing more kids with better-than-average access to health care would result in more adults with productive jobs paying taxes.
-
It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.
Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?
Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes?
Not necessarily, if the numbers of contributing and those using the services are different (i.e. because of age differences). Also at some point we are going to run out of natural resources, like water. (See India)
Isn't the argument that govt run health care is a net savings to society? Because of preventative health care, decrease in lost production work days, etc? By that, one could deduce that rearing more kids with better-than-average access to health care would result in more adults with productive jobs paying taxes.
Except at very low population densities, increased population density actually causes higher costs per capita for services such as police, schools, infrastructure, etc. Therefore the increase in tax-paying population is not self sustaining. Not to mention that those people are going to be drawing on government service for a while before they become tax paying adults.
-
It's in the state's interest to have future citizens. So, everyone gets to help out with that.
Is it in the state's best interest to have more future citizens than the natural resources/government services can support?
Isn't the ability of the government to support it's citizens proportional to how many citizens it has contributing by paying taxes?
Not necessarily, if the numbers of contributing and those using the services are different (i.e. because of age differences). Also at some point we are going to run out of natural resources, like water. (See India)
Isn't the argument that govt run health care is a net savings to society? Because of preventative health care, decrease in lost production work days, etc? By that, one could deduce that rearing more kids with better-than-average access to health care would result in more adults with productive jobs paying taxes.
Except at very low population densities, increased population density actually causes higher costs per capita for services such as police, schools, infrastructure, etc. Therefore the increase in tax-paying population is not self sustaining. Not to mention that those people are going to be drawing on government service for a while before they become tax paying adults.
Define the difference between low and high, and relate it to the US.
-
the best argument for government run healthcare is that it's the right and moral thing to do
-
the best argument for government run healthcare is that it's the right and moral thing to do
Also, every country that has it pays way less for healthcare than we currently pay.
-
the best argument for government run healthcare is that it's the right and moral thing to do
Health care is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. I'm not sure if you meant it like that, I don't think you did, but wanted to distinguish that.
-
i didn't but i think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply bruh
-
i didn't but i think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply bruh
not the constitution
-
Healthcare probably should be a constitutional right. Somebody should propose an amendment.
-
i didn't but i think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply bruh
not the constitution
so
-
Define the difference between low and high, and relate it to the US.
250 persons per square mile.
Right now the average population density for the entire US is about 84 ppsm; although there are currently 11 states at or above 250 and 10 more getting close. Not to mention that many urban areas are way above this, in the tens of thousands of people per square mile.
Since people tend to live in cities, the effective population density is much higher than just the total population divided by the total land area of the U.S. For instance, Kansas City has a population density of about 1500 ppsm.
-
i didn't but i think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply bruh
not the constitution
so
Well it says life, not health. And if you go to an ER in a life and death situation they have to treat you; so I think we already got this covered.
-
If this conversation is going to be about the govt only doing stuff in the constitution, and nothing else, then we have a big problem.
-
If this conversation is going to be about the govt only doing stuff in the constitution, and nothing else, then we have a big problem.
Well a lot of people posting in this thread believe that even things specifically guaranteed by the Constitution aren't really rights. So, try to figure that one out.
-
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
-
there's actually no constitutional right to arrow elk. in fact, the founders, in their infinite wisdom, specifically refrained from outlining any right to hunt animals in colorado at all. :surprised:
-
there's actually no constitutional right to arrow elk. in fact, the founders, in their infinite wisdom, specifically refrained from outlining any right to hunt animals in colorado at all. :surprised:
I think that falls under the pursuit of happiness or something. :dunno:
-
If this conversation is going to be about the govt only doing stuff in the constitution, and nothing else, then we have a big problem.
Well a lot of people posting in this thread believe that even things specifically guaranteed by the Constitution aren't really rights. So, try to figure that one out.
I just had a meeting with a rep of a company my company uses for advertising. She was outlining the ability of mobile ads and how they target ppl. It is amazing how little privacy anyone who participates in technology has. Infuriatingly. It's pretty mumped up.
-
there's actually no constitutional right to arrow elk. in fact, the founders, in their infinite wisdom, specifically refrained from outlining any right to hunt animals in colorado at all. :surprised:
19 states currently guarantee the right to hunt. Colorado isn't one of them, but several western states are included.
-
I think that falls under the pursuit of happiness or something. :dunno:
not in the constitution either!
-
19 states currently guarantee the right to hunt. Colorado isn't one of them, but several western states are included.
that's cute. not in the constitution.
-
19 states currently guarantee the right to hunt. Colorado isn't one of them, but several western states are included.
that's cute. not in the constitution.
The Constitution specifically defines that the states are sovereign.
-
i think we can agree that the constitution doesn't prohibit arrowing elk in colorado. i'll have to check and see if govt supported health care is outlawed.
-
i didn't but i think life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply bruh
not the constitution
Life & liberty actually are in the constitution
-
individual rights are in a different constitutional universe than what the federal government is permitted to do.
-
I just read the Drudge Report. There was an article about Obama circumventing the wishes of Congress using legal tactics. Congress has voted not appropriate money to subsidize the health exchanges. Obama is arguing that the federal government has a contract with insurers to subsidize them. So he is encouraging them 2 file a lawsuit demanding payment. There is some obscure program in the Department of Treasury that can be used to pay any lawsuits brought against the federal government. The plan is to negotiate a settlement. This program has no limit on what it can pay out. So much for representative government.
-
Guaranteeing a right to "health care" is as stupid as guaranteeing a right to "education" (hello Kansas). It's a subjective and immeasurable standard subject to unending challenge. Do income taxes infringe on your right to earn a living? Absolutely, but what the eff does that mean?
-
Good point fsd, we should give free college too
-
Having a bunch of unhealthy idiots running around the country seems like a worse idea :dunno:
-
Having a bunch of unhealthy idiots running around the country seems like a worse idea :dunno:
It's where we are now so...
-
...and the country is nominating Trump to shake things up because ppl are dissatisfied.
-
I think one thing people are dissatisfied over is Obamacare.
-
I think many ppl are too big of an idiot to have taken the time to nail down why they are so mad, then they simply emotionally attach to the anger of a seemingly strong personality then parrot whatevs that idiot says.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
I think there are some people that were justifiably angry in 2010 before they even could have considered that Donald Trump would be running for office in 2016.
-
Sure. There were plenty of angry idiots in Congress and local politics back then, and according to a bunch of pubs, the voters in question stayed at home last pres election. I assume that Romney wasn't an angry enough idiot. :dunno:
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
-
I think there are some people that were justifiably angry in 2010 before they even could have considered that Donald Trump would be running for office in 2016.
what was justified about their anger? My health insurance is getting worse, but that is because Kansas State has had to make across the board cuts for the past 3 years because of Brownback's tax plan.
-
I think there are some people that were justifiably angry in 2010 before they even could have considered that Donald Trump would be running for office in 2016.
what was justified about their anger? My health insurance is getting worse, but that is because Kansas State has had to make across the board cuts for the past 3 years because of Brownback's tax plan.
I think it's justifiable to be angry about being promised transparency and then this massive bill being written behind closed doors and voted on by people who didn't even understand what all was in it.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/10/05/couple-billed-3935-hold-newborn-son/91600274/
SMDH, let's not worry about price controls though
-
Did you not read why?
-
Did you not read why?
Yeah I read why, and that's rough ridin' stupid and shameful. Do you think it is SOP to charge for that? I can tell you from firsthand experience that it isn't.
-
the nurse asked my wife if she would like to do skin to skin
like, that's the commonly used phrase?
-
Did you not read why?
Yeah I read why, and that's rough ridin' stupid and shameful. Do you think it is SOP to charge for that? I can tell you from firsthand experience that it isn't.
I saw the reddit thread yesterday and there were a crap load of people saying it is standard,but maybe they were lying
-
the nurse asked my wife if she would like to do skin to skin
Apparently yes
like, that's the commonly used phrase?
-
it's the parents' baby and if they want to drop it or let its head dangle or whatever that's their right.
at the very least, the parents should be asked not just if they want to rub skins on their baby, but also if they'd like a nurse present to protect the baby while they do it.
-
the nurse asked my wife if she would like to do skin to skin
like, that's the commonly used phrase?
Yes. In c sections and vaginal births.
Did you not read why?
Yeah I read why, and that's rough ridin' stupid and shameful. Do you think it is SOP to charge for that? I can tell you from firsthand experience that it isn't.
I saw the reddit thread yesterday and there were a crap load of people saying it is standard,but maybe they were lying
Standard for the mother to hold the baby skin to skin, yep. Standard to charge a mother for holding her newborn, eff no; there's a reason this is a headline story. I got to give our first daughter to my wife after the birth, I held her first after I got back in the OR after the psycho midwife finally let me in. My wife got our second daughter first. Also point of clarification but nearly every first interaction between mother and child is skin to skin, not a lot of clothing happening during childbirth. It would be more uncommon for skin to polyester contact.
-
I think this is like airline baggage fees when fuel costs went way up. With the government negotiating fees for more medical services (medicaid, medicare), the hospitals need to increase the bottom line any way they can, like charge you to hold your newborn baby.
-
all good if the mom klan's up real quick? jesus medical care is rough ridin' weird
-
MIR, are you aware that it required an additional nurse to be present in this instance? That's what the charge was for, the extra nurse.
I do agree with sys though that they should have been asked if they wanted the additional nurse at a charge.
-
MIR, are you aware that it required an additional nurse to be present in this instance? That's what the charge was for, the extra nurse.
I do agree with sys though that they should have been asked if they wanted the additional nurse at a charge.
For the second time, yeah I read the article that I posted. Are you aware that holding your child after childbirth does not require an additional nurse because it happens in every single childbirth that happens like everywhere always. Stop trying to swim upstream, its ridiculous and there's no reasonable justification for it. Its just another case of the health care industry fleecing insurance companies and consumers. What's also not unusual about this is a hospital levying outlandish charges when it can be snuck in, it's a despicable practice that needs to be stopped.
-
MIR, are you aware that it required an additional nurse to be present in this instance? That's what the charge was for, the extra nurse.
I do agree with sys though that they should have been asked if they wanted the additional nurse at a charge.
For the second time, yeah I read the article that I posted. Are you aware that holding your child after childbirth does not require an additional nurse because it happens in every single childbirth that happens like everywhere always. Stop trying to swim upstream, its ridiculous and there's no reasonable justification for it. Its just another case of the health care industry fleecing insurance companies and consumers. What's also not unusual about this is a hospital levying outlandish charges when it can be snuck in, it's a despicable practice that needs to be stopped.
Experts are saying that for a c-section it requires an additional nurse. I'm sure different hospitals have different policies. I only ever shopped two hospitals but both I did had certain requirements dictating some terms of my son's birth. For example one wouldn't allow filming, likely for liability reasons. Anyway, if it's their policy then it's their policy, and the couple is free to give birth at any hospital they want with policies more in line with their wants as a consumer. People are stupid in the fact that they show up to a hospital and never ask how much anything costs. If you ask, they will tell you, we got full quotes down to the cent from both hospitals. Seems like a worthwhile exercise to go through for the birth of a human being.
-
the nurse asked my wife if she would like to do skin to skin
like, that's the commonly used phrase?
Yes. In c sections and vaginal births.
Did you not read why?
Yeah I read why, and that's rough ridin' stupid and shameful. Do you think it is SOP to charge for that? I can tell you from firsthand experience that it isn't.
I saw the reddit thread yesterday and there were a crap load of people saying it is standard,but maybe they were lying
Standard for the mother to hold the baby skin to skin, yep. Standard to charge a mother for holding her newborn, eff no; there's a reason this is a headline story. I got to give our first daughter to my wife after the birth, I held her first after I got back in the OR after the psycho midwife finally let me in. My wife got our second daughter first. Also point of clarification but nearly every first interaction between mother and child is skin to skin, not a lot of clothing happening during childbirth. It would be more uncommon for skin to polyester contact.
I meant the requiring an extra nurse. I asked my mom about this last night and she said it was standard at her employer, which is a group of like 7 hospitals in the Bay area. They just make sure that the baby doesn't get hurt and that you hold them the correct way. I would blame liability more than obamacare, but billing $40 for an extra nurse does not seem all that evil to me.
-
the nurse asked my wife if she would like to do skin to skin
like, that's the commonly used phrase?
Yes. In c sections and vaginal births.
Did you not read why?
Yeah I read why, and that's rough ridin' stupid and shameful. Do you think it is SOP to charge for that? I can tell you from firsthand experience that it isn't.
I saw the reddit thread yesterday and there were a crap load of people saying it is standard,but maybe they were lying
Standard for the mother to hold the baby skin to skin, yep. Standard to charge a mother for holding her newborn, eff no; there's a reason this is a headline story. I got to give our first daughter to my wife after the birth, I held her first after I got back in the OR after the psycho midwife finally let me in. My wife got our second daughter first. Also point of clarification but nearly every first interaction between mother and child is skin to skin, not a lot of clothing happening during childbirth. It would be more uncommon for skin to polyester contact.
I meant the requiring an extra nurse. I asked my mom about this last night and she said it was standard at her employer, which is a group of like 7 hospitals in the Bay area. They just make sure that the baby doesn't get hurt and that you hold them the correct way. I would blame liability more than obamacare, but billing $40 for an extra nurse does not seem all that evil to me.
Ask her what the nurse(s) already in the OR does after the child is extracted. Ours took pictures for me of us. I'm glad this hospital can justify the charge but again it isn't SOP. Some hospitals can also justify charging patients/insurance for silly things like the scrubs the surgeon wears during a procedure but that doesn't make it right nor does it detract from my larger point about the medical industry's greed.
-
He literally just said his mom, in the biz, said it was SOP. Literally.
-
Curious guys, if you change employers, do you just assume that what was standard at your old place is also standard at your new place? Does standard imply all across the country for every place ever? Or maybe it's rough ridin' possible that different businesses are run differently. Mind blowing concept I know.
-
The hospital needs that second nurse there so they can charge $40. There really isn't another reason.
-
Most likely mirs hospital charged for it too, but just included it in the normal birth price instead of a separate line item
-
The hospital needs that second nurse there so they can charge $40. There really isn't another reason.
Exactly. What does the $40 cover? It isn't like they're calling in another nurse and paying her for being in there. They are grabbing someone sitting at the desk to walk into the OR for five minutes to look at a newborn baby.
-
He literally just said his mom, in the biz, said it was SOP. Literally.
Hey dummy, she said its standard to have another nurse, lib7 didn't say anything about it being SOP for a line item charge for said nurse.
-
If the hospital just raised the delivery charge by $40 and didn't have the line item, and just charged everyone the same even if they didn't do the skin to skin thing, would you be as upset?
-
He literally just said his mom, in the biz, said it was SOP. Literally.
Hey dummy, she said its standard to have another nurse, lib7 didn't say anything about it being SOP for a line item charge for said nurse.
God forbid a consumer would have to pay for someone to do something. :horrorsurprise:
-
He literally just said his mom, in the biz, said it was SOP. Literally.
Hey dummy, she said its standard to have another nurse, lib7 didn't say anything about it being SOP for a line item charge for said nurse.
God forbid a consumer would have to pay for someone to do something. :horrorsurprise:
What are you paying the second nurse to do? Make sure you aren't going to drop the baby while also holding a camera so that if you actually did drop the baby she wouldn't be able to do a damned thing about it?
-
He literally just said his mom, in the biz, said it was SOP. Literally.
Hey dummy, she said its standard to have another nurse, lib7 didn't say anything about it being SOP for a line item charge for said nurse.
God forbid a consumer would have to pay for someone to do something. :horrorsurprise:
What are you paying the second nurse to do? Make sure you aren't going to drop the baby while also holding a camera so that if you actually did drop the baby she wouldn't be able to do a damned thing about it?
Just her existence is worthy of compensation in a practical sense.
-
Why does it matter if it's SOP? Wouldn't that make it worse?
It really is indefensible to charge for crap like that. If charges like that are ok, they could literally assign a separate nurse to perform or observe every single task and just run the meter. "Do you need a drink of water? Let me get the water drink getting and administering nurse. Someone is actually shadowing her today, but we will only charge you for half his time."
-
Your room rate includes the water fetcher, why do you feel that person or the hospital should do it for free?
-
Why does it matter if it's SOP? Wouldn't that make it worse?
It really is indefensible to charge for crap like that. If charges like that are ok, they could literally assign a separate nurse to perform or observe every single task and just run the meter. "Do you need a drink of water? Let me get the water drink getting and administering nurse. Someone is actually shadowing her today, but we will only charge you for half his time."
It's not like you don't have a choice.
-
Your room rate includes the water fetcher, why do you feel that person or the hospital should do it for free?
Why doesn't the room rate also include the photo taker? The bill was more than $13,000, so I would think a photo might be included in that.
-
Your room rate includes the water fetcher, why do you feel that person or the hospital should do it for free?
Why doesn't the room rate also include the photo taker? The bill was more than $13,000, so I would think a photo might be included in that.
Free baby delivery with purchase of $13000 photo session!
-
Maybe it does, I doubt either of us know the specifics of this hospitals billing
-
Why does it matter if it's SOP? Wouldn't that make it worse?
It really is indefensible to charge for crap like that. If charges like that are ok, they could literally assign a separate nurse to perform or observe every single task and just run the meter. "Do you need a drink of water? Let me get the water drink getting and administering nurse. Someone is actually shadowing her today, but we will only charge you for half his time."
It's not like you don't have a choice.
It kind of is. Have you ever been hospitalized? Doctors and nurses just show up, whether you ask them to or not. It's sort of like homeless people cleaning your windshield when you're at a red light and expecting to get paid.
-
I think there are some people that were justifiably angry in 2010 before they even could have considered that Donald Trump would be running for office in 2016.
what was justified about their anger? My health insurance is getting worse, but that is because Kansas State has had to make across the board cuts for the past 3 years because of Brownback's tax plan.
I think it's justifiable to be angry about being promised transparency and then this massive bill being written behind closed doors and voted on by people who didn't even understand what all was in it.
This is a very dumb criticism. Pretty much every major law is enormous in verbage to help clarify and prevent it from being too vague in implementation, to make sure it is compliant with other laws and that it is Constitutional. The bill was widely debated in public for an extended period of time. The people that voted on it could obviously not recite it by memory, but they understood the core parts of what the bill would achieve, some better than others. Obviously, not many people predicted the website rollout being a disaster or so many states refusing to accept the medicaid expansion and fighting to not set up the exchanges, or the many constitutional challenges, but there was plenty of transparency.
There are lots of better examples of bills being passed in the dead of night, or secret funding or classification preventing transparency in government.
-
Why does it matter if it's SOP? Wouldn't that make it worse?
It really is indefensible to charge for crap like that. If charges like that are ok, they could literally assign a separate nurse to perform or observe every single task and just run the meter. "Do you need a drink of water? Let me get the water drink getting and administering nurse. Someone is actually shadowing her today, but we will only charge you for half his time."
It's not like you don't have a choice.
It kind of is. Have you ever been hospitalized? Doctors and nurses just show up, whether you ask them to or not. It's sort of like homeless people cleaning your windshield when you're at a red light and expecting to get paid.
Great analogy :jerk:
-
I think a better analogy would be opening the door for a client and then adding that their bill.
-
Great analogies all around!
-
I'll come up with some more.
-
Fixing someone's car and then charging a $40 delivery fee to bring it up to the front of the shop.
-
Getting my car fixed and they charged me for the time they needed a second mechanic :curse:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe0sVSrc.jpg&hash=8f005472ba4a2a5b0db44081ec99d675695f4b0d)
Do you think this couple asked to see a lactation consultant? I'm sort of doubting they asked to have somebody come in and tell them that the baby's mouth goes on the nipple, but maybe they asked for it. Who knows?
-
Waiting at a reception desk and the receptionist asks you if you want some coffee and you say sure so they send someone to go to Starbucks and charge you $40 for the coffee and delivery.
-
You just keep getting worse, maybe try on the edn account
-
Getting your bill at the doctor's office and they ask you if you want a copy and you say yes please, so the doctor comes out and hand copies the bill including free drawing the letterhead and then bills you for that time.
-
Guys, it's a child birth, you have plenty of notice. Just shop the hospitals, ask for a detailed/itemized quote, and read everything they will ask you to sign. If you have concerns contact your health insurance and see what's covered and what isn't. If they bill you for something you didn't agree to tell them to get mumped. And if they over bill you $40, maybe consider your time investment in fighting for $40 versus spending time with your new baby.
-
I'd like a cheeseburger, and can I add bacon to that please?
Oh wtf, these buttholes charged me for the bacon :curse:
-
My analogies are better.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe0sVSrc.jpg&hash=8f005472ba4a2a5b0db44081ec99d675695f4b0d)
Do you think this couple asked to see a lactation consultant? I'm sort of doubting they asked to have somebody come in and tell them that the baby's mouth goes on the nipple, but maybe they asked for it. Who knows?
I've heard some mom's have trouble breastfeeding especially at first, so not surprised if they asked for some help and actually scheduled that.
-
It's 2% of a bill they may only get once or twice in their lives.
-
i can't believe you're defending the lack of transparency in medical pricing, liblib. emo i get, because he argues all sorts of weird crap.
-
I would say that line item is full transparency, personally
-
I would say that line item is full transparency, personally
I wouldn't pay $212.04 for 38 Level 3's.
-
i can't believe you're defending the lack of transparency in medical pricing, liblib. emo i get, because he argues all sorts of weird crap.
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
-
i can't believe you're defending the lack of transparency in medical pricing, liblib. emo i get, because he argues all sorts of weird crap.
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
It's not like that at all, Emo, because the baby is your baby. You shouldn't expect a charge to hold it. It's not like the baby is the hospital's property until you leave.
-
i can't believe you're defending the lack of transparency in medical pricing, liblib. emo i get, because he argues all sorts of weird crap.
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
It's not like that at all, Emo, because the baby is your baby. You shouldn't expect a charge to hold it. It's not like the baby is the hospital's property until you leave.
The charge is for the additional nurse, not the actual holding of the baby. We have been over this.
-
Guys, it's a child birth, you have plenty of notice. Just shop the hospitals, ask for a detailed/itemized quote, and read everything they will ask you to sign. If you have concerns contact your health insurance and see what's covered and what isn't. If they bill you for something you didn't agree to tell them to get mumped. And if they over bill you $40, maybe consider your time investment in fighting for $40 versus spending time with your new baby.
Who has time for that crap?
-
Guys, it's a child birth, you have plenty of notice. Just shop the hospitals, ask for a detailed/itemized quote, and read everything they will ask you to sign. If you have concerns contact your health insurance and see what's covered and what isn't. If they bill you for something you didn't agree to tell them to get mumped. And if they over bill you $40, maybe consider your time investment in fighting for $40 versus spending time with your new baby.
Who has time for that crap?
It's like an extra 5 seconds. You're already touring the hospital. Just literally just ask "Hey can I get an itemized quote?" "Yes, sure, be right back." So painstakingly simple.
-
i can't believe you're defending the lack of transparency in medical pricing, liblib. emo i get, because he argues all sorts of weird crap.
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
It's not like that at all, Emo, because the baby is your baby. You shouldn't expect a charge to hold it. It's not like the baby is the hospital's property until you leave.
The charge is for the additional nurse, not the actual holding of the baby. We have been over this.
They didn't ask the couple if they'd like an extra nurse to come in and watch them hold the baby. They asked them if they'd like to hold their baby.
-
i can't believe you're defending the lack of transparency in medical pricing, liblib. emo i get, because he argues all sorts of weird crap.
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
It's not like that at all, Emo, because the baby is your baby. You shouldn't expect a charge to hold it. It's not like the baby is the hospital's property until you leave.
The charge is for the additional nurse, not the actual holding of the baby. We have been over this.
They didn't ask the couple if they'd like an extra nurse to come in and watch them hold the baby. They asked them if they'd like to hold their baby.
I'm sure it's hospital policy and not negotiable which is why they didn't ask. If they are so upset don't pay it. I doubt the hospital comes after them for $40.
-
I doubt either of us know the specifics of this hospitals billing
That's the point lib7
-
So why do you feel this is nefarious then when the hospital's explanation is completely plausible?
-
I think a better analogy would be opening the door for a client and then adding that their bill.
Great analogies all around!
The anchor on CNN headline news this morning said when she gave birth the hospital charged her to be walked from the waiting area to the birthing unit.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe0sVSrc.jpg&hash=8f005472ba4a2a5b0db44081ec99d675695f4b0d)
Do you think this couple asked to see a lactation consultant? I'm sort of doubting they asked to have somebody come in and tell them that the baby's mouth goes on the nipple, but maybe they asked for it. Who knows?
We did ask for a lactation consultant for the first kid because she wouldn't take, that cost our insurance company $300.
-
Well that cost money to do, so of course she was charged.
-
I would say that line item is full transparency, personally
transparency occurs before a service is billed, not after.
-
Guys, it's a child birth, you have plenty of notice. Just shop the hospitals, ask for a detailed/itemized quote, and read everything they will ask you to sign. If you have concerns contact your health insurance and see what's covered and what isn't. If they bill you for something you didn't agree to tell them to get mumped. And if they over bill you $40, maybe consider your time investment in fighting for $40 versus spending time with your new baby.
Are you childless? Almost all of this stuff is covered by insurance, that's why they're doing it. Usually having a baby in a hospital cost the insured the same unless there are complications like neonatal surgery.
-
So why do you feel this is nefarious then when the hospital's explanation is completely plausible?
because the baby is your baby. You shouldn't expect a charge to hold it. It's not like the baby is the hospital's property until you leave.
They didn't ask the couple if they'd like an extra nurse to come in and watch them hold the baby. They asked them if they'd like to hold their baby.
-
I would say that line item is full transparency, personally
transparency occurs before a service is billed, not after.
That's a fair criticism, but not a huge deal in this instance imo. Personally I would just offer all these services as part of an inclusive price, but they would absolutely be price increasers. For some reason some people in this thread think they should be free.
The charge of committing fraud and blaming obamacare are the parts I don't agree with. I'm sure this is a problem with other things like running unnecessary tests or whatever, but this is a horrible example imo.
-
but not a huge deal in this instance imo.
everyone understands that it's only $40. it's the principle.
-
I'm sure the hospital negotiates the total price with the insurance company and can't add the $40 to that. There is no way they'd be stupid enough to list that out on a bill they send their patients if they could just include it in the delivery C Section line.
-
I'm sure the hospital negotiates the total price with the insurance company and can't add the $40 to that. There is no way they'd be stupid enough to list that out on a bill they send their patients if they could just include it in the delivery C Section line.
Well apparently at this place it's an option not included in the delivery price
-
but not a huge deal in this instance imo.
everyone understands that it's only $40. it's the principle.
That's fine. I don't really intend to defend that aspect of the conversation. But I also don't know what information was made available to this couple that they may or may not have reviewed.
-
did not anticipate this one getting emoemoemoemoemoemoemo'd
-
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
in california, by state law, when you request any automotive repair or service you are presented with an itemized estimate of the cost of each service or repair which you must sign. that is transparency.
and your fantasy about hospitals being happy to document and estimate prices prior to performing work is complete bullshit. congratulations that you found a hospital that was eager and able to do that for one of the services they offer. it is well documented that it is not easy to get most/many hospitals to do so for many/most services they offer.
-
Normal conversation (apparently):
"Would you like to hold your baby now, Mr.Lib?"
"That depends. How much is it going to set me back?"
-
Normal conversation (apparently):
"Would you like to hold your baby now, Mr.Lib?"
"That depends. How much is it going to set me back?"
This is the bottom line. It's rough ridin' ridiculous.
-
Normal conversation (apparently):
"Would you like to hold your baby now, Mr.Lib?"
"That depends. How much is it going to set me back?"
Apparently you have a huge reading problem
-
That was based on Emo's example. I assumed you agreed with it.
-
The whole idea that you are taking a nurse away from some other duty in order to hand the father a baby and say "Support the head because of gravity!" is just nutty. To charge $40 for it is criminal.
-
So the person who royally screwed up the first attempt at creating Govt. Healthcare under Bill Clinton, now says she will fix Ofailurecare. That is a hoot.
-
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
in california, by state law, when you request any automotive repair or service you are presented with an itemized estimate of the cost of each service or repair which you must sign. that is transparency.
and your fantasy about hospitals being happy to document and estimate prices prior to performing work is complete bullshit. congratulations that you found a hospital that was eager and able to do that for one of the services they offer. it is well documented that it is not easy to get most/many hospitals to do so for many/most services they offer.
I got 2 FWIW, and neither was difficult.
-
Normal conversation (apparently):
"Would you like to hold your baby now, Mr.Lib?"
"That depends. How much is it going to set me back?"
You're missing the point. For the birth of a child you should know what it's going to cost up front.
You and sys or whomever would have much better arguments with charges for services while someone was under general anesthesia.
-
I'm wondering how many of you would be equally upset had the line item charge read something like "additional nurse .5 hours" ??
-
Did you do contingency planning for complications? How much was it going to cost for a preemie?
-
Obamacare is an abject failure. No reason to carry this thread on.
-
I think there are some people that were justifiably angry in 2010 before they even could have considered that Donald Trump would be running for office in 2016.
what was justified about their anger? My health insurance is getting worse, but that is because Kansas State has had to make across the board cuts for the past 3 years because of Brownback's tax plan.
Man, put down the glass of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) kool-aid. :lol:
-
Normal conversation (apparently):
"Would you like to hold your baby now, Mr.Lib?"
"That depends. How much is it going to set me back?"
You're missing the point. For the birth of a child you should know what it's going to cost up front.
You and sys or whomever would have much better arguments with charges for services while someone was under general anesthesia.
It's been discussed already, but most doctors have no idea what the services cost that they bill for. Also, you're suggesting that the $40 baby holding charge would be included in such a quote, when I'm almost certain it wouldn't be. How do they know you'd want to hold your child after birth?
-
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
in california, by state law, when you request any automotive repair or service you are presented with an itemized estimate of the cost of each service or repair which you must sign. that is transparency.
and your fantasy about hospitals being happy to document and estimate prices prior to performing work is complete bullshit. congratulations that you found a hospital that was eager and able to do that for one of the services they offer. it is well documented that it is not easy to get most/many hospitals to do so for many/most services they offer.
I got 2 FWIW, and neither was difficult.
LOL, no you didn't.
-
what if a nurse had to be there for you to hold your elk gutpile?
-
what if a nurse had to be there for you to hold your elk gutpile?
skin 2 skin only
-
it is also outrageous that they force people to call holding a baby skin to skin and make everyone feel like perverts.
-
it is also outrageous that they force people to call holding a baby skin to skin and make everyone feel like perverts.
Immediate skin to skin contact is supposed to help with breastfeeding.
-
Also someone should start a thread about childbirth class.
-
is there a non-skin2skin method of holding your baby afterwards?
-
is there a non-skin2skin method of holding your baby afterwards?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/77/89/6b/77896b6444be4bbb1573feeeea238ae5.jpg)
-
"free" #ack?
-
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
in california, by state law, when you request any automotive repair or service you are presented with an itemized estimate of the cost of each service or repair which you must sign. that is transparency.
and your fantasy about hospitals being happy to document and estimate prices prior to performing work is complete bullshit. congratulations that you found a hospital that was eager and able to do that for one of the services they offer. it is well documented that it is not easy to get most/many hospitals to do so for many/most services they offer.
I got 2 FWIW, and neither was difficult.
LOL, no you didn't.
We absolutely did. Shawnee Mission Hospital and Overland Park.
-
is there a non-skin2skin method of holding your baby afterwards?
Mom in a gown, kid in blanket
-
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
in california, by state law, when you request any automotive repair or service you are presented with an itemized estimate of the cost of each service or repair which you must sign. that is transparency.
and your fantasy about hospitals being happy to document and estimate prices prior to performing work is complete bullshit. congratulations that you found a hospital that was eager and able to do that for one of the services they offer. it is well documented that it is not easy to get most/many hospitals to do so for many/most services they offer.
I got 2 FWIW, and neither was difficult.
LOL, no you didn't.
We absolutely did. Shawnee Mission Hospital and Overland Park.
Did you do contingency planning for complications? How much was it going to cost for a preemie?
-
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
in california, by state law, when you request any automotive repair or service you are presented with an itemized estimate of the cost of each service or repair which you must sign. that is transparency.
and your fantasy about hospitals being happy to document and estimate prices prior to performing work is complete bullshit. congratulations that you found a hospital that was eager and able to do that for one of the services they offer. it is well documented that it is not easy to get most/many hospitals to do so for many/most services they offer.
I got 2 FWIW, and neither was difficult.
LOL, no you didn't.
We absolutely did. Shawnee Mission Hospital and Overland Park.
Did you do contingency planning for complications? How much was it going to cost for a preemie?
We didn't contingency plan, no. Young, healthy people. Also I would imagine that if hospital A were higher for basic services than hospital B, they would also be higher for the services required by the contingencies you mentioned.
-
It's not lack of transparency. All you have to do is like not be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and ask for pricing.
It's no different than a Toyota dealership. "Hi Mr. Sys, the during the inspection the tech noticed your cabin air filter is dirty, would you like us to replace that?"
Now, here's where some of you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and the rest of you aren't.
Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "Sure."
Non-Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!): "How much is it? ("It's $20.") Oh okay, yes please do that."
in california, by state law, when you request any automotive repair or service you are presented with an itemized estimate of the cost of each service or repair which you must sign. that is transparency.
and your fantasy about hospitals being happy to document and estimate prices prior to performing work is complete bullshit. congratulations that you found a hospital that was eager and able to do that for one of the services they offer. it is well documented that it is not easy to get most/many hospitals to do so for many/most services they offer.
I got 2 FWIW, and neither was difficult.
LOL, no you didn't.
We absolutely did. Shawnee Mission Hospital and Overland Park.
Did you do contingency planning for complications? How much was it going to cost for a preemie?
We didn't contingency plan, no. Young, healthy people. Also I would imagine that if hospital A were higher for basic services than hospital B, they would also be higher for the services required by the contingencies you mentioned.
Young, healthy people? With each post you make your knowledge of the childbirth process seem less and less.
-
You think we should have contingency planned? Why? Curious especially considering you're stupid enough to walk into a hospital and not know eff all about what it's going to cost you.
-
I bet you think "who cares Obama got my back." :lol:
-
You think we should have contingency planned? Why? Curious especially considering you're stupid enough to walk into a hospital and not know eff all about what it's going to cost you.
If you don't know how risky childbirth is and you've supposedly had a kid there's nothing I can say to convince you. If you're not lying you're just incredibly dense about the process. Also if you actually read the thread I told you that our cost of having both of our children was predetermined because of the insurance we had at the time. Our first kid cost us $250, our second $375.
Why would Obama have my back :confused:
-
Only had one healthy birth so pardon my lack of experience. I'd like to hear your process for contingency planning.
-
I'm pretty sure I'd end up paying the same out of pocket regardless, but I'd like to think I'd shop hospitals out of a civic duty to keep healthcare costs down.
-
Thanks Obama for a $600 defacto pay cut. Your wonderful healthcare caused my premiums to go up $50 a month and the deductible $1000. Whh the hell do I have to subsidize healthcare for winos and deadbeats. Why do I have to pay for maternity coverage. The closet I'll ever get to pregnancy is bad constipation. Hillary Hellcare will be worse especially if we give care to millions pouring into America. This is like a stealth tax.
-
the renocat thing is still a thing. amazing.
-
SkiBen needs an outlet for his rational thoughts.
-
the renocat thing is still a thing. amazing.
So this is full of horse crap Hillary liars then when you all say welcome then? Based on registration xates it appears a grpup started this board. So are new people welcomed or not? I am too smart to be anyone else and too warped in the head for anyone to be me.
-
The closet I'll ever get to pregnancy is bad constipation
:lol:
-
just start a new sock. jfc.
-
I think Sewardcat is available
-
In all of the debate hate crap very little media attention is being focused on Obama admitting his healthcare program is a bust. His answer is to offer medical insurance from the government. I think the next president will curse the memory of Obama when they deal with this mess.
-
https://twitter.com/AP/status/790659478349897728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
absolute disaster
-
Oh yeah, well trump tweeted something! :shakesfist:
Focus on the important stuff
-
Only two insurance providers left in Philly.
But #Russians :curse:
-
Only two insurance providers left in Philly.
But #Russians :curse:
Hillary wants to adopt a Russiacare model. If you are ultra rich good health no problem. If you are not, long waits for service is common and care is veterinarian dogcare level. Read.the following
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/in-russia-universal
-
Obama-Hillary blowhards puff out their whatevers and proclaim poor and middle class have affordable premiums. What does this mean when you have to use the Crapcare? You have to exorbitant amounts out of your own pocket because your deductible is sky high. Premium receivers can't afford to use it.
-
Guys, how bad is this going to end up looking for republicans?
-
They'll tweak it slightly and then everybody will be happy to be rid of Obamacare.
-
It's nice that it will finally be ok for states like Kansas to go ahead and accept the federal Obamacare dollars.
-
They'll tweak it slightly and then everybody will be happy to be rid of Obamacare.
Seems like they would be ridiculed endlessly for this, on the other hand they undoubtedly knew this all along and it was just a ploy to get votes. It makes their base on this board look very stupid though.
-
They'll tweak it slightly and then everybody will be happy to be rid of Obamacare.
Seems like they would be ridiculed endlessly for this, on the other hand they undoubtedly knew this all along and it was just a ploy to get votes. It makes their base on this board look very stupid though.
Parody post?
-
I do think they will make a slight change, call it a win, and move on to other stuff, but who knows.
-
They'll tweak it slightly and then everybody will be happy to be rid of Obamacare.
Seems like they would be ridiculed endlessly for this, on the other hand they undoubtedly knew this all along and it was just a ploy to get votes. It makes their base on this board look very stupid though.
Parody post?
I'm curious as to what you think they're going to do
-
:users:
-
Obamacare has winners and losers. I'd argue a lot more losers than winners, but that's a matter of political perception.
Even among the winners, some win more than others. The majority of people who gained coverage because of Obamacare was due to Medicaid expansion. Fewer and fewer doctors and facilities accept Medicaid, but at least it's cheap. Other people got subsidized coverage through the exchanges. Deductibles are often so high that it's little better than catastrophic care insurance, but at least it's something. Probably the biggest winners were people with serious pre-existing health issues - Obamacare forced insurers to cover them and spread the cost across the entire pool rather than hiking premiums on the sick.
For everyone else - and that's a lot more people than the "winners" above - their health insurance got more expensive, some had their policies cancelled because they didn't meet minimum coverage requirements, provider networks shrank, taxes increased, and the national debt increased (the claim that Obamacare saves money is predicated on a massive lie - that Medicare reimbursement will be slashed in the out years. Now how likely do you think that is?)
So here are the broad strokes of what will likely replace Obamacare....
1. You'll be able to buy insurance from wherever you want, no matter the state, and for a broader range of coverage levels and deductibles. It's going to be more like shopping for car insurance.
2. You won't be required to buy insurance.
3. People who are already sick will be able to purchase insurance, and won't be able to be kicked off insurance, but their premiums will rise because their healthcare costs are higher. I expect we'll see the federal government bloc grant some money to the states to create "high risk pools" to help these individuals.
4. Current Obamacare subsidies will be sunset over a few years, and replaced with smaller refundable tax credits. The tax credits can be smaller than the current subsidies because the insurance will likely be cheaper (see item 1).
5. Medicaid funds will be bloc granted to the states, which should aid in efficiency and incentivizing creating ways to find cost savings. This is the best way to possibly reduce the cost of Medicaid.
6. Tax code will be revised to encourage HDHP/HSAs. This has several benefits. First, it puts more spending decisions directly in the hands of consumers, instead of an insurer middleman, which has distorted the market and contributed to such high healthcare costs. Second, we'll be able to spend the HSA money on premiums, helping to decouple insurance from employers. We're all better off if our insurance is more portable.
This is still going to be expensive but hopefully not as expensive as Obamacare and with a lot more winners than losers.
-
1. I don't want congress to get rid of the pre-existing condition exemption
2. As long as they don't, all of our premiums will be more expensive than without it
3. I fully agree with destroying the bullshit regional sales areas
4. This country needs a serious paradigm shift from spending money trying to react to something to spending money in preventing something. That won't happen because that will have to address food and pharm. Neither of which will stand for it.
-
1. I don't want congress to get rid of the pre-existing condition exemption
They're not going to get rid of guaranteed issue. I think that is what you are referring to. But I think they are going to allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums based upon preexisting conditions. That helps keep costs lower for everyone else in the pool.
-
1. I don't want congress to get rid of the pre-existing condition exemption
They're not going to get rid of guaranteed issue. I think that is what you are referring to. But I think they are going to allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums based upon preexisting conditions. That helps keep costs lower for everyone else in the pool.
I know you partially addressed this with block grants, but the problem will be that those premiums will be stupid high and those being charge such premiums are likely to not be able to afford them, effectively making them uninsured.
-
Here's a good article about what we're likely to see. Looks like this is Part 1 of a series....
http://nypost.com/2017/01/12/what-to-expect-from-obamacares-replacement/ (http://nypost.com/2017/01/12/what-to-expect-from-obamacares-replacement/)
Initially, any changes will be very small and incremental. Repeal won’t happen overnight, or all at once. Rather, Republicans are likely to establish a sunset date, three or four years from now, allowing time to craft a replacement. Still, sooner or later, we’ll be living under a very different health-care system. Therefore, over the next few days, we’ll take a look at what it’s really going to mean for health-care consumers, patients, doctors, hospitals, insurers, businesses and taxpayers.
One of the first things most Americans are likely to find is that they’ll have more choices when it comes to buying insurance. You may have to pay more for insurance that covers some providers and conditions, but you’ll also be able to buy cheaper, less-comprehensive insurance if you want to.
ObamaCare required all insurance to cover a wide-ranging — and expensive — “essential benefits package.” Repeal will mean more of an a la carte approach to insurance, based on individual consumer preference.
In fact, this is likely to be one of the first changes to ObamaCare. While the law requires that there be an essential-benefits package, it gives the president a great deal of discretion in determining what that package should be. President Trump can take action by executive order to repeal some of the requirements that President Obama included.
People will even have the choice not to buy insurance at all, since the much-reviled individual mandate will be gone. Going without insurance may not necessarily be a wise choice, but it does re-establish a fundamental limit to state power over the individual. And it allows young and healthy people to purchase low-cost catastrophic coverage that makes much more sense for them.
Most people will find more choice to be a good thing, but there’s a downside. If people opt out of services that they won’t use — such as men choosing not to buy maternity coverage — it will drive up the price for those who do use those services.
Consumers won’t just find more options in the types of plans; there should also be more insurers to choose from. Recently, insurers have been abandoning ObamaCare exchanges in droves. Roughly a third of US counties have only one insurer participating in their exchange. Repeal will lure insurers back into the market.
Finally, a replacement plan will almost certainly let you shop for insurance out of state. Today, it’s illegal for someone living in New York to buy insurance in, say, Pennsylvania even if a plan there is cheaper. This gives a near monopoly to a small cartel of New York insurers. Allowing consumers to shop across state lines will force some much-needed competition into the insurance market. It will also help prevent New York regulators from recreating the failures of ObamaCare at the state level.
Those changes will mostly affect the individual insurance market, but the majority of Americans who get their insurance through their employer are also likely to see more choice. That’s because any ObamaCare replacement is expected to significantly expand Health Savings Accounts.
HSAs shift control of health-care spending from employers to employees. An expansion of HSAs will most likely allow much larger tax-free contributions to these accounts, and allow them to be used for more health-related expenses, including insurance premiums. That would mean that you — not your boss — would be able to choose your insurance plan.
Expanded HSAs would also mean increased portability for health insurance. Because you could use your HSA to pay your premium, you wouldn’t be as likely to lose your insurance if you changed or lost your job.
In general, then, most consumers will find themselves with more and better insurance choices after ObamaCare is repealed. Still, there are likely to be some people who face challenges, including those with low incomes and those with pre-existing conditions. Tomorrow, we’ll look at what repealing ObamaCare means for them.
-
I am going to finish reading that, but right off the bat I disagree with the first paragraph. No way they take 3-4 yrs to sunset. The pubs have all control right now and have to accomplish something so large while they have that control. Dragging it out one or more congressional elections, let alone possibly a presidential election, would keep the door open for it to get shut down.
Surely they know this, which is why many recent articles hint that congress is keeping their foot on the gas even though trump is asking them to take their time.
-
I am going to finish reading that, but right off the bat I disagree with the first paragraph. No way they take 3-4 yrs to sunset. The pubs have all control right now and have to accomplish something so large while they have that control. Dragging it out one or more congressional elections, let alone possibly a presidential election, would keep the door open for it to get shut down.
Surely they know this, which is why many recent articles hint that congress is keeping their foot on the gas even though trump is asking them to take their time.
I think (hope) they pass the laws quickly, but phase in implementation. I think that is what the article is referring to. I think that would be the reasonable, responsible thing to do. We need to give the states time to prepare for bloc granting Medicaid, setting up high risk pools, let the insurers start planning new policies, etc. People can't lose their existing policies and subsidies immediately.
But I agree I don't want to see this thing drag out 3-4 years. Politically, the best move would be a 2 year transition to get past the next midterm but well ahead of the presidential election.
-
Kill it and bury it in a cat litter box.
-
Part 2 of the series. Basically exactly what I already said.
http://nypost.com/2017/01/13/heres-what-happens-after-obamacare-is-gone/ (http://nypost.com/2017/01/13/heres-what-happens-after-obamacare-is-gone/)
-
President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html
-
Hopefully the house and senate get some sort of repeal and replace put together and then Trump vetoes it.
-
Hopefully the house and senate get some sort of repeal and replace put together and then Trump vetoes it.
My god that would be amazing
-
1. I don't want congress to get rid of the pre-existing condition exemption
They're not going to get rid of guaranteed issue. I think that is what you are referring to. But I think they are going to allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums based upon preexisting conditions. That helps keep costs lower for everyone else in the pool.
I know you partially addressed this with block grants, but the problem will be that those premiums will be stupid high and those being charge such premiums are likely to not be able to afford them, effectively making them uninsured.
There should be a consequence to not buying insurance until you need it, and it shouldn't be that non-dipshits have to pay for it.
-
Who has been paying for all the er visits and births all these years?
-
I say those that are getting tax breaks for kiddos and marriage that are using the Healthcare system without insurance should absolutely get pinched.
When we have doctors not charging for procedures because they know they will never see a dime, we have a problem.
When we have people showing up to deliver with no prenatal care and thus making doctors liable that have go treat them, we have a problem.
If you can't afford healtchare, die. Don't procreate. You're already more of a burden than a help to mankind.
-
Nothing is free. If you can't pay up, starve. That should always be the way of the world.
-
Streaming flow of consciousness :/
-
I think the best way to tackle this would be universal catastrophe coverage. The huge stuff. Then have a supplemental private market.
It seems like there should be a way to do this and get things like hospital and script charges under control a little better.
-
I think the best way to tackle this would be universal catastrophe coverage. The huge stuff. Then have a supplemental private market.
It seems like there should be a way to do this and get things like hospital and script charges under control a little better.
I think might be a good approach. Most people worry about a huge medical bill bankrupting them. A big motivation for health insurance. I like being able.to get insurance for preexisting conditions.
-
Government provided universal catastrophic coverage? So then a big chunk of people would drop their current coverage and premiums would go up for everyone else? Also sounds like another entitlement that will ultimately creep to full blown single payer.
-
Government provided universal catastrophic coverage? So then a big chunk of people would drop their current coverage and premiums would go up for everyone else? Also sounds like another entitlement that will ultimately creep to full blown single payer.
Your premium would go down, since your insurance provider wouldn't be on the hook for catastrophic coverage. Unless you just want to pay more or something.
-
Government provided universal catastrophic coverage? So then a big chunk of people would drop their current coverage and premiums would go up for everyone else? Also sounds like another entitlement that will ultimately creep to full blown single payer.
Your premium would go down, since your insurance provider wouldn't be on the hook for catastrophic coverage. Unless you just want to pay more or something.
Maybe. I'm skeptical. Seems to me that catastrophic coverage is cheap, so any savings as a result of my insurance capping out at a certain high level would be more than offset by the increase in premium caused by lots of people dropping their insurance entirely.
But that's just my gut reaction. I'm sure policy wonks on both sides have looked closer at the issue.
-
I don't think hardly any politicians have looked fully at it. Recommending it would ruin your career at pretty much any given point in our history, including right now.
-
I think the best way to tackle this would be universal catastrophe coverage. The huge stuff. Then have a supplemental private market.
It seems like there should be a way to do this and get things like hospital and script charges under control a little better.
I think might be a good approach. Most people worry about a huge medical bill bankrupting them. A big motivation for health insurance. I like being able.to get insurance for preexisting conditions.
Medical bills are a huge ruiner of credit as well.
-
I don't think hardly any politicians have looked fully at it. Recommending it would ruin your career at pretty much any given point in our history, including right now.
I don't think hardly any politicians are capable of looking fully at it and coming to a logical conclusion.
-
I think the best way to tackle this would be universal catastrophe coverage. The huge stuff. Then have a supplemental private market.
It seems like there should be a way to do this and get things like hospital and script charges under control a little better.
I think might be a good approach. Most people worry about a huge medical bill bankrupting them. A big motivation for health insurance. I like being able.to get insurance for preexisting conditions.
Medical bills are a huge ruiner of credit as well.
Iirc, they are either the #1 or #2 reason for personal bankruptcy.
-
I think the best way to tackle this would be universal catastrophe coverage. The huge stuff. Then have a supplemental private market.
It seems like there should be a way to do this and get things like hospital and script charges under control a little better.
I think might be a good approach. Most people worry about a huge medical bill bankrupting them. A big motivation for health insurance. I like being able.to get insurance for preexisting conditions.
Medical bills are a huge ruiner of credit as well.
Iirc, they are either the #1 or #2 reason for personal bankruptcy.
John Oliver did a segment on credit. It was fairly eye opening and sad.
-
Obamacare is getting flushed, deal with it.
-
I think the best way to tackle this would be universal catastrophe coverage. The huge stuff. Then have a supplemental private market.
It seems like there should be a way to do this and get things like hospital and script charges under control a little better.
That is essentially what health insurance is
-
I think the best way to tackle this would be universal catastrophe coverage. The huge stuff. Then have a supplemental private market.
It seems like there should be a way to do this and get things like hospital and script charges under control a little better.
That is essentially what health insurance is
Not just health insurance, but all insurance.
-
Yeah, I am saying universal, as in single payer, catastrophe covg. Then you or I could go buy own own supplemental as we wish without requirement.
-
What do you consider to be a catastrophe? Like anything that is going to cost more than $10,000, or the more life-threatening stuff?
-
Idk, what is the limits of policies currently sold as catastrophe now? Whatever that is, prob.
-
For a majority of Americans, there is functionally no difference in 10k medical debt and 250k medical debt
-
Well, yeah, but we need to tackle one problem at a time.
CNN had a story a few weeks ago about a national survey that said the majority of americans couldn't deal with an unexpected $500 bill. That is a major problem.
-
Well, yeah, but we need to tackle one problem at a time.
CNN had a story a few weeks ago about a national survey that said the majority of americans couldn't deal with an unexpected $500 bill. That is a major problem.
A personal problem. Living beyond ones means.
-
Well, yeah, but we need to tackle one problem at a time.
CNN had a story a few weeks ago about a national survey that said the majority of americans couldn't deal with an unexpected $500 bill. That is a major problem.
A personal problem. Living beyond ones means.
Agree, but it's somewhat reasonable to expand that to a $10k medical bill being a world ender. Especially with credit cards and most hospitals willingly offering payment options. I am not saying that the avg American should have $10k sitting around, but they should have the ability to borrow it and pay it down over a couple years.
Again, we need to solve one problem at a time. Nothing is going to make things perfect immediately. We just need to LHC Bill Snyder this thing. A little better at a time.
-
I agree. :thumbs:
-
For a majority of Americans, there is functionally no difference in 10k medical debt and 250k medical debt
wut?
-
For a majority of Americans, there is functionally no difference in 10k medical debt and 250k medical debt
wut?
It's never getting paid off?
-
i think a majority of americans would/could cover a 10k bill
obviously not going to pay cash but i just don't think the majority of americans are going to default on that bill
i mean we are talking about the price of a low average used car here
-
It would def cause many to alter their way of life. Lose a car, lose a house, etc.
-
Many, but I agree that "majority" might be a little bit extreme.
-
Definitely.
-
I think some of you may be living in a bit of a bubble. Even lower upper class ksuw can barely handle a 400 dollar tax increase, think how mumped he'd be with a 10k er bill.
-
I think some of you may be living in a bit of a bubble. Even lower upper class ksuw can barely handle a 400 dollar tax increase, think how mumped he'd be with a 10k er bill.
It just depends on how much the hospital is willing to take per month.
-
10K doesn't go very far. I had one CT scan in the ER during a kidney stone episode that cost 17K.
-
i think a majority of americans would/could cover a 10k bill
obviously not going to pay cash but i just don't think the majority of americans are going to default on that bill
i mean we are talking about the price of a low average used car here
People default on much much lower bills to hospitals.
-
I've defaulted on much lower bills due to economic constraints and in turn destroyed my credit. I needed emergency service and was too poor to foot bill and once I was able to pay it off the damage was done and years later I'm still suffering for it.
-
i didn't pay an ambulance/emergency room bill once based on i didn't ask to be carted off to the hospital so didn't feel responsible for paying it and that i thought the bill was too high for the services rendered. i could have paid it, but chose not to.
afaik there were never any negative impact on my credit.
-
:impatient:
sheesh how long does a guy have to wait for pubs to put there way better system in place?
-
:impatient:
sheesh how long does a guy have to wait for pubs to put there way better system in place?
Has tom Price even been confirmed yet? I'd wait at least that long, maybe a bit longer. But I agree, waiting can be frustrating.
-
i have apparently misinterpreted the word immediate
-
LickNecky is anxious to get back the doctor he was promised he could keep.
-
i could really care less who my doctor is
i mean if i was super sick maybe
-
My doctors name is Priti. I chose her based on this.
-
i could really care less who my doctor is
i mean if i was super sick maybe
You could care less or you couldn't care less?
-
Aetna CEO: Obamacare in "death spiral" (http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN15U1QJ)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/health/humana-plans-to-pull-out-of-obamacares-insurance-exchanges.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/health/humana-plans-to-pull-out-of-obamacares-insurance-exchanges.html)
Well there you have it. I don't think anyone can seriously argue at this point that Obamacare is a colossal failure. The GOP needs to get their crap together and make some hard choices pronto. Will they? :dunno:
-
I don't think anyone can seriously argue at this point that Obamacare is a colossal failure.
I agree. It's clear that insurance companies have colluded to make this law suffer all for their own fleecing of the American public. Sad that people are too stupid to realize how the Republicans have sold us out.
-
I don't think anyone can seriously argue at this point that Obamacare is a colossal failure.
I agree. It's clear that insurance companies have colluded to make this law suffer all for their own fleecing of the American public. Sad that people are too stupid to realize how the Republicans have sold us out.
Cant tell if this is serious or a joke. You realize that Obama "colluded" with the insurance companies to help get Obamacare passed in the first place? The insurers were banking on more younger, healthier people signing up or, if not, being bailed out with tax dollars. So I guess you can blame those younger, healthier people for not signing up in sufficient numbers, or the GOP for refusing to continue bailing them out? Regardless, it was a crap law reaching a predictably crap end.
But hey, now liberals can play politics by making the GOP own the cleanup effort!
-
It was working pretty well with obama as president. I'm not really shocked that it's starting to fail under a republican president. Sad really.
-
I don't think anyone can seriously argue at this point that Obamacare is a colossal failure.
I agree. It's clear that insurance companies have colluded to make this law suffer all for their own fleecing of the American public. Sad that people are too stupid to realize how the Republicans have sold us out.
Cant tell if this is serious or a joke. You realize that Obama "colluded" with the insurance companies to help get Obamacare passed in the first place? The insurers were banking on more younger, healthier people signing up or, if not, being bailed out with tax dollars. So I guess you can blame those younger, healthier people for not signing up in sufficient numbers, or the GOP for refusing to continue bailing them out? Regardless, it was a crap law reaching a predictably crap end.
But hey, now liberals can play politics by making the GOP own the cleanup effort!
I think you should look into why the ACA is having trouble. Yes they needed more people to sign up. But ultimately allowing insurance companies to run risk pools and them pushing the worst cases to certain ACA plans and making them tank, and then throwing a hissy fit over the 80% premium rule has killed things faster then the politics on the Hill.
-
It was working pretty well with obama as president.
Interesting if true.
-
It was working pretty well with obama as president. I'm not really shocked that it's starting to fail under a republican president. Sad really.
:lol:
-
It was working pretty well with obama as president. I'm not really shocked that it's starting to fail under a republican president. Sad really.
:lol: OMG!
-
Still waiting on that repeal and replace. Been waiting on a repub plan for 7 years tbh
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/16/ryan-gop-introduce-obamacare-repeal-replace-bill-after-break/97994214/
After 8 years they are just weeks away from revealing the answer.
ANTICIPATION BUILDING!!!!!
:excited:
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/02/16/ryan-gop-introduce-obamacare-repeal-replace-bill-after-break/97994214/
After 8 years they are just weeks away from revealing the answer.
ANTICIPATION BUILDING!!!!!
:excited:
:Woot: I am VERY confident the GOP is not going to totally eff this up. :crossfingers:
-
The Republicans trying to repeal are morally repugnant AND dumb.
https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/834536789020962821
-
The Republicans trying to repeal are morally repugnant AND dumb.
https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/834536789020962821
Yeah you realize that is in comparison to the bullshit CBO scoring of Obamacare that was predicated on cutting a bunch of Medicare spending that was never going to happen right?
-
The Republicans trying to repeal are morally repugnant AND dumb.
https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/834536789020962821
Yeah you realize that is in comparison to the bullshit CBO scoring of Obamacare that was predicated on cutting a bunch of Medicare spending that was never going to happen right?
Republicans have told people that Obamacare is awful, that they can replace it with something that is cheaper and provides better coverage.
They can't so they are bullshitting around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The Republicans trying to repeal are morally repugnant AND dumb.
https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/834536789020962821
Yeah you realize that is in comparison to the bullshit CBO scoring of Obamacare that was predicated on cutting a bunch of Medicare spending that was never going to happen right?
Republicans have told people that Obamacare is awful, that they can replace it with something that is cheaper and provides better coverage.
They can't so they are bullshitting around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. Obamacare is awful. 2. Republicans can replace it with something cheaper and better. What we had before Obamacare was cheaper and better for the vast majority of Americans. The trick with undoing a welfare program is that the GOP doesn't want to pull the rug out from under the 10 million or so who are now on Medicaid or a private policy thanks to Obamacare - at the expense of everyone else. That's where the expense comes in. But if you supported the creation of Obamacare you don't get an opinion. Sit down and shut up.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2017%2F02%2Fmrz022017-color_orig.jpg&hash=591e82ad95826576ab49a7e81154f4a7893d38ab)
-
LOL
-
Repealing obamacare would be cheaper, source the cbo 7 years ago, common sense.
Obamacare sucks balls, source the last 4 general elections and everyone on it who has actually tried to go to the doctor.
-
The Republicans trying to repeal are morally repugnant AND dumb.
https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/834536789020962821
Yeah you realize that is in comparison to the bullshit CBO scoring of Obamacare that was predicated on cutting a bunch of Medicare spending that was never going to happen right?
Republicans have told people that Obamacare is awful, that they can replace it with something that is cheaper and provides better coverage.
They can't so they are bullshitting around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're taking some really whackadoodle positions today, what gives?
-
This is what happens when things get too politicized. You either just leave it to the private sector (which has led to some pretty ridiculous results), or you basically expand medicare to include pretty much everyone. People don't like the individual mandate but they like no preexisting conditions, so politicians just try to come up with some crap that makes no sense.
-
Repealing obamacare would be cheaper, source the cbo 7 years ago, common sense.
Obamacare sucks balls, source the last 4 general elections and everyone on it who has actually tried to go to the doctor.
I have Obamacare and have had no problems. I see the same doctor I did when I had coverage through my job.
-
Repealing obamacare would be cheaper, source the cbo 7 years ago, common sense.
Obamacare sucks balls, source the last 4 general elections and everyone on it who has actually tried to go to the doctor.
I have Obamacare and have had no problems. I see the same doctor I did when I had coverage through my job.
Well crap if it works for you must work for errrrbody.
-
Must have had a really shitty plan through work.
None of the poors on obamacare can even begin to afford the $6000-12,000 annual deductible. It's a terrible high deductible plan that used to cost like $85 p/mo, that these poor souls have to pay several hundred a month for.
-
This is what happens when things get too politicized. You either just leave it to the private sector (which has led to some pretty ridiculous results), or you basically expand medicare to include pretty much everyone. People don't like the individual mandate but they like no preexisting conditions, so politicians just try to come up with some crap that makes no sense.
Agree this is more a political problem than a policy problem. In my opinion, the policy is pretty easy - don't make health insurance more expensive and worse coverage for the vast majority of Americans in order to extend welfare to a few million people. Politically hard to take that welfare away.
Also, you shouldn't assume that we had a "private sector" insurance market prior to Obamacare. The regulations and mandates imposed by federal and state governments (e.g., minimum coverage mandates) seriously distorted the efficiency we would normally expect of a free market leading to those "pretty ridiculous results."
-
GOP just hammering out the deets on the plan they have been carefully crafting for the last 8 years!!!!
NO WORRIES BROS...
:emawkid:
-
The trick with undoing a welfare program is that the GOP doesn't want to pull the rug out from under the 10 million or so who are now on Medicaid or a private policy thanks to Obamacare - at the expense of everyone else.
i can't find the article now, but a couple of weeks ago i saw an analysis that obamacare benefits older, less-healthy consumers in low density states who are subsidized by younger, healthier consumers living in higher density states.
you can do the math on who tends to vote for which party and it explains pretty well why the 'pubs are moving cautiously on repealing/changing obamacare.
-
The trick with undoing a welfare program is that the GOP doesn't want to pull the rug out from under the 10 million or so who are now on Medicaid or a private policy thanks to Obamacare - at the expense of everyone else.
i can't find the article now, but a couple of weeks ago i saw an analysis that obamacare benefits older, less-healthy consumers in low density states who are subsidized by younger, healthier consumers living in higher density states.
you can do the math on who tends to vote for which party and it explains pretty well why the 'pubs are moving cautiously on repealing/changing obamacare.
Yeah, but what your asinine pretext fails to account for is the fact that those people were on zero deductible medicaid/medicare before, and now they're on a high deductible plan where the nearest provider is 200 miles away. There are virtually zero healthcare providers in middle markets, let alone rural areas, that accept the obamacare.
-
Well crap if it works for you must work for errrrbody.
Never claimed it did.
-
Must have had a really shitty plan through work.
None of the poors on obamacare can even begin to afford the $6000-12,000 annual deductible. It's a terrible high deductible plan that used to cost like $85 p/mo, that these poor souls have to pay several hundred a month for.
Not all people on Obamacare are poors. I'm certainly not, and my deductible is $1,000. Also, my former shitty plan was through a school district, so probably not the greatest.
-
Must have had a really shitty plan through work.
None of the poors on obamacare can even begin to afford the $6000-12,000 annual deductible. It's a terrible high deductible plan that used to cost like $85 p/mo, that these poor souls have to pay several hundred a month for.
Not all people on Obamacare are poors. I'm certainly not, and my deductible is $1,000. Also, my former shitty plan was through a school district, so probably not the greatest.
If you're not poor, why do feel entitled to taxpayer dollars to pay for your insurance?
-
No one who was on Medicaid before would not be on Medicaid after. And you don't get Medicaid or subsidies if you're not poor.
This stuff is way too complicated for you guys.
-
Yeah, but what your asinine pretext fails to account for is the fact that those people were on zero deductible medicaid/medicare before, and now they're on a high deductible plan where the nearest provider is 200 miles away. There are virtually zero healthcare providers in middle markets, let alone rural areas, that accept the obamacare.
it's an explanation of why simply repealing obamacare and going back to what was previous is scarcely on the table. part of why trump got elected instead of one of the dozen other cookie cutter 'pubs was because he was promising to keep entitlements and replace obamacare with something better rather than just turn back the clock.
-
Well crap if it works for you must work for errrrbody.
Never claimed it did.
I guess I'm not sure what you were claiming then.
-
If you read the thread you would realize stellercat was responding to fsd's claim that everyone on obamacare hates it and has a $10k deductible
-
i don't want to have to call it trumpcare after they smear some lipstick on it. i guess i could live with house'pubscare.
-
Repealing obamacare would be cheaper, source the cbo 7 years ago, common sense.
Obamacare sucks balls, source the last 4 general elections and everyone on it who has actually tried to go to the doctor.
I have Obamacare and have had no problems. I see the same doctor I did when I had coverage through my job.
Well crap if it works for you must work for errrrbody.
Oh look
-
i don't want to have to call it trumpcare after they smear some lipstick on it. i guess i could live with house'pubscare.
O'Donaldcare
-
Is this the thread to bitch about hospitals?
In visiting a loved one on her last legs. Every meal they check her blood sugar and it's high so they dose her with insulin. Yet, they continue pumping her full of orange juice and pudding and jello and other sweets. WTF.
-
Is this the thread to bitch about hospitals?
In visiting a loved one on her last legs. Every meal they check her blood sugar and it's high so they dose her with insulin. Yet, they continue pumping her full of orange juice and pudding and jello and other sweets. WTF.
That's the death panel
-
it was on obamacare page 20,347
-
i don't want to have to call it trumpcare after they smear some lipstick on it. i guess i could live with house'pubscare.
If they do this right, they wouldn't have to really call it anything, right?
-
If they do this right, they wouldn't have to really call it anything, right?
they're not doing that, k-s-u.
-
Must have had a really shitty plan through work.
None of the poors on obamacare can even begin to afford the $6000-12,000 annual deductible. It's a terrible high deductible plan that used to cost like $85 p/mo, that these poor souls have to pay several hundred a month for.
Not all people on Obamacare are poors. I'm certainly not, and my deductible is $1,000. Also, my former shitty plan was through a school district, so probably not the greatest.
If you're not poor, why do feel entitled to taxpayer dollars to pay for your insurance?
Are you effing kidding me? No taxpayer dollars pay for my insurance. I purchased a plan on the exchange when I resigned from my job and receive NO subsidies. Quit being a jackass.
-
Must have had a really shitty plan through work.
None of the poors on obamacare can even begin to afford the $6000-12,000 annual deductible. It's a terrible high deductible plan that used to cost like $85 p/mo, that these poor souls have to pay several hundred a month for.
Not all people on Obamacare are poors. I'm certainly not, and my deductible is $1,000. Also, my former shitty plan was through a school district, so probably not the greatest.
If you're not poor, why do feel entitled to taxpayer dollars to pay for your insurance?
Are you effing kidding me? No taxpayer dollars pay for my insurance. I purchased a plan on the exchange when I resigned from my job and receive NO subsidies. Quit being a jackass.
I'm not trying to be a jackass. If you don't qualify for subsidies, there's no reason to buy a policy through the Obamacare exchange. Most people I've talked to have found better deals outside the exchange-offered plans. You should seriously look into this, as you could very well be getting ripped off.
-
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamacare-repeal-just-got-easier-as-enrollee-satisfaction-plunges/ (http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obamacare-repeal-just-got-easier-as-enrollee-satisfaction-plunges/)
Health Reform: The need for an overhaul of ObamaCare just got more acute, as a new survey shows that satisfaction rates among those enrolled in ObamaCare plans has taken a steep nose-dive this year amid premium hikes and reduced choices.
The new coverage of ObamaCare these days has been all about protests against repeal and the alleged increase in public support for the law.
But a survey of actual ObamaCare customers released this week paints an entirely different picture.
It found that just 22% of the 44,200 ObamaCare enrollees polled rate their health plan as good to excellent. That's down from 77% who gave their ObamaCare plans high marks last year.
The reason for the sharp decline was higher premiums, worse service and lack of choice. The survey, conducted by Black Book Market Research, found that 96% reported a decline in customer service support, 90% noted premium increases, 80% said their plans had narrower provider networks, and 77% said their plans' benefits had been trimmed. Nearly two-thirds (61%) complained about lack of competitors in their market.
In other words, the collapse of competition in the ObamaCare exchanges — which left five states and a third of U.S. counties with only one ObamaCare insurer — has led to the rapid deterioration in quality.
Black Book managing partner Douglas Brown says that the remaining plans "failed to congruently ramp up member services support to process claims, respond to enrollment issues, answer provider questions, denials, authorizations, and payment."
None of this, mind you, has anything to do with Republican calls to repeal ObamaCare, since insurers announced their massive rate hikes and their plans to abandon ObamaCare long before the November elections.
Meanwhile, lopsided enrollment in the exchanges means that ObamaCare is heading inexorably toward collapse, notes health insurance expert Robert Laszewski, who notes that "ObamaCare was self-destructing the day before Donald Trump was elected."
Laszewski writes that while ObamaCare continues to be a good bargain for those who get the maximum subsidies, enrollment levels collapse as soon as the subsidies start tapering off.
So, while 81% of those who make between 100% and 150% of the poverty level had enrolled last year, only 30% of those with incomes between 150% and 400% above the poverty line did. That means outside of the lowest income group, only the sickest people are buying ObamaCare in these other income brackets. (See chart.)
Seriously Stellar - if you don't get subsidies, why would you buy shitty exchange service?
-
I bet ksuw is pretty pumped the replacement is getting rid of subsidies and putting in "monthly depositable tax credits" aka cash benefits.
-
I bet ksuw is pretty pumped the replacement is getting rid of subsidies and putting in "monthly depositable tax credits" aka cash benefits.
Especially since they'll base it on age and completely eff risk pooling even more then the ACA. We haven't even seen a death spiral yet!
-
I'd actually prefer that the subsidies - tax credits are still a subsidy - be phased out entirely. As Trump said in his speech, the best way to expand coverage is to make it less expensive. I'm hoping there was some significance to someone inserting that line into his speech.
I truly believe that allowing a truly free healthcare market will make insurance cheaper. Make insurance cheaper and you don't need the subsidies. I'm not saying we pull the rug out from everyone who is currently getting a subsidy, but I'd prefer them to be phased out.
-
I'd actually prefer that the subsidies - tax credits are still a subsidy - be phased out entirely. As Trump said in his speech, the best way to expand coverage is to make it less expensive. I'm hoping there was some significance to someone inserting that line into his speech.
I truly believe that allowing a truly free healthcare market will make insurance cheaper. Make insurance cheaper and you don't need the subsidies. I'm not saying we pull the rug out from everyone who is currently getting a subsidy, but I'd prefer them to be phased out.
:lol:
-
I'd actually prefer that the subsidies - tax credits are still a subsidy - be phased out entirely. As Trump said in his speech, the best way to expand coverage is to make it less expensive. I'm hoping there was some significance to someone inserting that line into his speech.
I truly believe that allowing a truly free healthcare market will make insurance cheaper. Make insurance cheaper and you don't need the subsidies. I'm not saying we pull the rug out from everyone who is currently getting a subsidy, but I'd prefer them to be phased out.
A truly free healthcare market would make it cheaper for most people. By severely rationing care.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'd actually prefer that the subsidies - tax credits are still a subsidy - be phased out entirely. As Trump said in his speech, the best way to expand coverage is to make it less expensive. I'm hoping there was some significance to someone inserting that line into his speech.
I truly believe that allowing a truly free healthcare market will make insurance cheaper. Make insurance cheaper and you don't need the subsidies. I'm not saying we pull the rug out from everyone who is currently getting a subsidy, but I'd prefer them to be phased out.
A truly free healthcare market would make it cheaper for most people. By severely rationing care.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup that's what you see everywhere we have a free market - rationing. Bought a TV lately? Or food? Or damn near anything else?
You want rationing - take a look at Venezuela.
-
if the u.s. was serious about making health care cheaper, they would educate, or import, more health care workers.
-
I'd sign up
-
Pay for my nursing school and I'll be right there kicking my classmates ass and finishing top of my class.
-
if the u.s. was serious about making health care cheaper, they would educate, or import, more health care workers.
There are incentives in place to drive the education of health professionals. But, our (outdated) immigration policy focuses on reuniting families, not on prioritizing useful talent.
-
if the u.s. was serious about making health care cheaper, they would educate, or import, more health care workers.
There are incentives in place to drive the education of health professionals. But, our (outdated) immigration policy focuses on reuniting families, not on prioritizing useful talent.
I think we need classroom space more than incentives. And our immigration policy is very focused on prioritizing "useful talent".
-
the ama actively works to limit the number of people accepted to med school and to make it difficult for foreign-educated doctors to be accredited to work in the united states.
-
Yeah I learned about that when House was interviewing 40 candidates. Eastern European woman had to go to med school again in the US to practice. That's BS
-
I'd actually prefer that the subsidies - tax credits are still a subsidy - be phased out entirely. As Trump said in his speech, the best way to expand coverage is to make it less expensive. I'm hoping there was some significance to someone inserting that line into his speech.
I truly believe that allowing a truly free healthcare market will make insurance cheaper. Make insurance cheaper and you don't need the subsidies. I'm not saying we pull the rug out from everyone who is currently getting a subsidy, but I'd prefer them to be phased out.
A truly free healthcare market would make it cheaper for most people. By severely rationing care.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup that's what you see everywhere we have a free market - rationing. Bought a TV lately? Or food? Or damn near anything else?
You want rationing - take a look at Venezuela.
Venezuela is no doubt a mess but largely because they made a number of promises and policy decisions as a petrol state based on $100 bbl's
-
There are some things to like about the AHCA, but ultimately it needs serious improvement (and that is unlikely to happen).
President Trump said during his address to Congress that they key to making health insurance more accessible is to make it more affordable. That was absolutely right. But I'm not reading anything about this law that fixes the two biggest drivers of premiums: minimum coverage mandates and guaranteed issue.
You abolish the minimum coverage mandates by allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines. But that's not in this bill, as far as I can tell (despite the express promise of damn near every Republican). As for guaranteed issue - requiring insurers to insure people with preexisting conditions - the AHCA preserves it. As a disincentive, it allows a 30% premium increase - for one year - for people who let their coverage lapse. That's not a strong enough incentive to encourage people to maintain continuous coverage, and it's not going to raise nearly enough money to prevent the continuing rise in premiums from insuring sick people.
So while this is a marginal improvement over Obamacare, it falls far short of the reform we need. And it's unlikely to be improved much at all. The GOP strategy appears to be to craft a compromise bill that they can push through by a bare majority. As a result, it contains things that both conservatives and moderates hate. So this thing either blows up and we're stuck with Obamacare, or we get something only marginally better than Obamacare which the GOP now owns. That's an easy choice but not a very exciting one.
-
7 years to come up with a replacement and it's like they wrote it up over the weekend.
No ideas from Trumpublicans. It's kind of amazing how little they can get done. It's almost like they give no fucks about anyone that isn't related to them.
-
7 years to come up with a replacement and it's like they wrote it up over the weekend.
No ideas from Trumpublicans. It's kind of amazing how little they can get done. It's almost like they give no fucks about anyone that isn't related to them.
There isn't much they can do, obamacare is fairly popular and they know it
-
BREAKING NEWS, libtards are upset Republicans are fixing broken down obamacare! Coping mechanisms may include: butt hurt, unbridled outrage, irrational and illogical commentary, increased levels of delusion and denial, and false statements.
-
Trumpublican healthcare: give up your iphone and you can afford our healthcare*
*only valid if you are paying $900/mo for your iphone
-
BREAKING NEWS, libtards are upset Republicans are fixing broken down obamacare! Coping mechanisms may include: butt hurt, unbridled outrage, irrational and illogical commentary, increased levels of delusion and denial, and false statements.
if fixed then great
no butthurt here
-
watching the press briefing I love the talking point that somehow by having only 60 some odd pages in the health bill it is inherently better
Spicer literally took time to say there plan was big ours is much smaller.
:confused:
-
The 30% premium penalty thing is laughably dumb. That is an incredibly small price to pay in the event that a person develops a serious condition. The whole effing point was to try and force as many people as possible to get health insurance. They took Obamacare and made it worse.
-
Trumpublican healthcare: give up your iphone and you can afford our healthcare*
*only valid if you are paying $900/mo for your iphone
Yeah, pretty clear Jason Chaffetz has no idea how much health insurance costs.
-
oh man keeps touching/referring to size of piles of paper
-
KS really effed up by not expanding medicare huh
:frown:
-
I know nothing about what makes good / bad healthcare...seem to me a civilized gov't plan would do the following:
- ensure all Americans could be covered
- no lifetime maximums
- coverage basic life events
- Use whatever doc/hospital/etc you want
- all at an affordable price
Note: All of these things probably aren't going to happen if you cater to all the health insurance companies retain every bit of profits they can.
-
I know nothing about what makes good / bad healthcare...seem to me a civilized gov't plan would do the following:
- ensure all Americans could be covered
- no lifetime maximums
- coverage basic life events
- Use whatever doc/hospital/etc you want
- all at an affordable price
Note: All of these things probably aren't going to happen if you cater to all the health insurance companies retain every bit of profits they can.
Its not so much the insurance companies, per se, as they're basically a pass through that skims a percentage for administration, reserves, and profits. You can't subsidize the demand side and ignore the cost side (providers/pharma) and expect the system to not get out of whack. Its essentially the student loan/college cost increases problem except infinitely larger and more complex.
-
7 years to come up with a replacement and it's like they wrote it up over the weekend.
No ideas from Trumpublicans. It's kind of amazing how little they can get done. It's almost like they give no fucks about anyone that isn't related to them.
There isn't much they can do, obamacare is fairly popular and they know it
Yeah it's about 50/50 for and against, largely along political lines, which is amazingly low for an entitlement. Of the people surveyed who are actually on Obamacare, satisfaction is abysmal. Something like 5-1 disapproval.
-
People have like a 5-1 disapproval of insurance before the aca so that doesn't really mean anything
-
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/858980064049942528
-
It's not a house, it's a lifestyle.
-
A cbo score would just hurt feelings
-
The amount of hope that people are pinning on the Senate not passing this thing is distressing.
The Democrats aren't going to re-take the House.
https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/860209082388578304
-
The new law isn't terrible tbh
-
Nevermind, yeah it is
-
I am scared.about the details.
-
i'm going to invest all my health care savings into that litecoin thing TBT was talking about
-
Bitcare
-
The amount of hope that people are pinning on the Senate not passing this thing is distressing.
The Democrats aren't going to re-take the House.
they are mutually unlikely (voters aren't going to care what the house voted on if it doesn't become law), but not individually unlikely.
-
The amount of hope that people are pinning on the Senate not passing this thing is distressing.
The Democrats aren't going to re-take the House.
https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/860209082388578304
That was embarrassing on so many levels. Pelosi is such a dumbfuck
-
So after the new Trumpcare suppresses rape reporting, Trump will claim he personally reduced the number of rapes.
-
I think the senate will do w/e to tweak it and punt it back to the house, who will then pass it, and then it'll pass senate.
IDK if the dems will retake the house or not, they'll at least have a lot of firepower to work with if they can leverage it properly, can they get enough to change the closer districts.
I hate Pelosi as a person btw, just cause I lean left doesn't mean I can't find her an insufferably smug bitch.
More legislation to help the rich and kick the nuts in of the poor. Oh well
-
Good day for people who don't give a crap about other people.
https://twitter.com/robdelaney/status/860164896507473921
-
Paging anyone to explain to us how this is better....why bring back the pre exisiting co ditions thing except for I Durance companies want it
-
This makes some improvements, but it not a really good bill by any stretch. That is because the GOP lacked the intelligence and courage to scrap the filibuster and start from scratch. So we're left with carving out chunks of Obamacare while keeping some of its framework in place, which may help (or maybe not) but it sure looks ugly.
Again, it bears repeating, repeatedly, that if you supported the liberals who rammed through Obamacare, you don't get to complain about this. When you start the fire, you don't get to complain when the volunteer fire brigade demolishes your house putting it out.
-
Why didn't they just repeal obamacare fully? I thought that's what Republicans ran on?
-
I like ksuw's stance that if you supported Obamacare you can't complain when it's repealed.
It's Ron prince bold
-
Welp, at least O mercked Osamas ass
-
This makes some improvements, but it not a really good bill by any stretch. That is because the GOP lacked the intelligence and courage to scrap the filibuster and start from scratch. So we're left with carving out chunks of Obamacare while keeping some of its framework in place, which may help (or maybe not) but it sure looks ugly.
Again, it bears repeating, repeatedly, that if you supported the liberals who rammed through Obamacare, you don't get to complain about this. When you start the fire, you don't get to complain when the volunteer fire brigade demolishes your house putting it out.
your post is as coherent as anyone can muster in defense of this monstrosity.
the only positive is it may finally lead us to Medicare for all.
-
the only positive is it may finally lead us to Medicare for all.
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/860288221472804865
-
Closet obamacare supporters out in full force!
I'm glad the pubs finally figured out they can do whatever the eff they want because obamacare gave them a perpetual majority and their counterparty is a bunch of raving lunatics with zero credibility.
It's fun to watch.
-
I like ksuw's stance that if you supported Obamacare you can't complain when it's repealed.
It's Ron prince bold
Two problems here: First, if you supported Obamacare, and more importantly, if you still support Obamacare as premiums rise and the exchanges implode, you're a dumbass. Second, this bill does not repeal Obamacare - just pieces of it, sort of.
-
the only positive is it may finally lead us to Medicare for all.
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/860288221472804865
outside of the FSD sock I think basically everyone wants this
-
Why didn't they just repeal obamacare fully? I thought that's what Republicans ran on?
The honest answer is that these people aren't terribly bright, or bold. They claimed that Senate parliamentary procedures ("reconciliation") only allowed portions of Obamacare to be repealed (mainly the taxes) with 51 votes, and they would need 60 to override a filibuster for the rest of the repeal. That's not a very convincing argument, nor is it really a good excuse.
-
the only positive is it may finally lead us to Medicare for all.
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/860288221472804865
outside of the FSD sock I think basically everyone wants this
Only morons want VA/Medicaid for all. Or else only morons don't realize that's what single payer healthcare would be. Either way, theyre morons. Don't be one. Stop trying to eff up the quality of healthcare by making it "free." Eventually you're going to get old and actually need it.
-
the only positive is it may finally lead us to Medicare for all.
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/860288221472804865
outside of the FSD sock I think basically everyone wants this
Only morons want VA/Medicaid for all. Or else only morons don't realize that's what single payer healthcare would be. Either way, theyre morons. Don't be one. Stop trying to eff up the quality of healthcare by making it "free." Eventually you're going to get old and actually need it.
ok i guess it's the FSD sock and KSUW but everyone else
-
Lol, ksuw is very funny
-
Yeah once you're out of the womb you're on your own, start a business or something.
-
I think AIDS might still be more popular than state-run health care.
:lol:
Let these weirdos and their ignorance and delusion drift further into the leftist fringe. Nobody is paying them any attention
-
I'm a pretty reasonable person and idk if I want single payer
-
Still waiting to hear how this improved anything. ...Obamacare needed help...how did this do that?
-
I like ksuw's stance that if you supported Obamacare you can't complain when it's repealed.
It's Ron prince bold
Two problems here: First, if you supported Obamacare, and more importantly, if you still support Obamacare as premiums rise and the exchanges implode, you're a dumbass. Second, this bill does not repeal Obamacare - just pieces of it, sort of.
Hey, here's a brain buster for you:
What if I thought Obamacare was not very good, but this is way worse?
-
I don't see how premiums are going to go down when we get rid of the individual mandate. Wasn't the mandate in place to try to keep premiums down?
-
What is the perfect model for health care that Republicans actually want?
It is perpetual bitching about how Democrats ruin everything and if they were just in charge they would solve all the problems with premiums, with pre-existing conditions leading to denied coverage, with the onerous regulations and restrictions on inter-state insurance pools etc.
What is the vision? Where is the already existing example of this magical wonderland of healthcare that is accessible, market-based and affordable?
There is not a single example in the world and the United States consistently has one of the worst health care records based on cost and quality of care for our children and our poor.
There are lots of models of single-payer that can be discussed and debated, but everyone knows that "freedom of choice" in healthcare means "paying out of pocket" and provides just as much freedom as any other commodity, except with more asymmetry of information than any other transaction you will ever make and your life in the balance. It is absurd on its face.
-
I don't see how premiums are going to go down when we get rid of the individual mandate. Wasn't the mandate in place to try to keep premiums down?
It was mainly there so people would get insurance, actually that was the whole point of obamacare
-
:love: I love it when you guys talk health insurance.
-
What is the perfect model for health care that Republicans actually want?
It is perpetual bitching about how Democrats ruin everything and if they were just in charge they would solve all the problems with premiums, with pre-existing conditions leading to denied coverage, with the onerous regulations and restrictions on inter-state insurance pools etc.
What is the vision? Where is the already existing example of this magical wonderland of healthcare that is accessible, market-based and affordable?
There is not a single example in the world and the United States consistently has one of the worst health care records based on cost and quality of care for our children and our poor.
There are lots of models of single-payer that can be discussed and debated, but everyone knows that "freedom of choice" in healthcare means "paying out of pocket" and provides just as much freedom as any other commodity, except with more asymmetry of information than any other transaction you will ever make and your life in the balance. It is absurd on its face.
I can assure you your quality of care will get worse w single payer (unless you're currently uninsured)
-
What is the perfect model for health care that Republicans actually want?
It is perpetual bitching about how Democrats ruin everything and if they were just in charge they would solve all the problems with premiums, with pre-existing conditions leading to denied coverage, with the onerous regulations and restrictions on inter-state insurance pools etc.
What is the vision? Where is the already existing example of this magical wonderland of healthcare that is accessible, market-based and affordable?
There is not a single example in the world and the United States consistently has one of the worst health care records based on cost and quality of care for our children and our poor.
There are lots of models of single-payer that can be discussed and debated, but everyone knows that "freedom of choice" in healthcare means "paying out of pocket" and provides just as much freedom as any other commodity, except with more asymmetry of information than any other transaction you will ever make and your life in the balance. It is absurd on its face.
Healthcare is not significantly different from anything else we buy on the free market. The idea that we need a middle man to make our purchasing decisions for us - whether that is the government or an insurance company - and that this will somehow make it better quality and less expensive is extremely foolish.
-
Insurance companies (of any kind) are far from mere middle men. But go on about extremely foolish ideas.
-
:lol:
-
I don't see how premiums are going to go down when we get rid of the individual mandate. Wasn't the mandate in place to try to keep premiums down?
Yes, but it obviously didn't work. Because even with the mandate in place, millions of healthy, young people needed to subsidize the sick still weren't buying it. They were paying the penalty instead (or just not filing tax returns and not even paying the penalty).
The GOP approach is to reduce premiums is twofold:
First, the current bill allocates about $130 billion to states to set up "high risk pools" for folks with chronic health problems, which will help provide affordable coverage to them while allowing the states to allow insurance companies to once again price policies based upon age and health (you know - like how all other insurance works). That one-size fits all pricing is known as "community rating" and it is going away. That will reduce premiums for the young and healthy, which means they may actually buy policies, which in turn further helps reduce premiums for everyone.
Second, the bill has not abolished "guaranteed issue" - meaning insurers cannot deny coverage based upon preexisting conditions - but I believe the current version allows states to trim back those protections in that you have to maintain continuous coverage. You can't just let your coverage lapse and wait to get sick. This will also help.
In reality, the current bill probably doesn't go far enough regarding either of the two issues, so I'm not at all confident this will meaningfully reduce premiums. Also, note that in both cases I said "allow the states." It will be left up to individual states to decide what they want to do. So I seriously doubt we're going to see any reduction at all in blue states.
-
Bitcare
Is this something I can invest in?
-
Insurance companies (of any kind) are far from mere middle men. But go on about extremely foolish ideas.
Yeah they're a lot worse. So you know what we should do? Replace all those insurance companies with the federal government. Awesome idea!!
-
Senate shouldn't even bother with this bill and just rewrite a new one
-
Insurance companies (of any kind) are far from mere middle men. But go on about extremely foolish ideas.
Yeah they're a lot worse. So you know what we should do? Replace all those insurance companies with the federal government. Awesome idea!!
Do you really not understand the basic concept of insurance and risk? You really sound like you don't.
-
He doesn't
-
What is the perfect model for health care that Republicans actually want?
It is perpetual bitching about how Democrats ruin everything and if they were just in charge they would solve all the problems with premiums, with pre-existing conditions leading to denied coverage, with the onerous regulations and restrictions on inter-state insurance pools etc.
What is the vision? Where is the already existing example of this magical wonderland of healthcare that is accessible, market-based and affordable?
There is not a single example in the world and the United States consistently has one of the worst health care records based on cost and quality of care for our children and our poor.
There are lots of models of single-payer that can be discussed and debated, but everyone knows that "freedom of choice" in healthcare means "paying out of pocket" and provides just as much freedom as any other commodity, except with more asymmetry of information than any other transaction you will ever make and your life in the balance. It is absurd on its face.
Healthcare is not significantly different from anything else we buy on the free market. The idea that we need a middle man to make our purchasing decisions for us - whether that is the government or an insurance company - and that this will somehow make it better quality and less expensive is extremely foolish.
What are you talking about?! I have to think you are smart enough that you are just being incredibly dishonest here.
When you have a sick kid, do you immediately start shopping around for the cheapest doc? Do you get to the doctor's office after consulting WebMD and then start ordering off the menu for which services you will consume?
Like, what are you even talking about?
-
Insurance companies (of any kind) are far from mere middle men. But go on about extremely foolish ideas.
Yeah they're a lot worse. So you know what we should do? Replace all those insurance companies with the federal government. Awesome idea!!
Do you really not understand the basic concept of insurance and risk? You really sound like you don't.
Sure do. I can pretty much guarantee that while I am by no means an expert, I know a lot more about this issue than you.
-
What is the perfect model for health care that Republicans actually want?
It is perpetual bitching about how Democrats ruin everything and if they were just in charge they would solve all the problems with premiums, with pre-existing conditions leading to denied coverage, with the onerous regulations and restrictions on inter-state insurance pools etc.
What is the vision? Where is the already existing example of this magical wonderland of healthcare that is accessible, market-based and affordable?
There is not a single example in the world and the United States consistently has one of the worst health care records based on cost and quality of care for our children and our poor.
There are lots of models of single-payer that can be discussed and debated, but everyone knows that "freedom of choice" in healthcare means "paying out of pocket" and provides just as much freedom as any other commodity, except with more asymmetry of information than any other transaction you will ever make and your life in the balance. It is absurd on its face.
Healthcare is not significantly different from anything else we buy on the free market. The idea that we need a middle man to make our purchasing decisions for us - whether that is the government or an insurance company - and that this will somehow make it better quality and less expensive is extremely foolish.
What are you talking about?! I have to think you are smart enough that you are just being incredibly dishonest here.
When you have a sick kid, do you immediately start shopping around for the cheapest doc? Do you get to the doctor's office after consulting WebMD and then start ordering off the menu for which services you will consume?
Like, what are you even talking about?
Like, I'm talking about this. Like, if it's a real emergency, you go to the ER or Urgent Care. That's what insurance is for. But like, if you think he's got strep, you pay for the doctor visit and some meds. Like, you think health insurance is somehow magically different from other insurance because that's how you've been conditioned to consume it. Only it didn't used to be this way, and doesn't need to be this way.
Anyway, got lots of errands to do today. Gotta go get an oil change. Not really sure how much it will cost - that's for the insurance to figure out. Also gotta finally fix that leaky faucet. I'll just hand my home insurance card to the plumber. Thankfully my employer provides good auto and home insurance for me or I'd never be able to afford the massive premiums. I wonder why this insurance is so damned expensive?!
-
He just compared health insurance coverage to an oil change. No need to engage with him any further.
-
He just compared health insurance coverage to an oil change. No need to engage with him any further.
No, I compared an annual physical to an oil change. I compared health insurance to car insurance.
-
Insurance companies (of any kind) are far from mere middle men. But go on about extremely foolish ideas.
Yeah they're a lot worse. So you know what we should do? Replace all those insurance companies with the federal government. Awesome idea!!
Do you really not understand the basic concept of insurance and risk? You really sound like you don't.
Sure do. I can pretty much guarantee that while I am by no means an expert, I know a lot more about this issue than you.
In one way or another, I've worked for health insurance companies for over ten years. From 2013-2016, I worked with a company to implement plans on the Health Insurance Exchange. You are extremely confused about pretty much everything.
-
Not 100% sue KSUW knows that medical procedures are priced off of locations and market. There is no need to shop your procedure.
-
What is the perfect model for health care that Republicans actually want?
It is perpetual bitching about how Democrats ruin everything and if they were just in charge they would solve all the problems with premiums, with pre-existing conditions leading to denied coverage, with the onerous regulations and restrictions on inter-state insurance pools etc.
What is the vision? Where is the already existing example of this magical wonderland of healthcare that is accessible, market-based and affordable?
There is not a single example in the world and the United States consistently has one of the worst health care records based on cost and quality of care for our children and our poor.
There are lots of models of single-payer that can be discussed and debated, but everyone knows that "freedom of choice" in healthcare means "paying out of pocket" and provides just as much freedom as any other commodity, except with more asymmetry of information than any other transaction you will ever make and your life in the balance. It is absurd on its face.
Healthcare is not significantly different from anything else we buy on the free market. The idea that we need a middle man to make our purchasing decisions for us - whether that is the government or an insurance company - and that this will somehow make it better quality and less expensive is extremely foolish.
What are you talking about?! I have to think you are smart enough that you are just being incredibly dishonest here.
When you have a sick kid, do you immediately start shopping around for the cheapest doc? Do you get to the doctor's office after consulting WebMD and then start ordering off the menu for which services you will consume?
Like, what are you even talking about?
Like, I'm talking about this. Like, if it's a real emergency, you go to the ER or Urgent Care. That's what insurance is for. But like, if you think he's got strep, you pay for the doctor visit and some meds. Like, you think health insurance is somehow magically different from other insurance because that's how you've been conditioned to consume it. Only it didn't used to be this way, and doesn't need to be this way.
Anyway, got lots of errands to do today. Gotta go get an oil change. Not really sure how much it will cost - that's for the insurance to figure out. Also gotta finally fix that leaky faucet. I'll just hand my home insurance card to the plumber. Thankfully my employer provides good auto and home insurance for me or I'd never be able to afford the massive premiums. I wonder why this insurance is so damned expensive?!
My son's implanted diagnostic computer was broken so I had to stay in the hospital until they could figure out what was wrong with him. Only one hospital in town so I wasn't able to shop around. They just assigned me docs and nurses, that definitely took away a lot of my choices.
Definitely would've been much simpler if my first step in my health care decision matrix was to consult yelp reviews to figure out my health care dream team and then begin negotiating prices for services with them. Don't hesitate to walk out of the hospital if you don't like their quote and take your business down the road.
-
Everything KSUW has said ITT makes so much more sense now
-
What is the perfect model for health care that Republicans actually want?
It is perpetual bitching about how Democrats ruin everything and if they were just in charge they would solve all the problems with premiums, with pre-existing conditions leading to denied coverage, with the onerous regulations and restrictions on inter-state insurance pools etc.
What is the vision? Where is the already existing example of this magical wonderland of healthcare that is accessible, market-based and affordable?
There is not a single example in the world and the United States consistently has one of the worst health care records based on cost and quality of care for our children and our poor.
There are lots of models of single-payer that can be discussed and debated, but everyone knows that "freedom of choice" in healthcare means "paying out of pocket" and provides just as much freedom as any other commodity, except with more asymmetry of information than any other transaction you will ever make and your life in the balance. It is absurd on its face.
Maybe if democrats stopped rough ridin' everything up they'd have some kind of power outside of lifetime appointment circuit court judges, and the republicans would have less to bitch about.
Passing a healthcare monstrocity doomed to fail within 10 years on party line votes and the resulting fallout obviously is bad policy. Undoing portions of that mess is fine.
-
Everything KSUW has said ITT makes so much more sense now
Kinda like when someone who doesn't understand addition is trying to explain calculus.
-
Insurance companies (of any kind) are far from mere middle men. But go on about extremely foolish ideas.
Yeah they're a lot worse. So you know what we should do? Replace all those insurance companies with the federal government. Awesome idea!!
Do you really not understand the basic concept of insurance and risk? You really sound like you don't.
Lol at a libtard attempting to make this point. Health insurance is an inalienable right! Dump the sick into the risk pools! Make the healthy decide between a de minimis fine or carrying absurdly expensive dog crap healthcare to even things out!
:lol:
-
Health Care is a universal right, health insurance is a means to the end. I would be in favor of effectively eliminating insurance as currently organized.
These basic misunderstandings betray either a deep cynicism (my suspicion) or a deep ignorance of what we are discussing.
-
I also really hope we have a good ol' fashioned credential off with chum and ksuw.
-
Health Care is a universal right, health insurance is a means to the end. I would be in favor of effectively eliminating insurance as currently organized.
These basic misunderstandings betray either a deep cynicism (my suspicion) or a deep ignorance of what we are discussing.
Idk if a service being provided to you should be considered a universal right.
-
Health Care is a universal right, health insurance is a means to the end. I would be in favor of effectively eliminating insurance as currently organized.
These basic misunderstandings betray either a deep cynicism (my suspicion) or a deep ignorance of what we are discussing.
Idk if a service being provided to you should be considered a universal right.
I mean, I pay a water bill each month.
-
Would love to see a list of universal rights, fascinating
-
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Don't think it is a stretch to put health care under Life.
-
Guns, don't forget guns
-
grazing my cows on government land too.
-
Btw, people do have a right to healthcare, just not free healthcare (bc it's not free, it's actually quite expensive)
-
I think that's why they called it the Affordable Care Act and not the Free Care Act.
-
I think that's why they called it the Affordable Care Act and not the Free Care Act.
They should have called it the Expanding Medicaid While Premiums Go UP UP UP For Everyone Else Act.
-
EMWPGUUUFEEA
-
I also really hope we have a good ol' fashioned credential off with chum and ksuw.
won't happen. ksu is just smart enough to know that he's also pretty stupid. he won't engage.
-
Btw, people do have a right to healthcare, just not free healthcare (bc it's not free, it's actually quite expensive)
Single Payer ain't free bruh
-
I also really hope we have a good ol' fashioned credential off with chum and ksuw.
won't happen. ksu is just smart enough to know that he's also pretty stupid. he won't engage.
Meh, not worth the pissing match. I'm still not sure what I said that was so controversial. The idea that health care is not some unique service that we absolutely have to use a third party to pay for? The idea that health insurance ought to be utilized the same as car and home insurance? The idea that we especially don't want the federal government filling that role as the purchaser of healthcare? The idea they already are for Medicaid and VA and it blows goats? This isn't controversial stuff.
-
Tapout noted.
-
I also really hope we have a good ol' fashioned credential off with chum and ksuw.
won't happen. ksu is just smart enough to know that he's also pretty stupid. he won't engage.
Meh, not worth the pissing match.
nailed it.
-
https://twitter.com/tobamann/status/860243587690369025
-
Tapout noted.
The funny thing is, I asked a lot of questions and never got any answers. Doesn't seem like a "tap out" but arguing with liberals is a kinda weird like that.
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
-
Liberals smdh
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.
-
Tapout noted.
The funny thing is, I asked a lot of questions and never got any answers. Doesn't seem like a "tap out" but arguing with liberals is a kinda weird like that.
I thought you were an expert on this stuff why would you need to ask US questions :confused:
-
Libtards just got clownsuited itt.
Stop being so rough ridin' desperate, jfc.
-
if legendary hall of fame head coach snyderman is against this bill, then it really gives the rest of us little choice.
-
if legendary hall of fame head coach snyderman is against this bill, then it really gives the rest of us little choice.
His boy is totally behind the bill.
-
I also really hope we have a good ol' fashioned credential off with chum and ksuw.
Catching up. Me too.
-
I also really hope we have a good ol' fashioned credential off with chum and ksuw.
Catching up. Me too.
Disappointed. You made a claim ksu and then you were challenged.
-
I'm to the point that I no longer care about the short- and medium-term costs. We need a comprehensive, full-fledged, (expensive), redesign of the entire healthcare delivery system. I realize political realities make that vision seem nearly impossible to attain. But in my America, "impossible" is just an excuse. Let's do it, everybody. I'm 100% behind this, as long as I still get to keep my Cadillac plan.
-
What legal ramifications would this mindset have?
-
What legal ramifications would this mindset have?
This is about the political branches of the government. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.
-
Sometimes you need to burn it down and start from scratch.
-
What legal ramifications would this mindset have?
This is about the political branches of the government. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.
Funny here I thought all along the Judiciary made sure the political branches were compliant with the law. Guess you learn something new everyday.
-
if legendary hall of fame head coach snyderman is against this bill, then it really gives the rest of us little choice.
His boy is totally behind the bill.
calling LHCBS Schneider was the go to move for a number of Nebraska fans in the early days of the inter-webs :cyclist:
-
I'm to the point that I no longer care about the short- and medium-term costs. We need a comprehensive, full-fledged, (expensive), redesign of the entire healthcare delivery system. I realize political realities make that vision seem nearly impossible to attain. But in my America, "impossible" is just an excuse. Let's do it, everybody. I'm 100% behind this, as long as I still get to keep my Cadillac plan.
:thumbs:
-
What legal ramifications would this mindset have?
This is about the political branches of the government. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.
Funny here I thought all along the Judiciary made sure the political branches were compliant with the law. Guess you learn something new everyday.
Well, in that case I'm happy to correct the failings of your high school civics teacher. What judges do is decide concrete disputes between parties to litigation. Their job is to apply the law that already exists to cases or controversies and determine which side is entitled to prevail. This--the future of healthcare in America--is a question of policy, which rightly belongs to the policymaking branch of government. Lawmakers make laws. Judges interpret laws. They are duty-bound to effectuate the will of the people, as expressed through their representatives. And on rare occasions, the will of the people conflicts with the Constitution, in which case the supreme law must win. That's because the states, when they ratified the Constitution, agreed to surrender some of their sovereignty in exchange for membership in the Union. But as a practical matter, judges only do that which is judicial. They do not get to decide which laws they are to interpret. Congress is free to pass a new law that would change the outcome of an already-pending court case, too. It happens all the time.
-
What legal ramifications would this mindset have?
This is about the political branches of the government. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.
Funny here I thought all along the Judiciary made sure the political branches were compliant with the law. Guess you learn something new everyday.
Well, in that case I'm happy to correct the failings of your high school civics teacher. What judges do is decide concrete disputes between parties to litigation. Their job is to apply the law that already exists to cases or controversies and determine which side is entitled to prevail. This--the future of healthcare in America--is a question of policy, which rightly belongs to the policymaking branch of government. Lawmakers make laws. Judges interpret laws. They are duty-bound to effectuate the will of the people, as expressed through their representatives. And on rare occasions, the will of the people conflicts with the Constitution, in which case the supreme law must win. That's because the states, when they ratified the Constitution, agreed to surrender some of their sovereignty in exchange for membership in the Union. But as a practical matter, judges only do that which is judicial. They do not get to decide which laws they are to interpret. Congress is free to pass a new law that would change the outcome of an already-pending court case, too. It happens all the time.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Fnewsfeed%2F000%2F645%2F757%2F395.gif&hash=5f3682f25ba03afee469984f7a888fa4cda92ec6)
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.
When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.
When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?
I think the proper anaolgy is, if you're allergic to MSG, should the government have the power to force you to eat at a Chinese buffet or else pay a penalty? The Little Sisters case was about the conflict between religious freedom and the (already constitutionally dubious) government mandate to buy something.
-
If we've learned anything, it is that Democrats passing a Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare plan was a disastrous miscalculation of the benefits of compromise and process in our political landscape.
At this point, I hope the Democratic leadership gets primary'd. Medicare for All or hit the bricks Pelosi.
-
Yes, the democrats are a disaster and should not be elected ever. Fortunately they're spiralling towards a fringy ultra-left neo-fascist nonexistence.
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.
When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?
I think the proper anaolgy is, if you're allergic to MSG, should the government have the power to force you to eat at a Chinese buffet or else pay a penalty? The Little Sisters case was about the conflict between religious freedom and the (already constitutionally dubious) government mandate to buy something.
no. in your analogy, every medical procedure requires mandated implementation of birth control. you do realize that buying health insurance that covers birth control and buying birth control are two very different things, right? no one is holding down sister mary and forcing her to swallow birth control pills.
-
That's why a buffet is $13 for piles of slop. Great analogy.
-
That's why a buffet is $13 for piles of slop. Great analogy.
T&Ps re: your buffet situation. The lunch buffet at the Indian spot near me is rough ridin' heavenly.
-
I'm to the point that I no longer care about the short- and medium-term costs. We need a comprehensive, full-fledged, (expensive), redesign of the entire healthcare delivery system. I realize political realities make that vision seem nearly impossible to attain. But in my America, "impossible" is just an excuse. Let's do it, everybody. I'm 100% behind this, as long as I still get to keep my Cadillac plan.
:thumbs:
:thumbs: :thumbs:
Senate says they will do this....I don't believe them but hopeful.
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.
When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?
I think the proper anaolgy is, if you're allergic to MSG, should the government have the power to force you to eat at a Chinese buffet or else pay a penalty? The Little Sisters case was about the conflict between religious freedom and the (already constitutionally dubious) government mandate to buy something.
no. in your analogy, every medical procedure requires mandated implementation of birth control. you do realize that buying health insurance that covers birth control and buying birth control are two very different things, right? no one is holding down sister mary and forcing her to swallow birth control pills.
I take your point, but you're missing mine. The problem is government compulsion. The nuns shouldn't be forced to eat at the buffet, period, if they disagree with something the buffet is serving or otherwise don't like the restaurant. You're saying "you've gotta eat at this buffet, you just don't have eat that dish." I'm saying who the fed are you to force her to eat there period? When did liberals stop caring about freedom?
-
Bc everyone will require healthcare at some point. there needs to be a mechanism to pay for that care. People should not be allowed to be uninsured.
-
Bc everyone will require healthcare at some point. there needs to be a mechanism to pay for that care. People should not be allowed to be uninsured.
They didn't have a problem with that. They had a problem paying for something they neither needed nor morally agreed with.
-
Bc everyone will require healthcare at some point. there needs to be a mechanism to pay for that care. People should not be allowed to be uninsured.
They didn't have a problem with that. They had a problem paying for something they neither needed nor morally agreed with.
Apparently they don't understand how health insurance works
-
Don't need health insurance according to drudge. Eat boogers. Healthy guts and teeth is the outcome.
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.
When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?
I think the proper anaolgy is, if you're allergic to MSG, should the government have the power to force you to eat at a Chinese buffet or else pay a penalty? The Little Sisters case was about the conflict between religious freedom and the (already constitutionally dubious) government mandate to buy something.
no. in your analogy, every medical procedure requires mandated implementation of birth control. you do realize that buying health insurance that covers birth control and buying birth control are two very different things, right? no one is holding down sister mary and forcing her to swallow birth control pills.
I take your point, but you're missing mine. The problem is government compulsion. The nuns shouldn't be forced to eat at the buffet, period, if they disagree with something the buffet is serving or otherwise don't like the restaurant. You're saying "you've gotta eat at this buffet, you just don't have eat that dish." I'm saying who the fed are you to force her to eat there period? When did liberals stop caring about freedom?
And, you have to pay a premium for all this disgusting over priced slop that you wouldn't ever eat, so these disgusting obese cigarette smoking assholes can have some for free.
-
Don't need health insurance according to drudge. Eat boogers. Healthy guts and teeth is the outcome.
There was plenty of health insurance that didn't include coverage for birth control. Until Obamacare.
-
If we've learned anything, it is that Democrats passing a Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare plan was a disastrous miscalculation of the benefits of compromise and process in our political landscape.
At this point, I hope the Democratic leadership gets primary'd. Medicare for All or hit the bricks Pelosi.
I've never understood why any intelligent person would want to be on Medicaid themselves, let alone force the entire country onto it. Are liberals so obsessed with equality of outcome that they're fine with equally shitty?
-
If we've learned anything, it is that Democrats passing a Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare plan was a disastrous miscalculation of the benefits of compromise and process in our political landscape.
At this point, I hope the Democratic leadership gets primary'd. Medicare for All or hit the bricks Pelosi.
I've never understood why any intelligent person would want to be on Medicaid themselves, let alone force the entire country onto it. Are liberals so obsessed with equality of outcome that they're fine with equally shitty?
Do you think that the pre-Obamacare United States was the only successful model of health care in the world?
-
Cue the some 6 million person all white european country where people can barely afford food has a great state healthcare system albatross.
-
Do the nuns get pissed if viagra is covered?
-
If we've learned anything, it is that Democrats passing a Heritage Foundation/RomneyCare plan was a disastrous miscalculation of the benefits of compromise and process in our political landscape.
At this point, I hope the Democratic leadership gets primary'd. Medicare for All or hit the bricks Pelosi.
I've never understood why any intelligent person would want to be on Medicaid themselves, let alone force the entire country onto it. Are liberals so obsessed with equality of outcome that they're fine with equally shitty?
Do you think that the pre-Obamacare United States was the only successful model of health care in the world?
I would not describe pre-Obamacare US HC as "successful." Obamacare just took existing problems, chiefly the over-reliance upon health insurance as our HC delivery model, and put them on steroids.
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.
When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?
I think the proper anaolgy is, if you're allergic to MSG, should the government have the power to force you to eat at a Chinese buffet or else pay a penalty? The Little Sisters case was about the conflict between religious freedom and the (already constitutionally dubious) government mandate to buy something.
no. in your analogy, every medical procedure requires mandated implementation of birth control. you do realize that buying health insurance that covers birth control and buying birth control are two very different things, right? no one is holding down sister mary and forcing her to swallow birth control pills.
I take your point, but you're missing mine. The problem is government compulsion. The nuns shouldn't be forced to eat at the buffet, period, if they disagree with something the buffet is serving or otherwise don't like the restaurant. You're saying "you've gotta eat at this buffet, you just don't have eat that dish." I'm saying who the fed are you to force her to eat there period? When did liberals stop caring about freedom?
And, you have to pay a premium for all this disgusting over priced slop that you wouldn't ever eat, so these disgusting obese cigarette smoking assholes can have some for free.
poor people are disgusting and it's their fault they are poor and disgusting. got it.
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.
When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?
I think the proper anaolgy is, if you're allergic to MSG, should the government have the power to force you to eat at a Chinese buffet or else pay a penalty? The Little Sisters case was about the conflict between religious freedom and the (already constitutionally dubious) government mandate to buy something.
no. in your analogy, every medical procedure requires mandated implementation of birth control. you do realize that buying health insurance that covers birth control and buying birth control are two very different things, right? no one is holding down sister mary and forcing her to swallow birth control pills.
I take your point, but you're missing mine. The problem is government compulsion. The nuns shouldn't be forced to eat at the buffet, period, if they disagree with something the buffet is serving or otherwise don't like the restaurant. You're saying "you've gotta eat at this buffet, you just don't have eat that dish." I'm saying who the fed are you to force her to eat there period? When did liberals stop caring about freedom?
No, I get what you are saying - I just don't think it's a valid point. The gov't compels me to pay taxes specifically for the school districts that I live in, and yet I don't have any kids. But I think that it's better that those schools are well-funded instead of the alternative, so I don't complain. I view healthcare the same way. Just because I don't need a particular service doesn't mean that I don't reap the benefits of living in a society where that service is offered.
-
Basically everything I've been saying, but this time it's in the NYT so maybe liberals will be convinced.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/opinion/what-the-republican-health-plan-gets-right.html (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/opinion/what-the-republican-health-plan-gets-right.html)
-
I have elderly relatives who go to the doctor because they are bored. Like 3-4 times a week. How to stop that?
-
https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088
I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?
He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.
In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.
When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?
I think the proper anaolgy is, if you're allergic to MSG, should the government have the power to force you to eat at a Chinese buffet or else pay a penalty? The Little Sisters case was about the conflict between religious freedom and the (already constitutionally dubious) government mandate to buy something.
no. in your analogy, every medical procedure requires mandated implementation of birth control. you do realize that buying health insurance that covers birth control and buying birth control are two very different things, right? no one is holding down sister mary and forcing her to swallow birth control pills.
I take your point, but you're missing mine. The problem is government compulsion. The nuns shouldn't be forced to eat at the buffet, period, if they disagree with something the buffet is serving or otherwise don't like the restaurant. You're saying "you've gotta eat at this buffet, you just don't have eat that dish." I'm saying who the fed are you to force her to eat there period? When did liberals stop caring about freedom?
No, I get what you are saying - I just don't think it's a valid point. The gov't compels me to pay taxes specifically for the school districts that I live in, and yet I don't have any kids. But I think that it's better that those schools are well-funded instead of the alternative, so I don't complain. I view healthcare the same way. Just because I don't need a particular service doesn't mean that I don't reap the benefits of living in a society where that service is offered.
Oooh, let me see if I can do this right. I don't want to subsidize unhealthy people's gross lifestyle so I hat poors, and you don't want to pay for public schools so you obviously hate children (you support the party of baby killers, so obv)
-
I have elderly relatives who go to the doctor because they are bored. Like 3-4 times a week. How to stop that?
Death panels
-
I have elderly relatives who go to the doctor because they are bored. Like 3-4 times a week. How to stop that?
Death panels
Medicare is desperately in need of reform and probably the single biggest driver of our deficits. People tend to use more of something, even if they don't really need it, when it is "Free." You solve that by gradually converting Medicare into a voucher aka "premium support" program that still provides a generous subsidy but isn't unlimited. Serious policy people generally support this plan. Democrats see an opportunity to score political points so it has very little chance of happening.
-
I have elderly relatives who go to the doctor because they are bored. Like 3-4 times a week. How to stop that?
Death panels
Medicare is desperately in need of reform and probably the single biggest driver of our deficits. People tend to use more of something, even if they don't really need it, when it is "Free." You solve that by gradually converting Medicare into a voucher aka "premium support" program that still provides a generous subsidy but isn't unlimited. Serious policy people generally support this plan. Democrats see an opportunity to score political points so it has very little chance of happening.
What happens when someone gets a catastrophic illness or a disease that requires lots of maintenance care?
Why is the US literally the only rich country in the world that needs this bizarre, health care system that is extremely complicated and provides fewer people with health care, for more money?
-
Maga
-
I have elderly relatives who go to the doctor because they are bored. Like 3-4 times a week. How to stop that?
Death panels
Medicare is desperately in need of reform and probably the single biggest driver of our deficits. People tend to use more of something, even if they don't really need it, when it is "Free." You solve that by gradually converting Medicare into a voucher aka "premium support" program that still provides a generous subsidy but isn't unlimited. Serious policy people generally support this plan. Democrats see an opportunity to score political points so it has very little chance of happening.
What happens when someone gets a catastrophic illness or a disease that requires lots of maintenance care?
Why is the US literally the only rich country in the world that needs this bizarre, health care system that is extremely complicated and provides fewer people with health care, for more money?
Their health insurance pays for it, just like it always has. If they don't have health insurance because they are stupid, they still get care and lose all their nonexempt assets in bankruptcy. Nobody is dying in the street.
In other rich countries it's okay to be stupid because those countries still use a feudal serfdom system and 95% of the citizens are unable to accumulate any assets or wealth in their lifetime, thus have nothing to lose but nothing to gain from the piece of mind of not having to take an hour once a year to enroll for health insurance
-
I have elderly relatives who go to the doctor because they are bored. Like 3-4 times a week. How to stop that?
Death panels
Medicare is desperately in need of reform and probably the single biggest driver of our deficits. People tend to use more of something, even if they don't really need it, when it is "Free." You solve that by gradually converting Medicare into a voucher aka "premium support" program that still provides a generous subsidy but isn't unlimited. Serious policy people generally support this plan. Democrats see an opportunity to score political points so it has very little chance of happening.
What happens when someone gets a catastrophic illness or a disease that requires lots of maintenance care?
Why is the US literally the only rich country in the world that needs this bizarre, health care system that is extremely complicated and provides fewer people with health care, for more money?
People would still receive the subsidy, which would allow them to buy insurance for exactly such catastrophic events (which is what insurance is for) plus some out of pocket expenses for routine care. About the only seniors who would be "harmed" by a subsidy system are the extremely heavy users of routine care. The walk-in bathtub business and other groups that depend upon the absurd largess of Medicare would take a hit.
I'm not interested in debating the merits of socialized medicine with you. If you. Want to believe that Medicaid for all wouldn't require a massive tax increase while further jeopardizing the quality of healthcare and availability of doctors, particularly speciality docs, go right ahead and live in your fantasy land.
-
Why is the US literally the only rich country in the world that needs this bizarre, health care system?
one does not become exceptional by copying others.
-
NOLAN FINLEY
Finley: Obamacare lies keep coming
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Aa
_
+
Nolan Finley | The Detroit News
11:06 p.m. ET May 6, 2017
Democrats lied to Americans to get Obamacare passed, and they’re still lying about it today.
Only worse, because now their whoppers are aimed at keeping Republicans from cleaning up the rock-hard mess Democrats made of the health insurance market.
The current big lie is that the GOP’s Obamacare fix, passed by the House last week, would strip millions of America’s most vulnerable citizens of health insurance and drive up premiums for those who manage to keep coverage.
Obamacare is already doing that, thanks to the economic naivety of the Democrats who crafted the law.
In 11 states last year, average premiums rose by 40 percent or more. Obamacare exchanges across the country are in crisis because insurers are bailing out, burned by the unfulfilled promises of the Affordable Care Act. Unchecked Medicaid expansion is ravaging state budgets.
Deductibles and co-pays are so high they’ve made insurance policies useless for much of the middle class. Money that might have fattened paychecks is being diverted by employers into rapidly rising health insurance premiums.
Democrats and their media chorus are pushing the canard that heartless Republicans are ending protection for the sickest Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions. The GOP plan doesn’t do that.
Mandates remain in place for guaranteed coverage, and for controlling premium prices for those most at risk. It does allow states to seek waivers if they believe they can craft better plans for less money, but only if they agree to tap into a $100 billion high-risk pool.
That pool will shift the burden of subsidizing the sickest policyholders from their healthier neighbors to the federal government, which promises to both lower premiums and end the unsavory practice of insurers filtering out the costliest customers with onerous co-pays and deductibles. It could fix a major Obamacare cost driver.
Democrats, on the other hand, offer nothing than a demand to “spend more money.”
Cost of Obamacare to federal taxpayers rose to $110 billion in 2016. What are they getting for that money? President Barack Obama sold Obamacare on the promise that it would provide coverage to the 45 million, or 15 percent, of Americans who lacked it in 2009.
Not even close. Seven years later, 28.4 million people, or roughly 10 percent of the population, remain uninsured, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
So Obamacare upended the insurance market for all Americans, and sharply drove up their health care costs, to reduce the number of uninsured by 5 percentage points, or just under 17 million people. We could have let the market be and given all of the uninsured vouchers for private plans and produced a better outcome.
House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi predicts Republicans will pay a high price at the ballot box for trying to relieve taxpayers of the Obamacare burden, saying this bill will be a “tattoo” on their foreheads.
She knows something about that. The Affordable Care Act she championed has tattooed “Loser” on scores of Democrats over the past three election cycles, and cost the party control of Congress and the White House.
Their GOP replacements were sent to Washington by voters who are tired of being lied to, and want what they were promised: Affordable, effective health insurance.
Republicans must tune out the hysteria and give it to them.
[email protected]
-
Why is the US literally the only rich country in the world that needs this bizarre, health care system?
one does not become exceptional by copying others.
Also, I agree that our healthcare system is bizarre. But the answer is not socialized medicine. This isn't an either/or propostiion. The better solution is to return health insurance to the proper role of insurance instead of being the primary purchaser of all healthcare (we'll actually Medicare is, but you see my point).
-
Who pays for all the uninsured that have babies?
-
Why is the US literally the only rich country in the world that needs this bizarre, health care system?
one does not become exceptional by copying others.
Also, I agree that our healthcare system is bizarre. But the answer is not socialized medicine. This isn't an either/or propostiion. The better solution is to return health insurance to the proper role of insurance instead of being the primary purchaser of all healthcare (we'll actually Medicare is, but you see my point).
Then why has literally every other similary situated country, faced with the same options, chosen some form of socialized or nationalized medicine?
AND GETS BETTER OUTCOMES FOR MUCH LESS COST BECAUSE THERE AREN'T PROFITS BEING EXTRACTED BY PRIVATE COMPANIES!
-
Better outcomes eh?
-
Better outcomes eh?
According to all public health data I'm aware of. Feel free to unskew the data.
-
the answer is that there should absolutely be medicare for all. this shouldn't even be a debate. people in countries with similar healthcare systems would never trade what they have for what we have today or had ten years ago. but the problem is that most people are too stupid and uninformed to understand that. so they say things like ksu just said. they say that healthcare is "bizarre" but that the answer isn't medicare for all. you can't be an expert in everything but that won't stop most from pretending they are.
this latest bill is nothing more than a tax cut for the super rich that is being funded by both taking away and lessening the amount of healthcare for the poor, middle class and people with pre-existing conditions. as it is, it won't get passed by the senate and whatever ends up happening won't have much of an immediate direct effect for the majority of people on this board (myself included). the house had the chance to pass something and it did because the majority of them spent the last 8 years convincing the people who vote for them that it was horrible.
-
the answer is that there should absolutely be medicare for all. this shouldn't even be a debate. people in countries with similar healthcare systems would never trade what they have for what we have today or had ten years ago. but the problem is that most people are too stupid and uninformed to understand that. so they say things like ksu just said. they say that healthcare is "bizarre" but that the answer isn't medicare for all. you can't be an expert in everything but that won't stop most from pretending they are.
this latest bill is nothing more than a tax cut for the super rich that is being funded by both taking away and lessening the amount of healthcare for the poor, middle class and people with pre-existing conditions. as it is, it won't get passed by the senate and whatever ends up happening won't have much of an immediate direct effect for the majority of people on this board (myself included). the house had the chance to pass something and it did because the majority of them spent the last 8 years convincing the people who vote for them that it was horrible.
Yup, single payer (medicare for all) is pretty much the superior way to go. Canada, France, UK, Germany, all nordic countries laugh at our terrible system, and trying to provide some subsidies or credits or w/e is just junking up an already terrible system. We pay out the nose for a horrible system, and the pubs answer is to make it even worse. People freak out at "socialized" medicine, simply cause it's da gubernment. Canada still keeps pretty damn high standards, there is no drop off in emergency services, and the only longer lines are in elective items, which are elective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TPr3h-UDA0
Ton of cool explanations of all the different healthcare systems vs. the US on that channel. Though probably to ksu, fsd, et al it's fake news. But spoiler alert, US is basically ridiculed on vs all the others.
-
Our healthcare system is better than canada's
-
In a stunning turn of events a bunch of socialist neophytes (who have never been subjected to the shitiness that is socialism) think socialist healthcare is best because it's socialist. A socialist study they read once reinforces their belief.
Meanwhile, back in reality, socialist medicaid/medicare are insolvent, offer substandard care from the bottom bucket of medical professionals, and are subsidized by real insurance.
-
Donald and I don't want single-payer, so we're not gonna do that in this country ever, 'kay-bye.
-
Donald loves Universal Healthcare dude
-
It's better than what we have
-
It's better than what we have
No way you can take him literally on that one....everybody knows he has no idea what their health care is.
-
It's better than what we have
No way you can take him literally on that one....everybody knows he has no idea what their health care is.
So what are you saying... that the president of the US, who the people voted in, has no idea what he's talking about?
-
It's better than what we have
No way you can take him literally on that one....everybody knows he has no idea what their health care is.
So what are you saying... that the president of the US, who the people voted in, has no idea what he's talking about?
:Wha:
-
But it works in Sweden! And Norway! And Denmark! So of course it will work here!
No it doesn't, and no it won't.
-
Good rebuttal from ksuw, can't wait for the doozey of an op-ed fsd has queued up
-
neither the free market nor insurance are mechanisms well suited to healthcare.
I propose a model where a person pays a subscription to a health provider to keep them healthy. As the person health declines, they pay less and if it falls below a certain baseline the health provider pays them.
-
neither the free market nor insurance are mechanisms well suited to healthcare.
I propose a model where a person pays a subscription to a health provider to keep them healthy. As the person health declines, they pay less and if it falls below a certain baseline the health provider pays them.
Is j-care a single payer model?
-
neither the free market nor insurance are mechanisms well suited to healthcare.
I propose a model where a person pays a subscription to a health provider to keep them healthy. As the person health declines, they pay less and if it falls below a certain baseline the health provider pays them.
Is j-care a single payer model?
more like thousands payer. as best I can tell its mandatory and nationalized but administered by local government as separate insurers.
-
neither the free market nor insurance are mechanisms well suited to healthcare.
I propose a model where a person pays a subscription to a health provider to keep them healthy. As the person health declines, they pay less and if it falls below a certain baseline the health provider pays them.
developing an app, seeking investors
-
In a stunning turn of events a bunch of socialist neophytes (who have never been subjected to the shitiness that is socialism) think socialist healthcare is best because it's socialist. A socialist study they read once reinforces their belief.
Meanwhile, back in reality, socialist medicaid/medicare are insolvent, offer substandard care from the bottom bucket of medical professionals, and are subsidized by real insurance.
None of what you just said is true and somewhere around 80% of it doesn't even make sense. You're absolutely clueless on the subject though so it was to be expected. Feel free to study up on what you're attempting to talk about and then correct everything though. Let me know if you need help trying to figure out the main points.
-
It's all true.
-
FSD what do you think of my massively disruptive healthcare app?
-
But it works in Sweden! And Norway! And Denmark! So of course it will work here!
No it doesn't, and no it won't.
It's an adorable fantasy they live in. Right down to homogenous all white people freudian slip.
-
FSD what do you think of my massively disruptive healthcare app?
I haven't tried it yet. But I'm sure it would work better than Norway's minute clinic health system.
-
It's all true.
Yeah except for none of it is and you look really stupid for having written all of it. If you're up for trying to figure some of it out on your own, I'd start with trying to understand what socialism I first and then go from there. Feel free to ask a random seventh grader or me if you get stuck.
-
No, it's definitely all true.
-
No, it's definitely all true.
Ok. You don't want to further discuss how incredibly stupid what you wrote was. i get it and will leave you alone. It was beyond fanning level stupid though. Like really, really, really stupid.
-
But it works in Sweden! And Norway! And Denmark! So of course it will work here!
No it doesn't, and no it won't.
It's an adorable fantasy they live in. Right down to homogenous all white people freudian slip.
do the muslim no-go zones get the socialist healthcare too?
-
No, it's definitely all true.
Ok. You don't want to further discuss how incredibly stupid what you wrote was. i get it and will leave you alone. It was beyond fanning level stupid though. Like really, really, really stupid.
What part do you think was false? I can't tell over all the name calling.
-
But it works in Sweden! And Norway! And Denmark! So of course it will work here!
No it doesn't, and no it won't.
It's an adorable fantasy they live in. Right down to homogenous all white people freudian slip.
do the muslim no-go zones get the socialist healthcare too?
In Sweden and Norway? Highly doubtful. They aren't even allowed to wear those masks.
-
What are China and Russia doing? Those countries are more similar to ours.
-
What else should we nationalize? Housing and higher education are ripe for the taking
-
I mean, everyone should have housing and real estate investors make a killing off the backs of the people
-
No, it's definitely all true.
Ok. You don't want to further discuss how incredibly stupid what you wrote was. i get it and will leave you alone. It was beyond fanning level stupid though. Like really, really, really stupid.
What part do you think was false? I can't tell over all the name calling.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/KyDWJ8oR7fBte/giphy.gif)
-
No, it's definitely all true.
Ok. You don't want to further discuss how incredibly stupid what you wrote was. i get it and will leave you alone. It was beyond fanning level stupid though. Like really, really, really stupid.
What part do you think was false? I can't tell over all the name calling.
All of it was wrong. Start with the fact that neither Medicare or Medicaid are socialized medicine and go from there. let me know if you need it explained further.
-
No, it's definitely all true.
Ok. You don't want to further discuss how incredibly stupid what you wrote was. i get it and will leave you alone. It was beyond fanning level stupid though. Like really, really, really stupid.
What part do you think was false? I can't tell over all the name calling.
All of it was wrong. Start with the fact that neither Medicare or Medicaid are socialized medicine and go from there. let me know if you need it explained further.
They are single payer systems, which was the point. If you don't think single payer (i.e., state run) is socialist in nature, I don't care. It is what it is.
I will say this, I am much smarter than you are.
-
No, it's definitely all true.
Ok. You don't want to further discuss how incredibly stupid what you wrote was. i get it and will leave you alone. It was beyond fanning level stupid though. Like really, really, really stupid.
What part do you think was false? I can't tell over all the name calling.
All of it was wrong. Start with the fact that neither Medicare or Medicaid are socialized medicine and go from there. let me know if you need it explained further.
They are single payer systems, which was the point. If you don't think single payer (i.e., state run) is socialist in nature, I don't care. It is what it is.
I will say this, I am much smarter than you are.
If your point was that medicare and Medicaid are not socialist programs and that they are single payer programs and you went about trying to make this point by typing what you did below, then I can assure you that you are not smarter than I am.
In a stunning turn of events a bunch of socialist neophytes (who have never been subjected to the shitiness that is socialism) think socialist healthcare is best because it's socialist. A socialist study they read once reinforces their belief.
Meanwhile, back in reality, socialist medicaid/medicare are insolvent, offer substandard care from the bottom bucket of medical professionals, and are subsidized by real insurance.
-
You were also very stupidly wrong about other things in that post. Let me know if you need help in figuring those out as well.
-
I think you are just really confused. A lot of that is your intellectual inferiority, which compounds your inability to divine sarcasm. Hence, this mindless charade.
You probably have a really narrow and rigid non-theoretical understanding of what socialism is, and also didn't recognize my comment was about the countries employing the system.
Everything I said was and is correct, which is reinforced by the fact you can't even begin to articulate why it was not. This exchange is very boring for me.
-
rest assured, it's boring for all of us.
-
1) neither Medicare or Medicaid are socialized medicine. You said they were. They aren't. You were wrong and it's the kind of error that a complete dumbass would make. Sorry, but true.
2) neither are insolvent. You said they were. They aren't. You were wrong again.
3) you said both offer substandard care. They don't. overall, Medicaid does. Medicare does not. Again, wrong in your part.
4) the subsidized part of what you wrote. I'm 90% sure this is wrong as well but honestly don't even know what you are trying insinuate so can't be sure.
Every single thing you wrote was factually incorrect.
-
1. Yes it is.
2. By its own calculations, it can't satisfy its future obligations/liabilities, the definition of insolvent.
3. It's certainly substandard when compared to the medical care you can obtain with private insurance. I suspect we're conflating medicare and medicaid a bit thos.
4. Real insurance indirectly subsidizes medicare/medicaid through higher reimbursement rates, ask any provider.
Bored to tears
-
But it works in Sweden! And Norway! And Denmark! So of course it will work here!
No it doesn't, and no it won't.
You are saying it does not work in those countries?
-
But it works in Sweden! And Norway! And Denmark! So of course it will work here!
No it doesn't, and no it won't.
You are saying it does not work in those countries?
He's traveled as far as Branson, so he knows some crap KK
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
But it works in Sweden! And Norway! And Denmark! So of course it will work here!
No it doesn't, and no it won't.
You are saying it does not work in those countries?
It's a terrible arguement for doing it here, considering our demographics and population are not similar
-
But it works in Sweden! And Norway! And Denmark! So of course it will work here!
No it doesn't, and no it won't.
You are saying it does not work in those countries?
I mean it's been tried in almost every major country not named the US, of course it won't work here, we're too stupid
-
But it works in Sweden! And Norway! And Denmark! So of course it will work here!
No it doesn't, and no it won't.
You are saying it does not work in those countries?
I mean it's been tried in almost every major country not named the US, of course it won't work here, we're too stupid
Single payer is currently in place in the US, you dolt. It doesn't work here, at least not as well as the private insurance model. That really isn't arguable.
I think you guys are completely delusional as to how well other country's single payer models work. You've been spoon fed a load of anecdotal crap and swallowed it whole. Very gullible.
-
Single payer is currently in place in the US, you dolt.
Single-payer healthcare is a system in which the residents pay the state – via taxes in amounts determined by the state – to cover healthcare costs, rather than individuals buying from private insurers competing for their business.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare
:dunno:
-
1) neither Medicare or Medicaid are socialized medicine.
1. Yes it is.
Socialized medicine is a term used to describe and discuss systems of universal health care: medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health care and subsidies derived from taxation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
:dunno:
-
1. Yes it is.
2. By its own calculations, it can't satisfy its future obligations/liabilities, the definition of insolvent.
3. It's certainly substandard when compared to the medical care you can obtain with private insurance. I suspect we're conflating medicare and medicaid a bit thos.
4. Real insurance indirectly subsidizes medicare/medicaid through higher reimbursement rates, ask any provider.
Bored to tears
1) they 100% are not socialized medicine and you continuing to argue that they are would be the equivalent to someone holding fast that 2+2=7. the only socialized medical healthcare in the US is VA care. Army, Navy, etc are close. keep calling them socialized though, it's kind of funny now.
2) so they actually aren't insolvent and you are wrong again.
3) medicare is not substandard compared to private insurance. some times it's better, sometimes it's worse, but it's not substandard overall. Medicaid is substandard overall, but like medicare, in some ways it's actually better than private.
4) no. just no. lol though.
every single thing you are typing can be proven incorrect by a fifth grader who has a smart phone, five minutes of free time and the ability to type things like "is medicare insolvent" into google. you are clueless.
-
Is a anyone else enjoying this as much as I am? I have no idea who is right or wrong. I'm just enjoying the discourse.
-
1) neither Medicare or Medicaid are socialized medicine.
1. Yes it is.
Socialized medicine is a term used to describe and discuss systems of universal health care: medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health care and subsidies derived from taxation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
:dunno:
They're government funded forms of healthcare, man.
-
1) neither Medicare or Medicaid are socialized medicine.
1. Yes it is.
Socialized medicine is a term used to describe and discuss systems of universal health care: medical and hospital care for all at a nominal cost by means of government regulation of health care and subsidies derived from taxation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine
:dunno:
They're government funded forms of healthcare, man.
I enjoy the way FSD uses his own definitions for words in spite of their actual meanings. And especially when he also proclaims how smart he is and how confused others are.
-
Socialist has become socialized and the insanity brought about by Daris has denigrated into semantical and stubborn "Nuh uh" arguments. So stupid.
From wiki:
In the United States, Medicare is a single-payer, national social insurance program administered by the US federal government since 1976
From merriam:Insolvent adj.
1
a : unable to pay debts as they fall due in the usual course of business
b : having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held
2
: insufficient to pay all debts an insolvent estate
insolvent noun
I think we're done here.
-
Socialist has become socialized
:love:
-
Do you guys even remember what you're arguing about, because it seems like you don't?
You're enraged that I called single-payer health care "socialist" and somehow think that means the same thing as socialized medicine and somehow think medicare and medicaid don't meet your own definition of socialized medicine (even though each program openly identifies as such) and therefore think you've proven the programs aren't socialist, therefore debunkimg may sarcastic quip about the resident socialists like socialist stuff.
That's a non sequiter, you dimwits. A+B=C therefore A=C
-
If Medicare was national single-payer it would be both socialist and socialized and excellent.
-
But still nowhere near as good as private insurance, as demonstrated ad nauseam
-
But still nowhere near as good as private insurance, as demonstrated ad nauseam
wrong.
-
Socialist has become socialized and the insanity brought about by Daris has denigrated into semantical and stubborn "Nuh uh" arguments. So stupid.
From wiki:
In the United States, Medicare is a single-payer, national social insurance program administered by the US federal government since 1976
From merriam:Insolvent adj.
1
a : unable to pay debts as they fall due in the usual course of business
b : having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held
2
: insufficient to pay all debts an insolvent estate
insolvent noun
I think we're done here.
Did FSD just win?
-
Goverment funded = government affiliated = socialist = socialized medicine = single payer = universal = medicare = medicaid
So many ways to say the exact same thing!
-
Chart time
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commonwealthfund.org%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fpublications%2Fissue-brief%2F2015%2Foct%2Fsquires_oecd_exhibit_01.png%3Fh%3D720%26amp%3Bw%3D960%26amp%3Bla%3Den&hash=28de377e7db24e6c76115e0f19a58d905cf25007)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commonwealthfund.org%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fpublications%2Fissue-brief%2F2015%2Foct%2Fsquires_oecd_exhibit_02.png%3Fla%3Den&hash=939a31bae2c22f620ad6a016628e46d048a6b57e)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commonwealthfund.org%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fpublications%2Fissue-brief%2F2015%2Foct%2Fsquires_oecd_exhibit_09.png%3Fla%3Den&hash=4e6006e719659525fae82364bced56835cfb9941)
We pay more or less, the proof is in the facts.
-
Also, wonder what caused that line to flatten around 2008ish :dunno:
-
Socialist has become socialized and the insanity brought about by Daris has denigrated into semantical and stubborn "Nuh uh" arguments. So stupid.
From wiki:
In the United States, Medicare is a single-payer, national social insurance program administered by the US federal government since 1976
From merriam:Insolvent adj.
1
a : unable to pay debts as they fall due in the usual course of business
b : having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held
2
: insufficient to pay all debts an insolvent estate
insolvent noun
I think we're done here.
Did FSD just win?
Yep
-
Who pays for the uninsured? Like when they they make babies? Who pays for that care?
-
Apparently the free market according to daris
-
Interesting. I was lead to believe it was tax payers
-
Socialist has become socialized and the insanity brought about by Daris has denigrated into semantical and stubborn "Nuh uh" arguments. So stupid.
From wiki:
In the United States, Medicare is a single-payer, national social insurance program administered by the US federal government since 1976
From merriam:Insolvent adj.
1
a : unable to pay debts as they fall due in the usual course of business
b : having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held
2
: insufficient to pay all debts an insolvent estate
insolvent noun
I think we're done here.
Did FSD just win?
Yep
no. he didn't win because he is wrong. neither of those programs are socialized medicine because they aren't socialized medicine and it's as simple as that. much in the same way that water is not iced tea or a plane isn't also a train or my foot isn't my ear. I honest to god cannot even believe that I'm having to have this conversation.
socialized medicine would be where the government pays for AND PROVIDES the healthcare. that is not what happens in the United States except for within the VA system where providers are employed by the federal government as GS level employees. it also happens (to a large degree) within the army, navy etc where you have a mix of civilian (DOD) and active duty providers. medicare and Medicaid providers are not government employed. they are private practice providers that can choose to take or not take either or both. that by definition makes medicare and Medicaid not socialized healthcare.
this isn't semantics or fancy word play. this is basic. this is 2+2. this is a common thing that has to be agreed on before any actual discussion on anything else can happen.
-
I'll never get over the fact that I lived in my car for months while I waited to get into Valeo but others get to just show up to a hospital pregnant because they can't figure out a condom and get treated. How someone can want to be responsible and get turned away.
-
in regards to the solvent debate. literally just google "is medicare insolvent". I mean this is also 2+2 and the fact that someone is arguing otherwise is beyond stupid.
-
Chart time
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commonwealthfund.org%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fpublications%2Fissue-brief%2F2015%2Foct%2Fsquires_oecd_exhibit_01.png%3Fh%3D720%26amp%3Bw%3D960%26amp%3Bla%3Den&hash=28de377e7db24e6c76115e0f19a58d905cf25007)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commonwealthfund.org%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fpublications%2Fissue-brief%2F2015%2Foct%2Fsquires_oecd_exhibit_02.png%3Fla%3Den&hash=939a31bae2c22f620ad6a016628e46d048a6b57e)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commonwealthfund.org%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2Fpublications%2Fissue-brief%2F2015%2Foct%2Fsquires_oecd_exhibit_09.png%3Fla%3Den&hash=4e6006e719659525fae82364bced56835cfb9941)
We pay more or less, the proof is in the facts.
Look at that obesity rate.
-
All those heart attacks start to take a toll on life expectancy
-
in regards to the solvent debate. literally just google "is medicare insolvent". I mean this is also 2+2 and the fact that someone is arguing otherwise is beyond stupid.
The adminstrator literally testifies before congress on an annual basis to report the estimated date when the program will no longer be able to meet its obligations. It's a certainty that it is insolvent, unless and until benefits are cut and/or taxes raised.
It's not illiquid, if that's what you mean.
-
Socialist has become socialized and the insanity brought about by Daris has denigrated into semantical and stubborn "Nuh uh" arguments. So stupid.
From wiki:
In the United States, Medicare is a single-payer, national social insurance program administered by the US federal government since 1976
From merriam:Insolvent adj.
1
a : unable to pay debts as they fall due in the usual course of business
b : having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held
2
: insufficient to pay all debts an insolvent estate
insolvent noun
I think we're done here.
Did FSD just win?
Yep
no. he didn't win because he is wrong. neither of those programs are socialized medicine because they aren't socialized medicine and it's as simple as that. much in the same way that water is not iced tea or a plane isn't also a train or my foot isn't my ear. I honest to god cannot even believe that I'm having to have this conversation.
socialized medicine would be where the government pays for AND PROVIDES the healthcare. that is not what happens in the United States except for within the VA system where providers are employed by the federal government as GS level employees. it also happens (to a large degree) within the army, navy etc where you have a mix of civilian (DOD) and active duty providers. medicare and Medicaid providers are not government employed. they are private practice providers that can choose to take or not take either or both. that by definition makes medicare and Medicaid not socialized healthcare.
this isn't semantics or fancy word play. this is basic. this is 2+2. this is a common thing that has to be agreed on before any actual discussion on anything else can happen.
You lost like 25 posts ago. You're now just trying to rearrange and redefine your argumemt, and it's pathetic.
-
in regards to the solvent debate. literally just google "is medicare insolvent". I mean this is also 2+2 and the fact that someone is arguing otherwise is beyond stupid.
The adminstrator literally testifies before congress on an annual basis to report the estimated date when the program will no longer be able to meet its obligations. It's a certainty that it is insolvent, unless and until benefits are cut and/or taxes raised.
It's not illiquid, if that's what you mean.
the projected date for when it might become insolvent is over ten years away. it's not currently insolvent. you were/are wrong.
-
Take that post back Rick. You were doing well
-
there's nothing to take back. he said it's insolvent. it's not. he was wrong. again. sad.
-
It all seems like semantics now. Like a lie passed off as a truth because of the tense of a word.
-
Single Payer healthcare is such a bizarre hill for libtards to die on. Not quite as bizarre as the "obamacare is great and everyone on it loves it" hill the establishment is choosing to die on, but still bizarre.
Make your moral church going humanity arguments and stop. You will lose every time you argue its cheaper or better care. That's simply not true and the overwhelming majority of people are intelligent enough to recognize that. If we were starting from a place where everyone had crap obamacare, you might win. But something like 85% of non-olds people already have the best healthcare in the world nearly entirely paid for by their insurance company. Your not going to convince them that they'd be better off with the government in the driver's seat, they've all seen how that story ends.
-
It all seems like semantics now. Like a lie passed off as a truth because of the tense of a word.
I think the semantics are pretty instructive. They show the underlying assumption at work, which is that everything that is public/not private is all exactly the same and is all bad. This is obviously absurd and not the basis of a legitimate argument.
-
The healthcare system prior to Obamacare took many years to develop. It developed in the marketplace. Then Obama took healthcare out of the marketplace, and into government. People like government goodies. This new version seems convoluted. Trying to be marketplace and government; like breeding a Chihuahua to a St. Bernard or maybe even a dog to a chicken. I have no confidence that Republicans are capable of creating anything better.
-
It all seems like semantics now. Like a lie passed off as a truth because of the tense of a word.
I think the semantics are pretty instructive. They show the underlying assumption at work, which is that everything that is public/not private is all exactly the same and is all bad. This is obviously absurd and not the basis of a legitimate argument.
I feel like daris was arguing about something being one thing then later admitted it was on the horizon
-
Facts keep being offered and FSD has nothing but words and rhetoric and no facts. We pay more for less. We have a shitty system that he insists on trying to make worse in the guise of freedom. Everyone with a country worth anything does it better than us, and we keep trying to drag it backwards.
-
For the record I am team universal. Money shouldn't decide our health.
-
It all seems like semantics now. Like a lie passed off as a truth because of the tense of a word.
I think the semantics are pretty instructive. They show the underlying assumption at work, which is that everything that is public/not private is all exactly the same and is all bad. This is obviously absurd and not the basis of a legitimate argument.
I feel like daris was arguing about something being one thing then later admitted it was on the horizon
Was FSD merely arguing that the current iteration of Medicare will need to be tweaked sometime within the next 10 years? Or was he suggesting something more sinister like that the inherent nature of any non-privatized healthcare system is necessarily to be doomed to failure?
I'd guess the latter because it's way more absurd.
-
It all seems like semantics now. Like a lie passed off as a truth because of the tense of a word.
I think the semantics are pretty instructive. They show the underlying assumption at work, which is that everything that is public/not private is all exactly the same and is all bad. This is obviously absurd and not the basis of a legitimate argument.
I feel like daris was arguing about something being one thing then later admitted it was on the horizon
Was FSD merely arguing that the current iteration of Medicare will need to be tweaked sometime within the next 10 years? Or was he suggesting something more sinister like that the inherent nature of any non-privatized healthcare system is necessarily to be doomed to failure?
I'd guess the latter because it's way more absurd.
I assumed there was a general assumption about fsd that we all operated under. I never knew anyone actually took him at his word.
-
Yes I know I said assume and assumption in the same sentence
-
Not proud of it
-
Facts keep being offered and FSD has nothing but words and rhetoric and no facts. We pay more for less. We have a shitty system that he insists on trying to make worse in the guise of freedom. Everyone with a country worth anything does it better than us, and we keep trying to drag it backwards.
It's like talking with a flat earther. It's just not worth it and should actually be avoided at all costs.
-
Yes, it's my fault you people are stupid. I'm sure socialized intelligence can solve that.
-
It all seems like semantics now. Like a lie passed off as a truth because of the tense of a word.
Semantics is where you go after you've lost, and that's where they are. MIR does it all the time after taking incredible positions.
-
Yes, it's my fault you people are stupid. I'm sure socialized intelligence can solve that.
Give me more medical hot takes. I'd love to hear them.
-
It all seems like semantics now. Like a lie passed off as a truth because of the tense of a word.
I think the semantics are pretty instructive. They show the underlying assumption at work, which is that everything that is public/not private is all exactly the same and is all bad. This is obviously absurd and not the basis of a legitimate argument.
I feel like daris was arguing about something being one thing then later admitted it was on the horizon
Was FSD merely arguing that the current iteration of Medicare will need to be tweaked sometime within the next 10 years? Or was he suggesting something more sinister like that the inherent nature of any non-privatized healthcare system is necessarily to be doomed to failure?
I'd guess the latter because it's way more absurd.
You can try to reframe and redfine it any way you want, the problem is it's all pasted into the internet directly above.
-
I'll never get over the fact that I lived in my car for months while I waited to get into Valeo but others get to just show up to a hospital pregnant because they can't figure out a condom and get treated. How someone can want to be responsible and get turned away.
Why are you angry at the other people desperately in need of care and not the people denying them sufficient care?
It isn't some crazy coincidence we have one of the highest infant mortality rates of any rich country in the world.
-
Facts keep being offered and FSD has nothing but words and rhetoric and no facts. We pay more for less. We have a shitty system that he insists on trying to make worse in the guise of freedom. Everyone with a country worth anything does it better than us, and we keep trying to drag it backwards.
It's like talking with a flat earther. It's just not worth it and should actually be avoided at all costs.
:thumbsup:
-
I want everyone to have health insurance, just not single payer.
-
water is not iced tea
Well iced tea is like 99% water, so not sure if you are right on this one.
-
water is not iced tea
Well iced tea is like 99% water, so not sure if you are right on this one.
If you asked for an Iced Tea and they brought you a water would you only be 1% pissed?*
* I already know the answer from IRL.
-
I'll never get over the fact that I lived in my car for months while I waited to get into Valeo but others get to just show up to a hospital pregnant because they can't figure out a condom and get treated. How someone can want to be responsible and get turned away.
Why are you angry at the other people desperately in need of care and not the people denying them sufficient care?
It isn't some crazy coincidence we have one of the highest infant mortality rates of any rich country in the world.
I wanted help and was taking steps to get that help. I wasn't someone who had a one night stand or someone who didn't wear a condom I was a sick person in need of help and I had to wait. Not everyone should be able to reproduce. There is a reason I am not a father. But yet my friends have no choice but to treat. People that want help don't get it and people that make shitty choices get treated daily. eff all of that. My friends fight and fight and dont have that option get to walk in and get treated. They usually end up killing themselves.
It pisses me off to hear stories about mom's and dad's who can afford to drive nice cars, paid for their whole body to be tattooed, and not be able to pay for their care. To hear about doctors writing things off because they know they won't be paid. To hear about people asking for a free car seat for their BMW
Yes kk, some people deserve more than others. Yes I feel those that are asking for help deserve help more than irresponsible people.
Yes I don't want to pay for another wife from Ft. Riley to have her baby daddy's kid. Knowing full well that soldier is on the hook for life
-
I'll never get over the fact that I lived in my car for months while I waited to get into Valeo but others get to just show up to a hospital pregnant because they can't figure out a condom and get treated. How someone can want to be responsible and get turned away.
Why are you angry at the other people desperately in need of care and not the people denying them sufficient care?
It isn't some crazy coincidence we have one of the highest infant mortality rates of any rich country in the world.
I wanted help and was taking steps to get that help. I wasn't someone who had a one night stand or someone who didn't wear a condom I was a sick person in need of help and I had to wait. Not everyone should be able to reproduce. There is a reason I am not a father. But yet my friends have no choice but to treat. People that want help don't get it and people that make shitty choices get treated daily. eff all of that. My friends fight and fight and dont have that option get to walk in and get treated. They usually end up killing themselves.
It pisses me off to hear stories about mom's and dad's who can afford to drive nice cars, paid for their whole body to be tattooed, and not be able to pay for their care. To hear about doctors writing things off because they know they won't be paid. To hear about people asking for a free car seat for their BMW
Yes kk, some people deserve more than others. Yes I feel those that are asking for help deserve help more than irresponsible people.
Yes I don't want to pay for another wife from Ft. Riley to have her baby daddy's kid. Knowing full well that soldier is on the hook for life
I think your anger is really misplaced. driving a "nice" car is one of the worst ways to predict someone's net worth, but one of the best ways to project net worth. Used luxury cars aren't even that expensive a lot of the time.
ER care doesn't really help deliver healthy babies as that mother might not be taking pre-natals or getting wellness checks because that all costs money. You also can't get chemo at the ER. So while you are right, substance abuse (or mental health) isn't something we treat well (especially for the poor) that is not a reason to get mad at people that are having kids and are poor. The issues are not related. The predicament you were in was a result of a lot of choices that others made, but it wasn't people with a '02 Caddy with 180K miles and some nice rims that left you in your own car struggling.
-
My sources are ob nurses and doctors. I'm not talking out of my ass
-
It isn't some crazy coincidence we have one of the highest infant mortality rates of any rich country in the world.
it's because of how big the country is. and how diverse. not to mention the fattness of us all. we'll never solve this one, i'm afraid.
-
What is the infant mortality rate for rich people?
-
Just wondering, but why do 'servatives always mention that eurocare is all white people as a reason it won't work in the US?
-
How does infant mortality reporting work exactly?
-
Just wondering, but why do 'servatives always mention that eurocare is all white people as a reason it won't work in the US?
Hopefully no one mentions this. White people are incredibly unhealthy, even more so in red states.
-
They usually disguise it as "homogeneous" and "less diverse"
-
How does infant mortality reporting work exactly?
It varies from country to country. Which is why the "ZOMG the US has a really high infant mortality rate" argument in favor of socialized medicine is utter bullshit. So it's not surprising KK would trot this nonsense out.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas (https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nationalreview.com/article/276952/infant-mortality-deceptive-statistic-scott-w-atlas)
The United States strictly adheres to the WHO definition of live birth (any infant “irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which . . . breathes or shows any other evidence of life . . . whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached”) and uses a strictly implemented linked birth and infant-death data set. On the contrary, many other nations, including highly developed countries in Western Europe, use far less strict definitions, all of which underreport the live births of more fragile infants who soon die. As a consequence, they falsely report more favorable neonatal- and infant-mortality rates.
-
If you're hanging your hat on a Michael Moore anecdote and don't know you've already lost, you might be a libtard.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2016/04/12/infant-mortality-not-a-true-measure-of-a-successful-health-care-system/amp/ (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2016/04/12/infant-mortality-not-a-true-measure-of-a-successful-health-care-system/amp/)
• Unlike in the U.S., low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates.
• According to the way statistics are calculated in Canada, Germany and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500 grams is not considered a living child.
• In the U.S., very low birth weight babies are considered live births. The mortality rate of such infants – considered “unsalvageable” outside of the U.S. and therefore never alive – is extraordinarily high; up to 869 per 1,000 in the first month of life alone. This skews U.S. IM statistics.
• Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400 grams (0.9 lbs) were born in the U.S.
• Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as “stillborn” if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth. But in the U.S., all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive and are reflected in our IM statistics.
• If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and it does not affect the country’s reported IM rates.
• In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss IM rates.
It bears repeating that KK and other liberals fall for these bullshit comparisons all the time in favor of socialized medicine. So maybe approach their fantasyland ravings with skepticism.
-
No serious person would actually argue the healthcare system in the U.S. is worse than another country.
If that perverted, heavily footnoted chart of healthcare per capita were based on socislist healthcare they'd be touting it as an achievement, and proof their system is the best. They are trained chimps.
-
Don't have any dictionary or Wikipedia definitions to share, but some of the most qualified people I have heard opine on this topic say that there is really nothing exceptional about US healthcare except our ability to keep the elderly living longer.
And I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but lol to anyone who thinks we actually have a true free market system right now.
-
Life expectancy is a poor metric. Michael Moore made a movie saying cuba has a better system, and that's monumental.
-
The US has the most advanced medical technology and many of the best doctors and hospitals in the world. So knowing that, I take issue w/ the assertion that all those countries have better healthcare bc of extremely broad metrics. Healthcare isn't that simple.
-
Let us not detract from the rich irony that is the libtard using infant mortality rates in support of anything, at all, ever.
Amaze
-
Let us not detract from the rich irony that is the libtard using infant mortality rates in support of anything, at all, ever.
Amaze
Wow. Mind blown.
-
Let us not detract from the rich irony that is the libtard using infant mortality rates in support of anything, at all, ever.
Amaze
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Yes, I saw this on Facebook but it reminded me of the back and forth in this thread.
(https://scontent.fmci1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18425570_10154298813377471_4392406566357364014_n.jpg?oh=727fc614eb0fcd41514ba42f962f88c5&oe=59AE412D)
-
Just had lunch with a guy whose dad is a doctor in France. Asked him what he thinks of the French healthcare system. He said it's ok, but his dad doesn't like it and is going to retire soon. Mainly the pay stinks.
He said that in France, the healthcare isn't really "free" - you're expected to pay, but people rarely do and the doctors get reimbursed by the state. He said this is causing "massive debt - approaching 1000 billion Euros." I laughed and said "in English, we call that a trillion - and don't worry, America's debt is 20 of those."
I didn't verify any of this - I just thought the 1000 billion thing was pretty funny. That's like one year under Obama.
-
Just had lunch with a guy whose dad is a doctor in France. Asked him what he thinks of the French healthcare system. He said it's ok, but his dad doesn't like it and is going to retire soon. Mainly the pay stinks.
He said that in France, the healthcare isn't really "free" - you're expected to pay, but people rarely do and the doctors get reimbursed by the state. He said this is causing "massive debt - approaching 1000 billion Euros." I laughed and said "in English, we call that a trillion - and don't worry, America's debt is 20 of those."
I didn't verify any of this - I just thought the 1000 billion thing was pretty funny. That's like one year under Obama.
well I thought the whole thing was funny :thumbs:
-
So in France you just don't have to pay your bills?
-
I emailed that to my cousin's husband (literally from france). He was rolling in the office.
My wife's cousin has been living in france for 2 years and is getting ready to have her 2nd child in france.
Also rolling in the office.
-
Grats to your wife's cousin. How is that relevant to this thread?
-
They also took shots at me for being a rube kstater (they assumed a kstater said that about france :( )
-
Paging anyone to explain to us how this is better....why bring back the pre exisiting co ditions thing except for I Durance companies want it
I believe that the issue here is that healthy people who rarely if ever use their insurance were paying extreme amounts for insurance when previously they would pay very little (it is my understanding that the exchanges were relying on this money to help cover the extreme costs of those with pre-existing conditions). This directly effected the younger people of the country who were least likely to be able to pay the high premiums.
-
Paging anyone to explain to us how this is better....why bring back the pre exisiting co ditions thing except for I Durance companies want it
I believe that the issue here is that healthy people who rarely if ever use their insurance were paying extreme amounts for insurance when previously they would pay very little (it is my understanding that the exchanges were relying on this money to help cover the extreme costs of those with pre-existing conditions). This directly effected the younger people of the country who were least likely to be able to pay the high premiums.
Previously they were also paying an extreme amount for insurance, yard dog.
-
Paging anyone to explain to us how this is better....why bring back the pre exisiting co ditions thing except for I Durance companies want it
I believe that the issue here is that healthy people who rarely if ever use their insurance were paying extreme amounts for insurance when previously they would pay very little (it is my understanding that the exchanges were relying on this money to help cover the extreme costs of those with pre-existing conditions). This directly effected the younger people of the country who were least likely to be able to pay the high premiums.
children can now stay on their parents insurance until they are 26. but yeah, the new rules stopped allowing insurance companies to sell junk/worthless insurance for low costs that would never actually really cover anything. the aca required insurance policies to have certain basic levels of coverage. so yes, a 27 year old might have to pay more for "insurance" than they did before, but they also received a much better product. this really is probably the best argument one could make against obamacare though. it made it harder for a 28 year old to roll the dice.
-
Paging anyone to explain to us how this is better....why bring back the pre exisiting co ditions thing except for I Durance companies want it
I believe that the issue here is that healthy people who rarely if ever use their insurance were paying extreme amounts for insurance when previously they would pay very little (it is my understanding that the exchanges were relying on this money to help cover the extreme costs of those with pre-existing conditions). This directly effected the younger people of the country who were least likely to be able to pay the high premiums.
children can now stay on their parents insurance until they are 26. but yeah, the new rules stopped allowing insurance companies to sell junk/worthless insurance for low costs that would never actually really cover anything. the aca required insurance policies to have certain basic levels of coverage. so yes, a 27 year old might have to pay more for "insurance" than they did before, but they also received a much better product. this really is probably the best argument one could make against obamacare though. it made it harder for a 28 year old to roll the dice.
So premiums went up for policies with higher deductibles, and people were supposed to be happy they were being forced to buy insurance coverage in excess of what they needed? Obamacare insurance policies suck except maaaybe if you get the full subsidy, and even then your deductibles are high.
-
The fantasy unraveled
Nolan Finley | The Detroit News
10:49 p.m. ET May 13, 2017
Here’s a question that puzzles many Americans whenever the debate over health insurance reform erupts: All other major industrialized nations provide universal health care to their citizens, why can’t the United States?
The answer is, of course, we can. But like everything else, it ain’t free, despite what the socialists among us would have us believe.
The real question isn’t whether we can have national health care, it’s whether Americans really want to pay for it.
National health care countries pay for the benefits through tax rates that would be considered unbearable by most Americans.
In the U.S., 90 percent of earners pay a real tax rate—income and payroll taxes combined —of below 20.3 percent, according to the Peterson Foundation. The average real tax rate in the European Union is 45 percent.
In the states with the highest social spending, tax rates are highest. France, for example, has an average real tax rate of 57.5 percent; Belgium 56.9 percent; Germany 52.3 percent; and Sweden 47 percent.
While the U.S. has pursued a policy of relieving the tax burden on lower-income workers —nearly half of wage earners pay no federal income tax — Europe’s middle class gets no such break.
In Belgium, for example, Pew Research estimates a married couple, one working at the average wage and one at two-thirds of it, with two kids bears a total tax burden of 38.3 percent.
For a similar American family, the real rate is about half that, at 19.4 percent.
So the government pays for more of your living expenses, but leaves less of your money in your pockets.
Making the switch to that model would require a radical shift in our expectations.
The American dream has traditionally been defined by home ownership. We strive for our own home, on our own land.
Home ownership rates are high in Europe, but the housing stock is vastly different. Only one-third of Europeans live in a detached single family home. Forty percent of the housing in the European Union is two-family flats.
Per-capita living space in the EU is a lot less generous than in the United States, where the average person now has nearly 1,000 square feet to roam around in. In Europe, the average housing space occupied by each person is just over 400 square feet. Are we willing to get that cozy to never have another doctor’s bill arrive in the mail?
Similarly, if you’ve been to Europe or Asia, you’ve noticed the roads are filled with cute little matchbox cars. We like our big trucks and roomy SUVs here. And we can afford to drive them. That’s largely because the average fuel tax in the U.S. is 53 cents a gallon, compared to an average $2.62 cents in the other large, industrial nations.
This is America. We can have anything we want, including government-paid health care. But we can’t get it with a magic wand.
To have it, we must be willing to pay higher taxes, and perhaps live a little smaller. And forget about pretending we can stick the wealthy with the tab.
Europe has extraordinarily high tax rates on its wealthy residents, and yet still must hit the middle class with taxes that consume nearly half their earnings to pay for all those nice things us tax averse Americans envy.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/nolan-finley/2017/05/13/finley-ready-pay-free-health-care/101658894/
No thanks
-
Paging anyone to explain to us how this is better....why bring back the pre exisiting co ditions thing except for I Durance companies want it
I believe that the issue here is that healthy people who rarely if ever use their insurance were paying extreme amounts for insurance when previously they would pay very little (it is my understanding that the exchanges were relying on this money to help cover the extreme costs of those with pre-existing conditions). This directly effected the younger people of the country who were least likely to be able to pay the high premiums.
This is correct. The aca taxed young people (forced them to buy crap overpriced insurance under threat of penalty) so old sick people could have less expensive health insurance they'd had 30 years to buy but chose not to.
Apparently the greatest generation felt it wasn't done raping its succesor generations.
-
Paging anyone to explain to us how this is better....why bring back the pre exisiting co ditions thing except for I Durance companies want it
I believe that the issue here is that healthy people who rarely if ever use their insurance were paying extreme amounts for insurance when previously they would pay very little (it is my understanding that the exchanges were relying on this money to help cover the extreme costs of those with pre-existing conditions). This directly effected the younger people of the country who were least likely to be able to pay the high premiums.
children can now stay on their parents insurance until they are 26. but yeah, the new rules stopped allowing insurance companies to sell junk/worthless insurance for low costs that would never actually really cover anything. the aca required insurance policies to have certain basic levels of coverage. so yes, a 27 year old might have to pay more for "insurance" than they did before, but they also received a much better product. this really is probably the best argument one could make against obamacare though. it made it harder for a 28 year old to roll the dice.
Lol, you must be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
-
The moonbeams in CA want single payer healthcare. It will only cost 400 billion dollars. :lol:
The price tag is in: It would cost $400 billion to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal heath care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.
California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations Committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.
The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to creating a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.
It remains a long-shot bid. Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article151960182.html)
Guys this free medicine thing will totally work! :woot:
-
Id be curious how much more that would cost citizens than their current insurance premiums
-
A eff ton more. Goodness my scale was way off this morning
-
BCBS is out of western missouri and eastern kansas.
#thanksobama
-
Wait, you're telling me that insurance companies are pulling out because they aren't making money hand over fist now that they are being allowed too? weird.
-
Did the new republican healthcare bill allow competition across state lines like they have been preaching for a decade would reduce costs?
-
Did the new republican healthcare bill allow competition across state lines like they have been preaching for a decade would reduce costs?
Of course it did
-
https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/867864915595239424
-
Wait, you're telling me that insurance companies are pulling out because they aren't making money hand over fist now that they are being allowed too? weird.
It's truly evil that they want lose hundreds of millions of dollars until they are no longer solvent, causing the rest of their subsribers to lose insurance, just so the democrats can claim to have accomplished something.
What's more puzzling is how you can lose money giving people something free.
-
I gave up trying to read the House bill, and I haven't even attempted the Senate version. It is depressing to me that the GOP lacks the courage to ram through a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare, and is instead resorting to fixing some of its worst aspects.
But I am surprised and optimistic to see that Avik Roy, the policy expert who was 100% right about all the flaws with the original Obamacare, is actually pretty happy about the new Senate bill. I'd recommend everyone give this a read, as opposed to the dopey tweets from Dems claiming that the GOP wants to kill everyone (nice rhetoric, guys - keep feeding your hate to your base).
Roy's primary praise for this bill is that it fundamentally transforms Medicaid, which is the worst and most wasteful of all entitlement programs, and is one of the biggest drivers of our federal deficits. I'll take his word for it.
I'm chiefly disappointed that this bill still relies heavily on federal subsidies - like Obamacare - to make insurance more affordable, when we should be taking a free market approach to driving down cost. Unless we dramatically deregulate health insurance, and lessen the role of insurance in purchasing health care, prices will continue to rise.
-
Why do Republicans enjoy killing people so much?
-
It's all about the Benjamin's baby.
-
I gave up trying to read the House bill, and I haven't even attempted the Senate version. It is depressing to me that the GOP lacks the courage to ram through a full repeal and replacement of Obamacare, and is instead resorting to fixing some of its worst aspects.
But I am surprised and optimistic to see that Avik Roy, the policy expert who was 100% right about all the flaws with the original Obamacare, is actually pretty happy about the new Senate bill. I'd recommend everyone give this a read, as opposed to the dopey tweets from Dems claiming that the GOP wants to kill everyone (nice rhetoric, guys - keep feeding your hate to your base).
Roy's primary praise for this bill is that it fundamentally transforms Medicaid, which is the worst and most wasteful of all entitlement programs, and is one of the biggest drivers of our federal deficits. I'll take his word for it.
I'm chiefly disappointed that this bill still relies heavily on federal subsidies - like Obamacare - to make insurance more affordable, when we should be taking a free market approach to driving down cost. Unless we dramatically deregulate health insurance, and lessen the role of insurance in purchasing health care, prices will continue to rise.
Love to "purchase" health care. One time I was bored and I had $50,000 saved up so I went down and had some exploratory surgery to look for cool crap in my lungs. Some people would've got a new truck, but I love to purchase health care. I even shopped around one time when I had an emergency and demanded the ambulance drive me to Topeka where prices are much better.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Stoooopid congressional republicans. Like a bunch of moron chicken hens who find a pile of livery grenades. "Hey Myrtle, let's sit on these eggs!" Kablooey. If Obamacare is crap, why try to hatch something new from the same egg? Old people are going to blow a gasket on this.
-
Only a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) would be upset about the pubs making obamacare less shitty.
-
Love to "purchase" health care. One time I was bored and I had $50,000 saved up so I went down and had some exploratory surgery to look for cool crap in my lungs. Some people would've got a new truck, but I love to purchase health care. I even shopped around one time when I had an emergency and demanded the ambulance drive me to Topeka where prices are much better.
We've had this discussion before. You keep coming back to it, and I'm not sure why this is so confusing for you. The situation you are describing is exactly why people should have insurance. Insurance is not supposed to be a payment method, it is supposed to alleviate risk of big expenses you cannot afford. Just like you don't use home insurance when your AC goes on the fritz, and you don't use car insurance when you need an oil change.
This really is not a difficult concept! It is important that you understand it if you want to engage in any meaningful healthcare discussion and not sound like a complete fool.
-
Their elected officials routinely refer to health insurance as healthcare, so it really isn't surprising they are incapable of understanding the difference.
-
I sure wish every congressman (especially GOP) would read this. Might help them get their priorities straight on HC reform.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/29/blue-collar-middle-class-truck-drivers-rant-americas-health-care-mess/ (http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/29/blue-collar-middle-class-truck-drivers-rant-americas-health-care-mess/)
So often I hear the health-care crisis discussed in generalities and abstractions. “Premiums are skyrocketing.” “Deductibles are gargantuan.” “The co-pays are outrageous!”
While that’s all true, that sort of talk is largely meaningless to me, and probably you as well. I want to scream, “You have no idea!” So if you’ll indulge me, I’ll give you a concrete, albeit anecdotal, example of what “skyrocketing premiums,” “gargantuan deductibles,” and “outrageous co-pays” look like on the ground for a blue collar, middle-class truck driver.
I work for a really great trucking outfit. I love the job. They provide us with top-notch equipment and plenty of miles. (For those of you not familiar with truck driving, miles equal money.) However, if I elected to buy health insurance for my family of four through my company, I would take a salary cut to the tune of about $25,000 a year. That’s on top of my employer paying approximately one-fourth of the costs, about $6,000.
I wish they’d just add that to my salary. Another six grand a year would cover my daughter’s private school tuition, which keeps her from being indoctrinated by the progressive left and “common core” propaganda. But I digress.
So if I want health insurance, the tab for me is a little over $2,000 per month, plus $500 if you add my employer’s contribution. Comparatively, then, my monthly payment for my daughter’s school tuition is cheap, at about $425 a month. Anyway, does that $30,000 a year go toward actually paying for any health expenses we incur? Nope. The deductible is five large!
We have to meet that before our meds or anything else will be covered. Until then, we have to co-pay on all meds and medical treatment. For my inhaler for asthma, I pay a $55 co-pay. Retail cost of the inhaler? $63. Without going into the grisly details, on average we have about $400 in medical expenses per month among the four of us. Obviously, something isn’t passing the smell test here.
So let me get this straight: I’m going to drive 2,500 miles a week so I can pay a health insurer more than $2,500 a month just in case, God forbid, one of us gets cancer? If you break that down by mileage, the insurance company and whoever else is benefiting from this is getting paid 25 cents for every mile I drive. And they’re not doing anything! If they want to earn 25 cents for every mile I drive, then come out on the road with me!
So, in reality, my company hired me, not because I’m a rock star truck driver who makes the company a profit, but so, what—the insurance companies can stay in business? The politicians can stay elected? The lobbyists can drive around in Benzes? Where in the name of Sam Hill is all this money going? Oh, that’s right. Perhaps it’s going to a Georgetown law student who wants to have sex with no consequences. Or to a “transgender” person in the military who wants a sex-change operation. Certainly those must be covered, right? To be sure, women who want abortion on demand or abortifacients must be fully subsidized, but who cares if asthma meds for working folks quadruple in costs.
Now, I do alright. I can help some people. If a pregnant teen came to me and asked for help, I might be willing to take a large salary cut to help her find her way. I could help her in a very specific and personal way that is accord with my values and her best interests. But no! Uncle Sam is going to dictate how I’m allowed to “help” her. That once-discretionary income has been wrested from my hands on pain of death because, after all, I can’t be trusted to do the right thing with my own money.
Before “Obamacare” I paid a $16 co-pay for my inhalers. Now I might as well buy the things outright. To add insult to injury, I make too much money to qualify for the “Obamacare subsidies.” So all that talk about health reform being for the “middle-class” is absolute nonsense.
I’m a truck driver who spends his weeks away from his family to earn a living wage. Yet if one of us gets really sick, we’re sunk. Dying slowly in America has become a very, very expensive proposition. What’s more is, I fear this has all been concocted by design. The only thing that makes a lick of sense is that this is a gargantuan transference of wealth. It is not robbing the rich to give to the poor. It’s not even robbing the middle-class to give to the poor. It’s robbing the middle-class to keep politicians elected for “doing something” that somehow constantly seems to make the problems worse.
There’s no bloody way that I’m going for this. I don’t know much about financial planning, but I’ve been told it’s silly to pay for a term-life plan as if you’re going to get hit by a bus tomorrow. So there’s no way I’m going to pay for a health insurance plan that is basically predicated on one of us having something catastrophic happen later this afternoon.
I may be dumb, but I’m not stupid. I’m simply not going to pay out the nose for virtually nothing in return. My game plan is to pay out of pocket for our regular medical expenses. What would you rather do: Pay $400 per month to fund your own regular medical expenses, or pay $2,400 per month for insurance premium plus co-pays plus meeting the deductible? I’ll take option “A.” Then I’ll just set up my own health savings plan so when one of the kids breaks an arm, we’ll pay for it out of that. Then of course I have to pay whatever nonsense penalty Uncle Sam has going on for not having health insurance. GRR.
I’m pretty much done listening to politicians and pundits pontificate about lowering premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. I’m main-lining to give myself the health care I want and need. We can call it the “Blue Collar-Redneck Shield” plan. I’d better get crackin’ on this, because it won’t be long until the powers that be simply start deducting $2,500 a month from my paycheck for whatever convoluted government program they come up with.
It reminds me of the old Mafioso days where the neighborhood boss would come around to your business demanding “protection money.” When it comes down to it, there’s not actually any real protection service on offer. The only real benefit you receive is the peace of mind that the boss may not send his henchmen to put a bullet in your head for non-payment.
Seems to me like our “Big Brother” doesn’t operate much differently. He forces you to pay for a “service” that really isn’t a service, and what you’re really paying for is crummy protection from a malevolent “benefactor”—that “benefactor” being the federal government and politicians’ hand-picked special interest constituencies. Pay him and he won’t punish you, except by bequeathing you a terrifying environment. Refuse payment, and suffer worse consequences.
Well, sorry, Uncle Sam. You’ve fooled with the wrong country boy! I’m checking out of this little game while I still can. I’m opting for the “Blue Collar-Redneck Shield” plan, brought to you by “Southern Engineering.” I’ll simply do what I can given the circumstances—just like I always have.
-
And for liberals who may not be as big on reading, they'd do well to watch this funny short video.
Remy: People Will DIE!! (https://youtu.be/eXWhbUUE4ko)
-
That would be a whole lot shorter if he wouldn't have copied and pasted about 10 paragraphs from the first half of his manifesto into the second. I'm probably not big enough on reading to appreciate that, though.
-
When even a truck driver who writes like a child can send his kid to private school it is no longer private. Thank god there are none at my kids school.
-
I really have no idea what ksuw thought when he posted that. Drugs?
-
I wish they’d just add that to my salary. Another six grand a year would cover my daughter’s private school tuition, which keeps her from being indoctrinated by the progressive left and “common core” propaganda. But I digress
:lol: what a moron
-
I don't really believe his premiums are as high as he claims they are. His deductible is way too high for those premiums to make sense. I guess maybe if by "5 large" he means $500 that might be about right.
-
He wants sex to have consequences.
-
I think he wants single payer but is too dumb to realize it
-
I think he wants single payer but is too dumb to realize it
Most people who are against it don't even realize how much they actually really want it in the end. Once we finally do that, we'll leave this whole stupid debate in the trash bin of history.
-
We probably should do something to actually address a few of the things that make healthcare expensive before we go to single payer.
-
I think he wants single payer but is too dumb to realize it
Most people who are against it don't even realize how much they actually really want it in the end. Once we finally do that, we'll leave this whole stupid debate in the trash bin of history.
We are getting closer to it being painful enough for the electorate to demand it but we have a long ass way to go.
-
We probably should do something to actually address a few of the things that make healthcare expensive before we go to single payer.
Agreed
I think he wants single payer but is too dumb to realize it
Most people who are against it don't even realize how much they actually really want it in the end. Once we finally do that, we'll leave this whole stupid debate in the trash bin of history.
We are getting closer to it being painful enough for the electorate to demand it but we have a long ass way to go.
Also agreed
-
Guys, whatever is infecting McCain, I think our ol' Pat Roberts caught it
"Once in Glacier National Park I saw two porcupines making love," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. "I'm assuming they produced smaller porcupines. They produced something. It has to be done carefully. That's what we're doing now."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/gop-obamacare-repeal-teeters-senate-shelves-vote-48320474
-
Thoughts on the libtard talking point that this bill (which will pass) is "mean"?
:lol:
-
Actually Chuck called in MeanER! HAHA
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk
-
Thoughts on the libtard talking point that this bill (which will pass) is "mean"?
:lol:
Your president called it mean but loves it anyway
-
"He's not my president!"
:D
-
Obamacare is doing great, no reson to change it.
-nobody
-
FSD, Trump is not a libtard
-
In a lot of ways he kind of is, actually.
-
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/881319281039986688
-
Will not read this article. Was that life expectancy question real? zomg
-
As Congress returns to continue a debate over Republican proposals to roll back much of the Affordable Care Act, there's some sign that coverage gains from the law are starting to erode.
The number of U.S. adults without health insurance has grown by some 2 million this year, according to the Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index, published Monday, The survey that the uninsured rate among U.S. adults was 11.7 percent in the second three months of this year, compared with a record low of 10.9 percent at the end of last year. Though small, the change was statistically significant, survey analysts noted.
-
Must be the Trump effect.
-
More likely the old Obama: a) we cant buy insurance in our county anymore effect, or b) our premiums have tripled and we can't afford the free insurance effect.
-
Nope. It's all Trump. All good and bad is now Trumps.
-
Two items of good news today!
First, the new Senate HC bill is supposedly marginally improved by (supposedly) allowing insurers to sell stripped down, less expensive insurance plans (which is exactly what we need to allow).
Second, AG Sessions (just a huuuge racist and Russian stooge, according to The Narrative) announced a massive crackdown on medical billing fraud. Hooray for law enforcement doing something worthwhile!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-take-down-in-us-history/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sessions-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-take-down-in-us-history/)
This is why it's slightly better to have the GOP in charge. Not much, but a little.
-
those both seem like good things from known horrible person Jeff Sessions (according to Jeff Sessions) :thumbs:
-
Jeff sessions is a horrible person
-
Working on a case of nearly a billion dollars in fraudulant bills (medicare/medicaid) that occurred during the Era of Post Election Flexibility.
Loretta was apparently to busy thwarting election year investigations into lost emails and destroyed hard drives.
-
Working on a case of nearly a billion dollars in fraudulant bills (medicare/medicaid) that occurred during the Era of Post Election Flexibility.
Loretta was apparently to busy thwarting election year investigations into lost emails and destroyed hard drives.
Loretta Lynch did jack crap for law enforcement - exactly as liberals would prefer.
-
Our Senator Moran just announced he will not vote for the latest Medical Care Sausage Bill. This would hurt the elderly horribly.
-
good job out of senator moran, representing his state.
-
what ever happened to opening up insurance markets to nationwide competition?
-
good job out of senator moran, representing his state.
He's been a pretty good senator for us.
-
good job out of senator moran, representing his state.
He's been a pretty good senator for us.
he's tolerable, much better than Roberts. His post regarding the healthcare bill has him anti single payer (no reason for that, yet ;) )but baby steps, you accept the bird in hand.
-
itt: :lol:
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cbo-obamacare-repeal-would-boost-uninsured-by-32m/ar-AAosJjd?li=BBnbcA1 (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cbo-obamacare-repeal-would-boost-uninsured-by-32m/ar-AAosJjd?li=BBnbcA1)
:Woohoo:
Just what we needed to reduce debt and stop lazy people from mooching off the system. Now hard working American's don't have to indirectly pay for lazy bums/thugs and so called activists who are to busy being heroes on twitter to find jobs. Trump balling so hard this week! Good job motivating a good percentage of the population (mostly liberal) into getting off their asses and getting jobs or going to school or learning a trade.
-
Just going to embrace it like SB and Reno huh, I can respect that.
-
Hahaha I cannot. Actually tarnished lib a bit in my eyes based on what was said by the sock. :/
-
7 years to get to such a pinnacle. Great job guys!
-
Hahaha I cannot. Actually tarnished lib a bit in my eyes based on what was said by the sock. :/
Yeah, not the same when I can no longer guess who the man behind the curtain is
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrN8STVb.gif&hash=d91c9a5a4ca696543e998225acad5b038eb1e5f9)
-
Hahaha I cannot. Actually tarnished lib a bit in my eyes based on what was said by the sock. :/
Yeah, not the same when I can no longer guess who the man behind the curtain is
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrN8STVb.gif&hash=d91c9a5a4ca696543e998225acad5b038eb1e5f9)
I have received information stating that it is not lib^7. So...
-
Hahaha I cannot. Actually tarnished lib a bit in my eyes based on what was said by the sock. :/
Yeah, not the same when I can no longer guess who the man behind the curtain is
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrN8STVb.gif&hash=d91c9a5a4ca696543e998225acad5b038eb1e5f9)
I have received information stating that it is not lib^7. So...
if you say so...
-
every time one of these johnny come latelies washes up on the shoals i marvel anew at chingon and all he has accomplished over the years.
-
:lol:
-
Heh.
-
Technically, lib has always been the sock dumbasses
-
what an aborted fetus of a senate. the cowardice of graham and mccain is breathtaking.
-
Now that wacky is back it's great that republicat is gone, but also a complete coincidence
-
i take back my comment about mccain.
-
i take back my comment about mccain.
amazing showmanship, nut punch right at the height of suspense.
-
Now that wacky is back it's great that republicat is gone, but also a complete coincidence
hmm......quite the detective work there someone who makes me uncomfortable
-
(https://images.dailykos.com/images/429573/story_image/mccain_copy.jpg?1501246945)
for posterities sake
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-ruling-could-help-keep-obamacare-subsidies/ar-AAphj91
Attorney Generals from 16 states are allowed to intervene in the Obama appeal that he had the authority to give subsidies to insurance companies wit out Congress appropriating money to do so, and a lower court ruling he could not do this. Ruling said these states would be harmed. Well lawdydaw. These were created by executive order and Trump can get rid of them by executive order. I challenge any one to argue otherwise. I suppose Dax or FSD think these payments are hunky dory.
-
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170801/NEWS03/170809980/illinois-insurers-plan-double-digit-obamacare-rate-hikes
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/18/tea-party-patriots-pass-graham-cassidy-set-america-on-path-to-fully-repeal-obamacare/
Obama legacy. Dies. The final dagger to this leftist fiasco has been drawn. Patriots have been scuttling repeal efforts. The only hope the Dems have now is to argue repeal of Obamacare will cause climate change.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/18/tea-party-patriots-pass-graham-cassidy-set-america-on-path-to-fully-repeal-obamacare/
Obama legacy. Dies. The final dagger to this leftist fiasco has been drawn. Patriots have been scuttling repeal efforts. The only hope the Dems have now is to argue repeal of Obamacare will cause climate change.
Dangynabbit. I thought maybe this defense might be used. Naw! Democratic Socialist Leftist are not that moronic. .... http://climatehealthconnect.org/news-and-events/in-the-news/safeguard-climate-change-defend-obamacare/
-
It seems that they still don't have Paul, McCain, Collins, Murkowski, and possibly others. Could be another giant fail.
-
The annual premium for family coverage rose an average of 3 percent to $18,764 this year, according the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit group, which conducted the annual survey of employers. That is the sixth straight year that employer-provided policies have increased by well under 5 percent, according to the survey.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/health/health-insurance-premiums-employer.html
-
“I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn’t be considered,” Grassley told the Des Moines Register. “But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That’s pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill.”
https://thinkprogress.org/senator-admits-obamacare-replacement-might-hurt-country-841b4df32704/
-
McCain keeps dunking on these dudes
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2017-07/28/10/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane-01/anigif_sub-buzz-8207-1501252568-1.gif?downsize=715:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKWNFuQWsAAJbGh.jpg:large)
-
That should kill it. I wonder if they'll go ahead with the vote.
-
This is why we should have term limits. McCain can now vote his conscience and not worry about upsetting donors and lobbyists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think, maybe, McAdoodle, hates Trump.
-
This is why we should have term limits. McCain can now vote his conscience and not worry about upsetting donors and lobbyists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those two sentences seem contradictory...
-
Then vote to straight repeal it, after its gone do your bipartisan bill without ocare hanging over 'pub heads, Ever heard of that one John?
-
Then vote to straight repeal it, after its gone do your bipartisan bill without ocare hanging over 'pub heads, Ever heard of that one John?
that's political suicide
-
This is why we should have term limits. McCain can now vote his conscience and not worry about upsetting donors and lobbyists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those two sentences seem contradictory...
Not really. Just look at the last two years of any presidency. They always start doing the stuff they had always wanted to and focus less on the noise. Obama got 100% cooler his last couple years. That is a statistical fact you can google.
-
This is why we should have term limits. McCain can now vote his conscience and not worry about upsetting donors and lobbyists.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Those two sentences seem contradictory...
Maybe at first glance, but McCain just got term limited by brain cancer.
-
President Trump just called Congress's bluff and took a sledge hammer to Obamacare. $7 billion in subsidies to the prop up the insurers are gone. Those subsidies were never authorized by the law in the first place. This will cause the the few remaining insurers to jack up their rates or exit the exchanges. In another executive order, Trump also made it a bit easier for people to buy skimpier, cheaper insurance.
-
President Trump just called Congress's bluff and took a sledge hammer to Obamacare. $7 billion in subsidies to the prop up the insurers are gone. Those subsidies were never authorized by the law in the first place. This will cause the the few remaining insurers to jack up their rates or exit the exchanges. In another executive order, Trump also made it a bit easier for people to buy skimpier, cheaper insurance.
Why are you excited that the president "took a sledge hammer" to the citizens healthcare.
-
I've heard many insurers' rates were already starting to account for this since they're not stupid and they know Trump is.
-
What a rat
-
those subsidies allow low income families to be insured but eff them amiright
-
President Trump just called Congress's bluff and took a sledge hammer to Obamacare. $7 billion in subsidies to the prop up the insurers are gone. Those subsidies were never authorized by the law in the first place. This will cause the the few remaining insurers to jack up their rates or exit the exchanges. In another executive order, Trump also made it a bit easier for people to buy skimpier, cheaper insurance.
Why are you excited that the president "took a sledge hammer" to the citizens healthcare.
The citizens healthcare? I like that term. Like something you'd hear in Venezuela. Trump took steps to wean people off bloated, government subsidized insurance plans and encourage them to purchase the less expensive coverage they actually need. It's a small step in the right direction to roll back this shitty law (i.e., the citizens healthcare :lol:)
-
those subsidies allow low income families to be insured but eff them amiright
How do you define "low income?" We have Medicaid for low income people. That's awesome coverage, right? (If it isn't, then why do liberals want to force every American into it?) If their income is too high to qualify for Medicaid, they still qualify for generous Obamacare subsidies (to buy shitty insurance with premiums they can't afford - but liberals seem to love these policies anyway). This $7 billion subsidy Trump nixed was an illegal bailout to insurance companies.
-
You are one entitled rough ridin' prick. Not everyone was born into the same circumstance that you were. There are millions of hard working Americans who could not afford to go to college and bust their ass daily to earn what they can and need these subsidized insurance. The GOP had 8 god damn years to come up with alternative and they didnt come up with crap so this bad person is just going torpedo the eff out of citizens of this country just so he can say he can hang a W. Its gross and should be criminal.
-
You are one entitled rough ridin' prick. Not everyone was born into the same circumstance that you were. There are millions of hard working Americans who could not afford to go to college and bust their ass daily to earn what they can and need these subsidized insurance. The GOP had 8 god damn years to come up with alternative and they didnt come up with crap so this bad person is just going torpedo the eff out of citizens of this country just so he can say he can hang a W. Its gross and should be criminal.
How do you define "low income?" We have Medicaid for low income people. That's awesome coverage, right? (If it isn't, then why do liberals want to force every American into it?) If their income is too high to qualify for Medicaid, they still qualify for generous Obamacare subsidies (to buy shitty insurance with premiums they can't afford - but liberals seem to love these policies anyway). This $7 billion subsidy Trump nixed was an illegal bailout to insurance companies.
-
why should we donate any money for hurricane relief? that's what FEMA is for
-
why should we have FEMA donate any money for hurricane relief? that's what donations FEMA are for
He sees it more like this
-
States without Medicaid expansion don't come anywhere near covering all poor kids let alone all working families, they cover disabled and some very poor. If CHIP gets cut, even more kids will get kicked off. Check out the requirements.
Individuals who meet the following income limits qualify for Medicaid in Kansas:
Children up to age 1 are covered with family income up to 166 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)
Children ages 1 to 5 are covered with family income up to 149 percent of FPL
Children ages 6 to 18 are covered with family income up to 133 percent of FPL
Parents with dependent children are eligible with household income up to 33 percent of FPL. For a family of three, that’s $6,738/year in 2017.
Children with family income too high to qualify for Medicaid are eligible for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); the income limit is 242 percent of FPL
Individuals who are elderly or disabled may also qualify for KanCare; see the eligibility guidelines
Source: https://www.healthinsurance.org/kansas-medicaid/
Follow us: @EyeOnInsurance on Twitter | healthinsurance.org on Facebook
Persons in Household
2017 Federal Poverty Level
Medicaid Eligibility (138% of FPL)
1
$12,060
$16,643
2
$16,240
$22,411
3
$20,420
$28,180
4
$24,600
$33,948
5
$28,780
$39,716
6
$32,960
$45,485
7
$37,140
$51,253
8
$41,320
$57,022
-
It’s hard to reason with idiots
-
Rest assured there are a great many trump supporters losing their healthcare today
-
For decades, loads and loads of Republicans have been voting in favor of the financial interests of the rich and against their own.
-
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/918841964115759105
-
For decades, loads and loads of Republicans have been voting in favor of the financial interests of the rich and against their own.
Please see the "who's rational" great to explain the stupidity of this common liberal refrain.
-
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/918841964115759105
:lol: anyone who quotes Ezra Klein as any sort of expert on Obamacare.
-
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/918841964115759105
:lol: anyone who quotes Ezra Klein as any sort of expert on Obamacare.
The article is not by Klein, genius.
-
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/918841964115759105
:lol: anyone who quotes Ezra Klein as any sort of expert on Obamacare.
The article is not by Klein, genius.
Calling a Trump supporter genius, even in jest, is beyond explanation.
-
It's truly amazing how butthurt liberals are that Trump is dismanteling this piece of crap law. It's almost like they believe Obamacare was actually working before those darned Republians started meddling with it.
-
If it were a real law, Trump couldn’t dismantle it.
-
If a president thinks it was stupid for his predecessor to build a bunch of extra nukes, that doesn't mean it's smart to just throw them all in the garbage.
-
LOL @ stupid libs getting upset over cancer patients no longer being able to afford treatment. Just LOL @ everything about that.
-
I think what really disturbs me is KSU dub appears to be offended that poor people would even have the same quality of care or coverage that he has. Like almost a you haven't worked hard enough or produced enough value to get the kind of care I have access to.
-
Not a good look for sure
-
Insurance companies pulling out of exchanges. Insurance companies dropping affordable plans that actually provided something and replacing them with plans with massive deductibles and out of pocket costs.
Everything is great.
-
I think this point should be spelled out for the Dax's and KSUW's of the world: no one is saying the system was working well before. It's just definitely way worse now.
-
Insurance companies pulling out of exchanges. Insurance companies dropping affordable plans that actually provided something and replacing them with plans with massive deductibles and out of pocket costs.
Everything is great.
The president intentionally sabotaging the healthcare market to get the congress and senate to repeal the ACA. Totally normal. No negative consequences.
-
I think this point should be spelled out for the Dax's and KSUW's of the world: no one is saying the system was working well before. It's just definitely way worse now.
Getting worse by the month. And has nothing to do with republicans who, I'll remind you, didn't cast a single vote for this Piece. Of. crap. Law. What liberals can't seem to get through their sad skulls is this law was always doomed to fail. It was always unsustainable. It was always an idiotic idea.
I'm sorry the GOP is too incompetent and/or corrupt to fix this mess. I really am. But Trump is doing what he can do. He's signing executive orders ending the *illegal* insurance company bailout, and another order giving people a bit more freedom to buy less expensive policies. All liberals can do is gnash their teeth and bitch that GOP is killing people. An intellectually bankrupt and pathetic lament.
-
Obvious points are always a bit more salient when acknowledged by a liberal.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/14/turley_obamas_original_obamacare_order_was_unconstitutional_also_violated_health_care_law_itself.html (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/14/turley_obamas_original_obamacare_order_was_unconstitutional_also_violated_health_care_law_itself.html)
-
oh man we got a period after every word sentence! :love:
-
The company I work for tried to shop around before our reenrollment. We went to three different major companies to try and get a quote and none of them would. With whom does the fault lie? Obama or Trump?
-
Neither, the fault lies with the American people.
-
Neither, the fault lies with the American people.
Damn. I wanted someone to blame.
-
I never revealed this before, but I actually used to do work for Josh Kushner's company. :)
https://twitter.com/VFHIVE/status/923916637023154176
-
Sounds like a kickass company
primary purpose of the op-ed seems to be to reassure investors that Oscar is prepared to weather whatever policy turmoil is headed its way. Indeed, Oscar’s financial problems predate Trump. Even before his brother went to work in Washington to help dismantle the Affordable Care Act, Josh’s billion-dollar start-up was bleeding money and retooling its reliance on Obamacare, with plans to focus on narrow networks and roll out plans to small and large businesses, moving away from individual health-insurance plans typically covered by the Affordable Care Act.
"If the government forces people to buy our crap, we should do okay"
AMAZE
-
That reminds me of the owner of the company I worked for, a Republican, who would get pissed because Kushner's company (she alleged) got reimbursed millions of dollars from the federal government. She never used the term "bailout," but that was sort of the gist. She never seemed to have any ethical qualms over doing business with him, though.
-
I don't want to make a new thread for this. Here you go.
NYT: Economic Growth Requires Free Birth Control (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/opinion/economy-birth-control.html)
-
I don't want to make a new thread for this. Here you go.
NYT: Economic Growth Requires Free Birth Control (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/opinion/economy-birth-control.html)
KSUW, this is the stupidist logic I have ever heard. Free birth control for women will rev up the economy, ,,,,??? Then they will be having sex instead working. Liberals want everything free. Thanks for sharing.
-
If women having free birth control were good for the economy, employers would already be incentivized to offer it (and I believe many do).
-
I think [you] has some great thoughts on this and I'd like to hear more from them.
-
I don't want to make a new thread for this. Here you go.
NYT: Economic Growth Requires Free Birth Control (https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/29/opinion/economy-birth-control.html)
Economics fail. On this logic a woman's greatest utility is at home cranking out as many kids as possible.
-
If women having free birth control were good for the economy, employers would already be incentivized to offer it (and I believe many do).
Just would foster more sexdog lawsuits and claims. Ain't no one advocating free vasectomies. This is sexist. Sperms have same rights as eggs.
-
Good points, but I can see how employers and insurers may want to treat medication and surgery differently.
-
"No one is denied care"
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/28/criminalization-of-debt-imprisonment-aclu-report/ (https://theintercept.com/2018/02/28/criminalization-of-debt-imprisonment-aclu-report/)
tl/dr
1. An out-of-work guy gets taken to the hospital in an ambulance
2. He can’t pay the bill
3. The city sues him to get the money
4. He misses his court date
5. Gets arrested
6. Kills himself in jail
-
Ugh
-
Very gross.
-
https://twitter.com/sltrib/status/969350764396208129
:lol:
-
Disgraced former Trump cabinet member says obvious things:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/01/trumps-former-health-secretary-americans-will-pay-more-because-gop-weakened-obamacare/
-
Had no idea there were people who supported obamacare. Interesting
-
https://twitter.com/rachanadixit/status/1019942074794283016
-
Open enrollment for Obamacare Exchange plans starts today. Thankfully, certain predictions made in this thread appear to have been wrong as the US economy has not yet totally collapsed.
-
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1060347271987036160
-
Uh oh
-
In a shocking turn of events, fear mongering republican politicans convince dumbass republicans that something good is actually bad to frighten them in the short term and then completely drop it when they were obviously wrong. Film at 11.
-
In a shocking turn of events, fear mongering republican politicans convince dumbass republicans that something good is actually bad to frighten them in the short term and then completely drop it when they were obviously wrong. Film at 11.
It's a very effective strategy when the majority of who you appeal to aren't very smart. I mean I give them credit to relating to their voting base, they know them down to a T.
-
Serious question, what’s the most you’ve ever spent for healthcare with you work plan? Just curious.
-
$90/month I think
-
Close to $60/month which is way higher than I pay now.
-
Serious question, what’s the most you’ve ever spent for healthcare with you work plan? Just curious.
Absolutely no idea
-
I hear it's not that much :lol:
-
Serious question, what’s the most you’ve ever spent for healthcare with you work plan? Just curious.
Absolutely no idea
Yeah, me neither, just know when you add family it gets super high. Haven’t thought twice about it since 8 years ago.
-
$2400/mo
-
I know ‘stone can afford those numbers, which I hope for him still feels low, but I don’t, just trying to get a ballpark here.
-
‘Stone that’s for the whole fam too, right?
-
Unless he and his entire family have/had cancer his post is a joke.
-
Pretty sure he’s the bread winner. If I was to add Mrs. wacky to my plan it would blow up to $225 a paycheck. Only reason why I’m concerned as a true moderate.
-
My employer fully pays family coverage
-
There’s no way you’ve paid that closely to it, bud. What does that coverage even mean? What are you selling?
-
I actually pay way more than I should. Startups and growing companies(not based in MHK) cover full cost for employees most often. Tech company stuff as perks.
-
‘Stone that’s for the whole fam too, right?
Yes, of course
-
Unless he and his entire family have/had cancer his post is a joke.
You are wrong. That’s the non subsidized cost
-
Unless he and his entire family have/had cancer his post is a joke.
You are wrong. That’s the non subsidized cost
Ok, well yeah, then mine is MUCH higher.
-
There’s no way you’ve paid that closely to it, bud. What does that coverage even mean? What are you selling?
Huh?
-
Back on point: Is Trump completely abandoning his promise to repeal and replace?
-
CIVICS 101: You need the Senate AND House to pass legislation.
But hey, that great ACA! Just found out my deductible is going up $2000 next year. :facepalm: But no worries, BKBS says my policy will cost the same! :dubious: If only the government could pass some kind of Affordable Care Act. . . :flush:
-
CIVICS 101: You need the Senate AND House to pass legislation.
But hey, that great ACA! Just found out my deductible is going up $2000 next year. :facepalm: But no worries, BKBS says my policy will cost the same! :dubious: If only the government could pass some kind of Affordable Care Act. . . :flush:
must be nice. State of Kansas cut health insurance and put everyone on high deductible plans.
-
Nebraska actually lowered their premiums this year. was pretty shocked.
-
CIVICS 101: You need the Senate AND House to pass legislation.
But hey, that great ACA! Just found out my deductible is going up $2000 next year. :facepalm: But no worries, BKBS says my policy will cost the same! :dubious: If only the government could pass some kind of Affordable Care Act. . . :flush:
Umm, didn't he have those for 2 years?
-
How much is you dudes deductible? Mine is "high deductible" but it's only like 3 grand, most of which is easily covered with yearly hsa distributions. I see crap about people having 10-20k deductibles while paying $1500 a month premiums and have no idea how that is even possible.
I also haven't used insurance to pay for anything in like 10 years, so maybe my crap sucks and I don't know it yet.
-
Went from $3000/$6000 to $4000/$8000.
I don't work for the State, good grief, woof.
-
hey wagers, go thank your bosses today.
-
hey wagers, go thank your bosses today.
How insurance is still tied to employment is almost as mind boggling as an 85 year old Supreme Court Justice.
-
Yeah, it's insanely stupid
-
i pay $800/month for two people. it's going up to $900/month next year. it's ridiculous.
-
CIVICS 101: You need the Senate AND House to pass legislation.
But hey, that great ACA! Just found out my deductible is going up $2000 next year. :facepalm: But no worries, BKBS says my policy will cost the same! :dubious: If only the government could pass some kind of Affordable Care Act. . . :flush:
if only there had been one party would have recently campaigned to provide a better system and had gained control of the house / senate / and executive brach
too bad this didn't happen
:facepalm:
-
i pay $800/month for two people. it's going up to $900/month next year. it's ridiculous.
Sheesh.
-
CIVICS 101: You need the Senate AND House to pass legislation.
more stuff like this
-
110 pages of doom and gloom
all fixed by changing the name to Trumpcare
-
https://twitter.com/nicholaskitchel/status/1063862658628272129
-
to be fair, it worked for like 6 years, but campaigning non-stop on repealing obamacare and not developing any plan at all for replacing it, is probably not going to go down as great political strategy in the end.
-
Seems like public opinion changed when Republicans had an actual chance to repeal.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
-
I’m pretty happy with my health insurance right now
-
The Republicans were smart to run against health insurance. Everyone pretty much hates their health insurance! The problem is they offered an obviously worse alternative.
-
what would it take realistically to get a single payer system voted in? I'd give Donald a wall in exchange for that.
-
what would it take realistically to get a single payer system voted in? I'd give Donald a wall in exchange for that.
The boomers will never allow it. They will just keep Medicare for themselves.
-
RIP the ACA.
We'll miss your higher premiums for shittier insurance.
-
Man dems are going to tear pubs a new bad person in 2020
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Haven't had time to read the opinion yet, but how can a District Court judge make this ruling when SCOTUS has already said it's constitutional?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Congress set the penalty to $0 so the judge decided that meant there is no tax and the mandate is unconstitutional. Something like that. It won't hold up.
-
Haven't had time to read the opinion yet, but how can a District Court judge make this ruling when SCOTUS has already said it's constitutional?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The penalty for not buying insurance is gone, so it's no longer constitutional as a tax. SCOTUS already found it would be unconstitutional under the commerce clause. It's toast. Hundred plus million people win.
-
That’s just begging the question. The issue is whether no individual mandate (which Republicans ditched a few months ago) means the ACA as a whole cannot stand. Judge O’Connor apparently thought so. I haven’t read the opinion but I don’t really understand how no individual mandate means no ACA. I mean it’s a terrible law without the mandate but I think it could still function.
-
After arguing for years (decades?) that the ACA can't function without the individual mandate, I think it would be hard to argue it doesn't render the law functional without it.
That's notwithstanding that the constitutionality of the mandate hindered on it being a "tax". Pretty sure a %0 penalty isn't a tax. The dems will be forced to lie in the bed of fiction it created.
-
So, it's a severability issue. With Kennedy gone, and Gorsuch and Kavdawg on the bench, the question is what will Roberts do? I could easily see SCOTUS affirming this. Or if the Democrats accept Trump's offer to work on a replacement, it could well be moot by then.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Someone would have to convincingly explain how something like Medicaid expansion hinged on the individual mandate.
-
How about we just toss it in the trash and do a single payer that the vast majority of people want.
-
If DJT squeaks into a second term, that’s exactly where this is all heading in 2025 or so.
-
If DJT squeaks into a second term, that’s exactly where this is all heading in 2025 or so.
I think it will head that direction if DJT is voted out, too.
-
There are no positive outcomes for Republicans with this subject. Go ahead and use judicial activism to get rid of insurance for millions of people and get rid of pre existing condition protections. Winning political strategy :lol:
-
There are no positive outcomes for Republicans with this subject. Go ahead and use judicial activism to get rid of insurance for millions of people and get rid of pre existing condition protections. Winning political strategy :lol:
Trump could work with the democrats to establish single payer over the next 2 years and possibly save the republicans. I'm sure the senate republicans would fall in line if Donald told them to.
-
If DJT squeaks into a second term, that’s exactly where this is all heading in 2025 or so.
I think it will head that direction if DJT is voted out, too.
Eventually yes, but it would probably take longer.
-
Someone would have to convincingly explain how something like Medicaid expansion hinged on the individual mandate.
Medicaid expansion was/is at the option of the states, and multiple states did not expand.
-
While many people like the idea of single payer, almost nobody wants to be on Medicaid. That's a fact.
I know a bunch of olds (65+) who advocate for single payer but who wouldn't be caught dead at a Medicaid provider.
-
While many people like the idea of single payer, almost nobody wants to be on Medicaid. That's a fact.
I know a bunch of olds (65+) who advocate for single payer but who wouldn't be caught dead at a Medicaid provider.
Everyone ITT wants single payer and is younger than you
-
While many people like the idea of single payer, almost nobody wants to be on Medicaid. That's a fact.
I know a bunch of olds (65+) who advocate for single payer but who wouldn't be caught dead at a Medicaid provider.
Are those olds on Medicare or self insured?
-
While many people like the idea of single payer, almost nobody wants to be on Medicaid. That's a fact.
I know a bunch of olds (65+) who advocate for single payer but who wouldn't be caught dead at a Medicaid provider.
No one is proposing Medicaid for all.
-
if obamacare is constitutional with the mandate, but unconstitutional without the mandate. and the mandate was revoked more recently than obamacare was put into place, why is the judicial remedy not to overturn the revocation?
-
A Court cannot reach an act of Congress unless it is unconstitutional. Removing the penalty was not an unconstitutional act, though it had the (alleged) effect of making the ACA unconstitutional. It's kinda weird to wrap your head around, but I guess you could say that Congress acted with the intent that the ACA be unconstitutional? Kind of a procedural end-run around actually, fully repealing it in Congress. Impressive feat, if true. Courts generally defer to the most recent actions from the Legislative Branch when construing legislative intent. So, if a later amendment contradicts the intent of the Congress that passed the underlying act, courts assume that the later Congress did so intentionally and will not disturb the later act unless it be unconstitutional. It's a separation of powers thing.
That said, I don't think the result reached in this case is necessarily compelled, and a Judge in a different part of the country may well have reached a different conclusion.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
pretty much everyone seems to be saying it will be overturned, but it's good to know why it happened at all.
-
While many people like the idea of single payer, almost nobody wants to be on Medicaid. That's a fact.
I know a bunch of olds (65+) who advocate for single payer but who wouldn't be caught dead at a Medicaid provider.
Everyone ITT wants single payer and is younger than you
Only a complete ignoramus would forfeit their existing health plan for medicaid (or whatever similar single payer plan our train wreck of a government would role out)
-
While many people like the idea of single payer, almost nobody wants to be on Medicaid. That's a fact.
I know a bunch of olds (65+) who advocate for single payer but who wouldn't be caught dead at a Medicaid provider.
Are those olds on Medicare or self insured?
Medicare eligible, unwilling to drop their PPO.
-
Medicare/Medicaid is a single payer system, and the one they would use on the country. I don't know how you dipshits don't recognize that. Your Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) protesting libtards carry around "medicaid for all" signs, for god's sake.
If you honestly think the government, after passing the ACA (a = affordable), and after the aca drove up costs and reduced coverage, will make health care better and more affordable, you are legit insane.
-
I don't think I've ever heard someone advocate for "Medicaid For All." You realize that Medicaid and Medicare are different programs, right?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
The obvious reason he is taking pains to conflate Medicaid and Medicare is that Medicare is incredibly popular, universal (for its population) and has large bargaining power to negotiate reimbursement rates, whereas Medicaid is means tested and sabotaged at every end by states that want to undermine it and because of all of the burdensome work requirements and paper pushing to dissuade people from applying and keeping it has lots more overhead and is rightly regarded as inferior to the coverage provided by Medicare.
-
I for one trust the insurance companies raising rates as all the evidence I need that a single payer system won't ever work....
-
Health insurance being tied to your employer is ‘legit insane’
-
Health insurance being tied to your employer is ‘legit insane’
Well, employers do have an interest in keeping employees healthy enough to work.
-
I don't think I've ever heard someone advocate for "Medicaid For All." You realize that Medicaid and Medicare are different programs, right?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
No, I thought they gave two names to the same program. :dubious:
-
The obvious reason he is taking pains to conflate Medicaid and Medicare is that Medicare is incredibly popular, universal (for its population) and has large bargaining power to negotiate reimbursement rates, whereas Medicaid is means tested and sabotaged at every end by states that want to undermine it and because of all of the burdensome work requirements and paper pushing to dissuade people from applying and keeping it has lots more overhead and is rightly regarded as inferior to the coverage provided by Medicare.
You know who hates both? Doctors and the people that rely on the programs. You know why? Because the reimbursement rates suck, so only shitty volume practice doctors accept those types of patients. You want to take a look into a future that involves a single payer system? Walk into a disgusting "free" clinic and take a number. Bring something to keep busy, you'll be there a while.
It blows my rough ridin' mind how ignorant people are on the "universal healthcare" topic.
-
Have you been to a doctor’s office in Canada, Denmark, Finland, etc.? Are those what you’re describing?
-
Regurgitate a decades old scare tactic, rinse repeat.
-
Have you?
Do you think those shitty nordic countries are our peers?
Have you been to the doc in Mexico?
Instead of living a danish fantasy, go to a free clinic in whatever city you live in, and ask yourself if that is really what you want instead. Because that is what you're gonna get, and it's going to cost you more money.
-
Health insurance being tied to your employer is ‘legit insane’
I agree with this. I think any service where the end user doesn't pay for its (or most of it) cost is ripe for abuse. That's why I think it's foolish to want to move from partial pay to no pay, particularly when the new payer (govt) has zero incentive to minimize costs.
How you can identify the problem, and propose a solution that would absolutely compound that problem is baffling. The cognitive ability of the single payer proponent is that of a person with an iq of 80.
-
I absolutely love price shopping dialysis for my grandma. The market model is the only way to have good competition and innovation in medicine.
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/conservatives-obamacare-ruling-unconstitutional_us_5c17f636e4b08db990566f2b
-
LMAO
Rand Paul is going to Canada to have surgery
-
I mean, he’s going to the one hernia specialization hospital in the world and paying cash. Seems perfectly libertarian to me.
-
Is this a procedure to fix something from when he was viciously attacked by his deranged liberal neighbor who lost his f’ing mind over trump?
-
Is this a procedure to fix something from when he was viciously attacked by his deranged liberal neighbor who lost his f’ing mind over trump?
it was some doctor butthurt about Rand's libertarian attitude toward the HOA.
In making the case, Boucher’s lawyers filed a 10-page memo that outlined the alleged events leading up to the ambush on Paul while he was doing yard work. They want to reiterate that the assault stemmed from a neighborly dispute, not a political fight. Paul’s neighbor claims the whole thing began with an “unsightly” pile of yard debris that he kept hauling away and even tried to incinerate — and that the lawmaker allegedly kept rebuilding.
-
https://www.studyfinds.org/survey-half-doctors-consider-leaving-medicine-insurance-company-headaches/
-
I agree with dax that medical insurance companies are immoral and should be removed from the equation
-
Once upon a time I worked a short while for a government agency trying to do insurance. The GAO suggested it be shut down in 5 or 6 successive reports.
-
Take this to the reaching across the aisle thread. Everybody agress dax!
-
Take this to the reaching across the aisle thread. Everybody agress dax!
Phil you’ve just been really shitty lately. More than usual.
-
Take this to the reaching across the aisle thread. Everybody agress dax!
Phil you’ve just been really shitty lately. More than usual.
Acknowledging we all agree is being shitty? Sorry dax.
-
The obvious reason he is taking pains to conflate Medicaid and Medicare is that Medicare is incredibly popular, universal (for its population) and has large bargaining power to negotiate reimbursement rates, whereas Medicaid is means tested and sabotaged at every end by states that want to undermine it and because of all of the burdensome work requirements and paper pushing to dissuade people from applying and keeping it has lots more overhead and is rightly regarded as inferior to the coverage provided by Medicare.
You realize this is exactly why liberal politicians are careful to call it "Medicare for All"? Let me ask you, what do you think a single-payer system (one that doesn't cost us $20 trillion over the next 10 years) would actually look like - Medicare or Medicaid? I think you know the answer.
-
It would probably look more like medicaid in red states that want it to fail and more like medicare in blue states.
-
The obvious reason he is taking pains to conflate Medicaid and Medicare is that Medicare is incredibly popular, universal (for its population) and has large bargaining power to negotiate reimbursement rates, whereas Medicaid is means tested and sabotaged at every end by states that want to undermine it and because of all of the burdensome work requirements and paper pushing to dissuade people from applying and keeping it has lots more overhead and is rightly regarded as inferior to the coverage provided by Medicare.
You realize this is exactly why liberal politicians are careful to call it "Medicare for All"? Let me ask you, what do you think a single-payer system (one that doesn't cost us $20 trillion over the next 10 years) would actually look like - Medicare or Medicaid? I think you know the answer.
In my hypothetical it actually kicks ass.
-
Maybe if we called it something like westar the ksu’s of the world could overlook it being a part of the government and not auto reject it.
-
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1090085510784208898
-
one thing i will never understand about americans is how they're all "we hate big banks and bailouts that stave off recessions and whatnot", but they're cool with doctors sucking up 20% of their money.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1092569422403907584
-
Remember how people itt were convinced that Obamacare was some major factor in rising health insurance rates?
-
They clearly went up after obamacare and didn't go down after obamacare.
-
democrats (and republicans!) should spend a little more time fixing the underlying problems with american healthcare and worry a little bit less about who pays for it and how.
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1099763315608150016
-
most unhealthy eating habits and vices in the world?
-
:party:
most unhealthy eating habits and vices in the world?
nope.
-
democrats (and republicans!) should spend a little more time fixing the underlying problems with american healthcare and worry a little bit less about who pays for it and how.
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1099763315608150016
YES
-
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1110568596558807040
-
Owned to Own the libs
-
100%. if you listen to voter questions to dem candidates, health care is, like, 90% of what people care about.
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1110576309896273920
-
I know a lot of people thought that the takeaway from 2018 was that pubs lost on healthcare. It would be beautiful if they failed to learn that lesson for 2020.
-
You stupid eff’s ever see a seven car pile up in Mexico? I have and healthcare there involves all passengers on the highway jump out and start to take videos! Then the federalis come along with their Humvees with a badass 50 cal mounted on top and they take their cell phones out and start to video. Lastly the policia arrive just in time to pull out their phones and video an in the end the ambulance arrives and the paramedics look at each other raise their hands and drive off. Nine hours later the meat wagons come remove the messy stuff and the vehicles still are in the road until they find a way to move em off.
Universal heath care eff Ya!
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190327/74120650c242d411e635748085922aad.gif)
-
You stupid eff’s ever see a seven car pile up in Mexico? I have and healthcare there involves all passengers on the highway jump out and start to take videos! Then the federalis come along with their Humvees with a badass 50 cal mounted on top and they take their cell phones out and start to video. Lastly the policia arrive just in time to pull out their phones and video an in the end the ambulance arrives and the paramedics look at each other raise their hands and drive off. Nine hours later the meat wagons come remove the messy stuff and the vehicles still are in the road until they find a way to move em off.
Universal heath care eff Ya!
New favorite poster on this blog.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think that was a Henry Rollins music video, actually.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
-
I think that was a Henry Rollins music video, actually.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Link please.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think that was a Henry Rollins music video, actually.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Cabo March 1st 2019 look it up :dubious:
-
I'm confused as to what that has to do with universal health care :confused: :confused: :confused:
-
I'm confused as to what that has to do with universal health care :confused: :confused: :confused:
It’s what you get when you let someone else determine what you are allowed to have you need to leave the belt way a little more!
-
I think that was a Henry Rollins music video, actually.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Cabo March 1st 2019 look it up :dubious:
well clearly this cautionary tale of a traffic accident in Mexico completely delegitimizes universal health coverage around the world
case closed fellas
-
I'm confused as to what that has to do with universal health care :confused: :confused: :confused:
It’s what you get when you let someone else determine what you are allowed to have you need to leave the belt way a little more!
btw Mexico doesn't have a single payer system
but rather has a system fairly similar to our own
-
I'm confused as to what that has to do with universal health care :confused: :confused: :confused:
It’s what you get when you let someone else determine what you are allowed to have you need to leave the belt way a little more!
Well that sentence certainly clears this all up.
-
I think that was a Henry Rollins music video, actually.
Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Cabo March 1st 2019 look it up :dubious:
Yep I would guess by your enlightenment you would notice my handle so if you would be so kind as to go to Manitoba and suffer an appendicitis let us know how that works out for ya. Case still on hold.
well clearly this cautionary tale of a traffic accident in Mexico completely delegitimizes universal health coverage around the world
case closed fellas
-
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter 'sotacat
-
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter 'sotacat
Just an old lurker that started with a gateway and had Mj Rodriguez explain to me how to post an emoji back in the day on the original kstate board.Took six years at least to figure out what the eff half of you were talking about with the meticulous use of acronymisims is that a word? And now feel free to discuss and or banter about whateves. :gocho:
-
listen here ya hosers
da canucks cant process the appendicitisis in a timely enough fashion for my likings and the mexicans can't work a traffic accident
eh?
what doncha get?
(btw glad to have you posting)
-
This seems like a TBT sock to me
-
listen here ya hosers
da canucks cant process the appendicitisis in a timely enough fashion for my likings and the mexicans can't work a traffic accident
eh?
what doncha get?
(btw glad to have you posting)
Noted :cheers:
-
https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1122849215674236930
-
Don't dudes that make high incomes pay an extra 3% income tax that goes to Bamarcare, I couldn't tell if this guy was counting that or not
-
https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/1122849215674236930
Good to see that everyone is paying their fair and proportionate share!
-
point: single payer healthcare is obviously where we will end up, and where we should end up.
counterpoint:
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1134614783011909633
-
No really, we mean it this time :lol:
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1159540806149165058
-
Trump poised to announce new health care plan that includes coverage for pre existing conditions of TDS, being hailed as a bipartisan solution.
-
I hope they do campaign on Obamacare repeal since almost no one wants that to happen.
-
Smoke screen? Or just getting out in front of the treason charge?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/barr-says-justice-department-will-back-trumps-push-to-overturn-obamacare_3344801.html
:popcorn:
-
Dax you should be excited the epoch times lives on this blog once again
-
i may have already posted this
but...
thanks to this blogsite i now get Epoch Times commercials before most youTube videos I watch
-
Who knew... I guess one can only run from truth for so long. :dunno:
https://twitter.com/Kingfreespeech/status/1256826430530486272
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18578nQObow[/youtube]
:sdeek:
-
I'm pretty sure Obama talks about doing coke in his book bqqkie.
-
And a mouth is a mouth. I don't see the big deal.
-
And a mouth is a mouth. I don't see the big deal.
I lol'd
:lol:
-
https://twitter.com/QPatriot17/status/1228950347692920832
Not sure what's more appalling... that Renegade would openly say this crap, or that you lackeys eat it up and follow him to slaughter.
:sdeek:
-
https://twitter.com/QPatriot17/status/1228950347692920832
Not sure what's more appalling... that Renegade would openly say this crap, or that you lackeys eat it up and follow him to slaughter.
:sdeek:
Oh lawd, you are a supreme shithead. Took me all of 2 minutes to figure out that (a) this wasn't even a Bilderberg Group speech, (b) the date is wrong, and (c) the video is highly edited to trick rubes. Here is the full speech. If you take the time to read it--BIG IF--you'll see the comments in context: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/26/remarks-president-address-european-youth
-
If it makes you feel any better, Mike Leach fell for it too a few years ago :lol: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/23832786/mike-leach-retweets-link-edited-video-barack-obama-speech-2014
-
Haha, trolled!
-
Bqqkie got your ass pretty good there, spracs! While you spent time debunking his joke, 7 more demoncrats got indicted
-
I guess Spracs doesn't understand sarcasm.
-
so bqqk clicks the first ad sponsored link that shows up in his google search.
-
https://twitter.com/QPatriot17/status/1228950347692920832
Not sure what's more appalling... that Renegade would openly say this crap, or that you lackeys eat it up and follow him to slaughter.
:sdeek:
[youtube]https://youtu.be/PV3_UHG73oQ[/youtube]
-
This can't be good... Run, Renegade, Run!!!
https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1259930085177659399
-
https://twitter.com/mh4oh/status/1260638158351478790
Not really obamacare related but this is pretty shocking :sdeek:
-
I don't think it's particularly shocking or surprising. Certainly isn't a good outcome. Wonder what the disparity was in 1800? Guessing similar?
-
Imagine blaming income inequality for that disparity
-
Joke's on them, they're still living in Columbus.
-
I don't think it's particularly shocking or surprising. Certainly isn't a good outcome. Wonder what the disparity was in 1800? Guessing similar?
Prob way worse.
-
I assumed a disparity of like 5-10, but 26 years is a third of a life.
KC is #3 at 23 years.
-
Imagine blaming income inequality for that disparity
Yea, those dicks that live under bridges got it made; no way they don't enjoy a long and enjoyable life. :D
-
decided to try and put this in an appropriate thread rather than keep going in the ukraine thread. the rest of the tweet thread was also interesting.
https://twitter.com/kevinrinz/status/1680915705435226113
-
btw Mexico doesn't have a single payer system
but rather has a system fairly similar to our own
i'm about four years late on this, but ime, this is misleading. it's true that mexico doesn't have a single payer system, but i don't think it's all that much like ours. they have a variety of public hospitals and medical services (state, federal, ones for various professional organizations and unions, mothers/children, etc) and then they also have a lot of private hospitals and doctors that (afaik) don't get any public money in any way.
other than the part about having a lot of different organizations providing semi-duplicative services, i kinda like the model for the u.s.
-
i know it's probably all very complicated and multifactorial and all that, but i can't help thinking this has a lot to do with the price of medical care in the united states.
https://twitter.com/AlecStapp/status/1687979970142830592
-
btw Mexico doesn't have a single payer system
but rather has a system fairly similar to our own
i'm about four years late on this, but ime, this is misleading. it's true that mexico doesn't have a single payer system, but i don't think it's all that much like ours. they have a variety of public hospitals and medical services (state, federal, ones for various professional organizations and unions, mothers/children, etc) and then they also have a lot of private hospitals and doctors that (afaik) don't get any public money in any way.
other than the part about having a lot of different organizations providing semi-duplicative services, i kinda like the model for the u.s.
I totally get where you're coming from regarding Mexico's health system and its complexities. Having had some personal experience in both countries, I do feel the U.S. system, particularly Medicaid, offers a bit more clarity and structure. For instance, the way it's structured around income makes it a bit more predictable.
I'm currently insured through Covering Central Florida, and the conditions they offered suit my needs perfectly. I pay about $400/month, which feels quite reasonable compared to other options I've looked into. The cost can vary depending on your income, so you can read about Florida Medicaid income limits (https://www.coveringcfl.net/florida-medicaid-income-limits-and-eligibility/) to understand the criteria better.
-
i know it's probably all very complicated and multifactorial and all that, but i can't help thinking this has a lot to do with the price of medical care in the united states.
https://twitter.com/AlecStapp/status/1687979970142830592
The American Medical Association needs to be changed. We should either double the number of doctors, or double their caseload by augmenting them with AI diagnostic tools, or both. I like the “both” idea best.
-
Thanks to this chart, my son wants to be a Dermatologist now.
-
Thanks to this chart, my son wants to be a Dermatologist now.
Every med student wants to be a dermatologist. As far as specialties go, it has the most competition, so he'd better be at the top of his class. Good money for predictable, normal work hours.
-
Thanks to this chart, my son wants to be a Dermatologist now.
Every med student wants to be a dermatologist. As far as specialties go, it has the most competition, so he'd better be at the top of his class. Good money for predictable, normal work hours.
Interesting. I have a kid who is thinking law and a kid who is thinking doc. My maybe lawyer is already at KU and we personally know a few lawyers that can give her a little perspective.
My maybe doctor is 16 and is thinking KSU. He loves Bio and is the kid in anatomy that actually is very interested in dissection and all things dealing with how all that gross crap inside us works. We don't really know any doctors. Between that and the fact that we haven't looked too hard yet due to him being 16, we are flying a little blind for right now.
-
I feel like if you’re confident you can excel at either law or medicine, the question is how long you expect to practice. Medical sure seems better to me long term since you spend a lot of time not making anything, but then you get a nice high salary and decent hours into your 70s or longer if you want.
Legal you can either make bank in the short term and transition to something more manageable, or you can keep grinding but would be tough to beat a good Dr. salary unless you’re bringing in your own business.
-
I feel like if you’re confident you can excel at either law or medicine, the question is how long you expect to practice. Medical sure seems better to me long term since you spend a lot of time not making anything, but then you get a nice high salary and decent hours into your 70s or longer if you want.
Legal you can either make bank in the short term and transition to something more manageable, or you can keep grinding but would be tough to beat a good Dr. salary unless you’re bringing in your own business.
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the country who have graduated from law school and do not practice law...estimated at roughly 40% of law school grads that do not practice lawZ. Over 90% of med school grads practice medicine.
I think a person is WWWAAYY better off going to med school. Like way, way, way better off going to med school.
I think the better comparison is engineering vs medicine. I’d compare law to marketing degrees…some do very well. Some chase ambulances / stock the end caps on grocery stores with promotional candy.
-
I feel like if you’re confident you can excel at either law or medicine, the question is how long you expect to practice. Medical sure seems better to me long term since you spend a lot of time not making anything, but then you get a nice high salary and decent hours into your 70s or longer if you want.
Legal you can either make bank in the short term and transition to something more manageable, or you can keep grinding but would be tough to beat a good Dr. salary unless you’re bringing in your own business.
There are hundreds of thousands of people in the country who have graduated from law school and do not practice law...estimated at roughly 40% of law school grads that do not practice lawZ. Over 90% of med school grads practice medicine.
I think a person is WWWAAYY better off going to med school. Like way, way, way better off going to med school.
I think the better comparison is engineering vs medicine. I’d compare law to marketing degrees…some do very well. Some chase ambulances / stock the end caps on grocery stores with promotional candy.
If your resume is good enough to get into med school then you can get into a good law school and long term you will have a better quality of life as a lawyer for a good law firm than a doctor. Those specialties sys posted are unicorn specialties.
-
Yeah to be clear I’m not taking about if you were assigned to a random job with a law degree vs a medical degree. I’m saying assuming you were able to excel at either. There are pros and cons in the upper tier of either field.
-
Someone want to explain why being a dermatologist is some unicorn career?
-
I feel like if you’re confident you can excel at either law or medicine, the question is how long you expect to practice. Medical sure seems better to me long term since you spend a lot of time not making anything, but then you get a nice high salary and decent hours into your 70s or longer if you want.
Legal you can either make bank in the short term and transition to something more manageable, or you can keep grinding but would be tough to beat a good Dr. salary unless you’re bringing in your own business.
Yeah, my dream is to really get my ass whipped for no money for a shitload of years just to coast when I'm still rough ridin' working at 75. great point.
-
Someone want to explain why being a dermatologist is some unicorn career?
Relatively low stress. It pays well. You have normal office hours. It's relatively easy. Never on call. Relatively low risk. Don't have to see peoples' insides. I'm sure there are other reasons I'm missing, too.
-
Those people who like watching pimple popping videos
-
Someone want to explain why being a dermatologist is some unicorn career?
Relatively low stress. It pays well. You have normal office hours. It's relatively easy. Never on call. Relatively low risk. Don't have to see peoples' insides. I'm sure there are other reasons I'm missing, too.
I know all the pros. I negotiated a contract for one at Stormont and he was being asked to take a cut during covid. From 495k to less
my question is why is it hard to get that job? He was a dummy
-
my question is why is it hard to get that job? He was a dummy
same question but for US president
-
Someone want to explain why being a dermatologist is some unicorn career?
Relatively low stress. It pays well. You have normal office hours. It's relatively easy. Never on call. Relatively low risk. Don't have to see peoples' insides. I'm sure there are other reasons I'm missing, too.
I know all the pros. I negotiated a contract for one at Stormont and he was being asked to take a cut during covid. From 495k to less
my question is why is it hard to get that job? He was a dummy
I can't speak for the competitiveness in Kansas. The Doctors and med students I know are in Texas. This is what they tell me. They state it as if it is a universal truth.
-
Someone want to explain why being a dermatologist is some unicorn career?
Relatively low stress. It pays well. You have normal office hours. It's relatively easy. Never on call. Relatively low risk. Don't have to see peoples' insides. I'm sure there are other reasons I'm missing, too.
I know all the pros. I negotiated a contract for one at Stormont and he was being asked to take a cut during covid. From 495k to less
my question is why is it hard to get that job? He was a dummy
I would guess there is a really low chance of killing your customers. That is probably worth a decent amt.
-
You could not pay me enough to have to deal with patients, insurance, odd hours, and the general stress that comes with being a doctor.
-
It doesn’t have to be that stressful. Go into private practice as a specialist and set your own hours and don’t take any clients with government or shitty insurance.
-
Someone want to explain why being a dermatologist is some unicorn career?
1) Never on call.
2)Hours can be what your business determines them to be. Can see 50 patients a day.
3) “Dermatologist?? That’s one step up from the Clinique counter”/ George C.
-
Hand specialist is pretty sweet as well. Except on the 4th of July.
-
Someone want to explain why being a dermatologist is some unicorn career?
1) Never on call.
2)Hours can be what your business determines them to be. Can see 50 patients a day.
3) “Dermatologist?? That’s one step up from the Clinique counter”/ George C.
My concern is google lens and AI's ability to do the "yes, cancer"/"Not Cancer" thing. Supposedly that is really accurate now. :ohno:
-
My concern is google lens and AI's ability to do the "yes, cancer"/"Not Cancer" thing. Supposedly that is really accurate now.
Absolute truth. Might even be in your lifetime. Not mine. The radiologist will be a very limited role from what we see now as AI takes root. The ability to read entire complex studies in seconds, never tire, and not have to pay them will result in entire health systems changing.
-
AI doctors can't come soon enough.
-
AI doctors can't come soon enough.
totally
-
My concern is google lens and AI's ability to do the "yes, cancer"/"Not Cancer" thing. Supposedly that is really accurate now.
Absolute truth. Might even be in your lifetime. Not mine. The radiologist will be a very limited role from what we see now as AI takes root. The ability to read entire complex studies in seconds, never tire, and not have to pay them will result in entire health systems changing.
Probably not though
-
radiology will be the first I would think.
-
How many fingers do you think you'll have after visiting an AI hand specialist?