Quote from: me on January 25, 2013, 09:19:12 AM
What's odd is I don't recall saying that either but, like you, I did disagree with Obama care because of exactly what's going on now since it is starting to take effect.
So why don't you go ahead and explain what "is going on now"?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 12, 2009, 09:22:15 AM
Don't even TRY to tell my YOU read this WHOLE thing, and understand it.... :no: ;D
There is enough carbley-goo BS in it....I DO NOT TRUST THIS GOVERNMENT....THEY BETTER take the time to be damn sure EVERYBODY understands WHAT this is going to mean to each and every one of us.....I have been buzzing through this every evening....and there is a whole lot in there that CAN make one extremely skeptical on what their intent IS.....
I will say this, I do NOT particularly CARE for OUR Government RUNNING anything that is going to effect my life anymore than they ALREADY do...........giving them MORE power over our lives is a bad, bad thing....as it is now, I think is better than what I may very well become....I think we, overall have it much better than other countries that HAVE social or universal or whatever you want to call it....State run healthcare....
I want this debate to continue for a while.....Prove that these "Pundits' are wrong with their analyses...we need to be SURE this is the right thing to do.........there will be ONE hell of a revolution IF this is remotely wrong......I know you will NEVER get 100% of the people to go along with anything...........I think the protests that are going on is a very alarming sign that we HAVE to slow down......
BIG Government is A BAD THING...if you think THAT comment is absurd or I am "just whinning incessantly"...then get used to it.....I'm not backing down for a second.....and I will fight this administrations desire to control the sheeple....until I die. :yes: I'm not alone on this, and statistic's support it.......the growing deficits, with massive increases in spending........it is ALL happening TOO damn FAST......slow the F... down....take a breath.
http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?action=post;quote=326536;topic=15404.30;last_msg=414026 (http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?action=post;quote=326536;topic=15404.30;last_msg=414026)
4 years later and you STILL do not understand the HCRA do you?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 18, 2009, 04:28:37 PM
60,000 senior citizens have quit AARP since July 1 due to the group's support for a health care overhaul, a spokesman for the organization said Monday.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-17-aarp-health-overhaul_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-17-aarp-health-overhaul_N.htm)
54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/54_say_passing_no_healthcare_reform_better_than_passing_congressional_plan (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/54_say_passing_no_healthcare_reform_better_than_passing_congressional_plan)
Thirty-five percent (35%) of American voters say passage of the bill currently working its way through Congress would be better than not passing any health care reform legislation this year. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most voters (54%) say no health care reform passed by Congress this year would be the better option.
Here you infer that it isn't the preferred path.
http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?action=post;quote=327256;topic=15404.90;last_msg=414026 (http://theunknownzone.dailynuisanceproductions.com/index.php?action=post;quote=327256;topic=15404.90;last_msg=414026)
Quote from: Olias on August 18, 2009, 04:44:57 PM
From the same article ...
"on average AARP loses some 300,000 members a month, but he couldn't say how many more members had quit for other reasons in that time period."
"AARP gained some 400,000 new members during the same period and that 1.5 million members renewed their membership."
...........
Let's see .... 60K quit. 400K joined up and 1.5M renewed.
That makes it 1.9M for and 60K against. Roughly 32 to 1 for. I would say that's pretty much a landslide approval.
:biggrin:
Proven a lie.
Quote from: me on August 19, 2009, 11:23:20 AM
Congress gets the best doctors and the best care available and if you think that's what the rest of us will get you're delusional. There is already a shortage of good doctors and with the influx of additional people it will be harder than ever to see any doctor at all in a timely manner. I don't understand why the liberals that are thinking this bill is such a good thing don't understand that. Some of the evidence sited by conservatives may well be anecdotal but it is from real people with real experience in the situation not some statistic drawn up by a person who can slant it either way depending on who they talk to.
And here's your reinforcements. . .Who also doesn't understand the HCRA 4 years later. . .
Quote from: me on August 20, 2009, 12:17:22 PM
Ok, in regard to the tax thing. It isn't only the income tax that will be raised on the affluent but, as you have seen, there will also be a tax increase in goods which will hit everyone not just the affluent and will hurt the little guy even more. You can't just think about the income tax here. Also Bush's tax cut will fall off next year and that will be on the little guy too not just the affluent who didn't get it in the first place. I would imagine those who don't pay taxes will not be getting their $300 earned income credit any longer which is going to hurt them. The VAT is still being knocked around which would be 25% at least and that is on top of state sales tax, who is that going to hurt the worst? That is on food too if you'd care to go read about it. You can't just look at the income tax part of the equation.
What health care company? Private ones won't stick around because they're not going to be able to make any money so it will be a government ran health care company which will decide if you should have the testing or the treatment and that could be just as bad or worse than the private ones.
Speaking of special interest groups who would profit. David Axelrod ring a bell?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5253089.shtml
They, the terrorists, quit attacking us here didn't they?
And here's a particular bunch of lies . . . As we see 4 years later. . .
Quote from: me on Today at 09:19:12 AM
What's odd is I don't recall saying that either but, like you, I did disagree with Obama care because of exactly what's going on now since it is starting to take effect.
And I ask again: What exactly is "going on now"?
Quote from: me on September 01, 2009, 05:32:53 PM
If ya ain't got it, (money), ya can't get it, (health insurance). Like I said earlier, not everyone is fortunate to be affluent like you.
Do you STILL believe that is how it will work? :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on Today at 09:19:12 AM
What's odd is I don't recall saying that either but, like you, I did disagree with Obama care because of exactly what's going on now since it is starting to take effect.
And I ask again: What exactly is "going on now"?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on August 18, 2009, 04:24:57 PM
. . .
I know our current system is FAR from perfect.....but it IS better than other countries....the POOR get FREE healthcare now.....the VAST majority of the working class already has employer provided insurance...
Right here is where you infer, for the second time in this topic alone, that our healthcare system is far better than that of other countries. In reality it has been shown that this is far from the truth. Especially when one considers the quality of life of the majority of citizens in those "other countries".
And here's another:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 12, 2009, 04:37:27 PM
the vast majority of Americans already have affordable health care......
Saying we don't need HCR and disagreeing with what the current administration has done are two different things. It has not been in effect long enough for to realize the full impact of what's happening yet but your eyes will be open soon enough. Cause and effect, unintended consequences, what ever you want to call it, it's on the way.
Quote from: me on January 25, 2013, 05:48:15 PM
Saying we don't need HCR and disagreeing with what the current administration has done are two different things. It has not been in effect long enough for to realize the full impact of what's happening yet but your eyes will be open soon enough. Cause and effect, unintended consequences, what ever you want to call it, it's on the way.
Mean while, "ME" will live with her Medicare and Social Security and wait for the hammer to drop. Right Cheesecake? You don't need ObamaCare. :wink: :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on January 25, 2013, 05:55:30 PM
Mean while, "ME" will live with her Medicare and Social Security and wait for the hammer to drop. Right Cheesecake? You don't need ObamaCare. :wink: :biggrin:
Nor do you Troll but we will also feel the effects of it and it won't be pleasant.
Quote from: Palehorse on January 25, 2013, 12:26:56 PM
Quote from: me on Today at 09:19:12 AM
. . . I did disagree with Obama care because of exactly what's going on now since it is starting to take effect.
And I ask again: What exactly is "going on now"?
Quote from: me on January 25, 2013, 05:48:15 PM
Saying we don't need HCR and disagreeing with what the current administration has done are two different things. It has not been in effect long enough for to realize the full impact of what's happening yet but your eyes will be open soon enough. Cause and effect, unintended consequences, what ever you want to call it, it's on the way.
You said (Above) "it is starting to take effect", but now you are saying ,. . ."It has not been in effect long enough for to realize the full impact of what's happening yet. . ." And I ask again: What exactly is "going on now"?
You are basically saying the same things you said 4 years ago, so what exactly is "going on now"?
Be specific, because generalizations make it appear you don't have even the slightest idea surrounding "what is going on" right now; 4 years after you first said it.
How much time do you need to read the bill? You've had 4 years.
Doesn't do that much reading.
Lets others do that work for her.
Probably why her business failed.
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 25, 2013, 06:14:33 PM
Doesn't do that much reading.
Lets others do that work for her.
Probably why her business failed.
Word! :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on January 25, 2013, 06:08:53 PM
You said (Above) "it is starting to take effect", but now you are saying ,. . ."It has not been in effect long enough for to realize the full impact of what's happening yet. . ." And I ask again: What exactly is "going on now"?
You are basically saying the same things you said 4 years ago, so what exactly is "going on now"?
Be specific, because generalizations make it appear you don't have even the slightest idea surrounding "what is going on" right now; 4 years after you first said it.
How much time do you need to read the bill? You've had 4 years.
It is just starting to take effect at this point but is not fully in effect as yet. Some of it just started Jan 1st.
Quote from: me on January 25, 2013, 06:37:37 PM
It is just starting to take effect at this point but is not fully in effect as yet. Some of it just started Jan 1st.
What specifically took effect January 1st? What has you so "concerned"? You are generalizing and stalling, for 4 years now, and you are waiting for some "disaster" to transpire that yu can blame on the HCRA. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: followsthewolf on January 25, 2013, 06:14:33 PM
Doesn't do that much reading.
Lets others do that work for her.
Probably why her business failed.
My business did not fail I closed it. Being peon material rather than management oriented I allowed myself to be taken advantage of to the point employees made more than I did. I knew what to do to correct the problem but, in my mind, that would have set me above them and I don't like that. I don't expect others to do anything I wouldn't so I felt better working with them and doing the really hard stuff rather than delegating it to them to do. If you have to moxie to be management more power to ya and good luck with it I don't. Maybe one of these days that will sink with you and you'll quit ragging me about it. I doubt it but one can always hope.
So now you have three outstanding questions you have yet to answer:
1>
Quote from: Locutus on January 24, 2013, 10:45:16 PM
How exactly is the government giving anyone cradle to grave premium healthcare? You'd best be careful or this one is going on the TUZ Lie Tracker thread. :wink:
and
2>
Quote from: Palehorse on January 25, 2013, 12:26:56 PM
Quote from: me on Today at 09:19:12 AM
What's odd is I don't recall saying that either but, like you, I did disagree with Obama care because of exactly what's going on now since it is starting to take effect.
And I ask again: What exactly is "going on now"?
3>
Quote from: Palehorse on January 25, 2013, 06:49:04 PM
What specifically took effect January 1st? What has you so "concerned"? You are generalizing and stalling, for 4 years now, and you are waiting for some "disaster" to transpire that yu can blame on the HCRA. . . :rolleyes:
Ombudsman: The title of this topic should read AHCA (Affordable Health Care Act), where in the HCRA are the individual actions left to the state.
The author sincerely regrets this error in the use of acronyms.
Okay me. Since you refuse to be specific then I will be.
Here are the items being phased in in 2013:
- The states have until October 1 of 2013 to set up their Health Exchanges and partner with the Government on providing a wide array of choices in INSURANCE PROVIDERS that will handle healthcare in the traditional manner. The Government has no part in the administration of your healthcare, just the insurers as it has always been.
- Preventative Services - The federal government is sending more money to state Medicaid programs that offer preventative services for free or at little cost. Services include tests for high blood pressure, diabetes, and high cholesterol; many cancer screenings including colonoscopies and mammograms; counseling to help people lose weight, quit smoking or reduce alcohol use; routine vaccinations; flu and pneumonia shots; and others.
- Increased Medicaid Payments- Doctors that take Medicaid patients get a pay raise. Starting January 1, Medicaid payments in every state were brought up to the same level Medicare pays doctors. Primary Care Physicians will see on average a 73% increase in payment. (There goes that argument)
- Pilot Program for Bundling - The law sets up a national pilot program that will encourage medical providers to coordinate patient care. Rather than have each service billed separately under Medicare, a flat rate would be paid for an episode of care.
- Medicare Tax Increase - And before you get all jiggy over this one - The wealthy face a 0.9% tax increase on the income they earn in excess of $200,000 (for couples filing jointly, it will hit those that make in excess of $250,000). This will help boost the Medicare trust fund.
- Medical Device Tax - A new 2.3% tax goes on the price of medical devices. This doesn't include hearing aids or corrective lenses, but does include devices like defibrillators, pacemakers, artificial joints and others.
So now, what is your concern? :rolleyes:
Did ya'll catch this part of the HCB when you read it? Notice this is not Fox it's CBS. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/obamacare-may-bite-you-at-the-vets-office/
https://johnib.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/obamacare-will-probably-put-the-bite-on-you-at-the-vets-office/
Peace and Freedom
Policy and World Ideas
« Obama Tells Republicans: "You Need Me"; They Say "He's Still Thinks He's A Professor That Can Lecture Us."Great News: Applying For ObamaCare is "Harder Than Doing The Toughest Customer's Taxes" H.R. Block Says »
Obamacare Will Probably Put The Bite On You At The Vet's Office
MIAMI (CBSMiami) — Pet owners listen up: You may want to start saving more money for veterinarian care this year. The reason goes all the way back to Washington and an unintended consequence from medical reform.
Dog owner Lori Heiselman was surprised where her veterinarian posted a warning on Facebook.
The notice read: "Because medical equipment and supplies will be going up in cost, that extra expense will have to passed on to the customers."
Dog at vet's office. (Source: CBS4)
So Lori is already tightening her belt to pay for the increase in her dog's care. Though she doesn't like it, she's willing to pay more for her pets.
"They're very important. They're members of the family," said Heiselman.
Why the increase? Its part of a new 2.3-percent federal excise tax on certain medical devices that just went into effect. The tax will help fund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, intended for people, not pets. Manufacturers pay the tax, but a recent survey found more than half plan to pass it along.
Some vets say they can't afford it. Dr. Mike Hatcher is one of them. He explained, "I'm extremely concerned how this is going to be a hidden tax to our consumers that is going to be passed on."
How does this work? Medical devices used only on animals are exempt. However, items including IV pumps, sterile scalpels and anesthesia equipment, which are medical devices that have a dual use, meaning they can be used on people and animals, will be taxed. Hatcher said, "Putting off an equipment purchase is something that can terribly affect our clients' ability to have quality care."
Miami
FacebookTwitterFollow Us
The American Veterinary Medical Association represents 82,000 vets. At this point, they don't know how much this new tax will indirectly cost them. The organizations members are waiting to hear from more device makers.
Dr. Mark Lutschaunig is the director of the Governmental Relations Division of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
"Congress never intended for this tax to impact veterinarian medicine and unfortunately it has, and I think that's very unfortunate that veterinarian medicine now is subsidizing human health care," said Dr. Lutschaunig.
Congressional sources who worked on the Affordable Care Act said lawmakers tried to exclude vets from being affected by the dual use medical devices tax, but it was too complicated.
Carol Smock knows about complications. She founded a charity that helps struggling pet owners pay for vet care. Smock started Brown Dog Foundation after struggling to pay for her chocolate lab's medical bills while she was unemployed. Her organization is a 501c3 public charity that provides funding to families who find themselves in similar situations: A sick pet that would likely respond to treatment, but due to an unforeseen circumstance, there is not enough money immediately available to make it happen.
Smock is afraid The Brown Dog Foundation is going to be overwhelmed with requests.
"The impact this price increase is going to have on any of those families I think will be pretty devastating."
Lori Heiselman said she worries about other families too, but she'll find the money for her four-legged friends. "We'll just have to cut back somewhere else."
Veterinarians say, if your pet is sick or acting strangely, don't delay care. That could just cause medical problems to get worse.
If you're concerned with the cost of vet care, be sure to talk with your vet about payment plans or other financial options.
Quote from: me on March 13, 2013, 10:46:21 PM
Did ya'll catch this part of the HCB when you read it? Notice this is not Fox it's CBS. . . .
Wait. Weren't you the one claiming 2% is nothing somewhere around here? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on March 14, 2013, 11:26:56 PM
Wait. Weren't you the one claiming 2% is nothing somewhere around here? :rolleyes:
We're talking money here that hasn't already been allocated. Those cuts that are being made could be made somewhere else, like laying off WH colligraphers, cutting unnessary office staff, staying in DC and doing those little speeches on TV rather than traveling here and there doing stump speeches, no lavish parties like the one planned for Michelle, and the list goes on. He is doing the cuts in such a manner as to make the public irrate and get his way and that is just wrong. This has happened before and the types of cuts he's doing weren't done then. More and more people are realizing they're being played and someday you may see it too.
Quote from: me on March 13, 2013, 10:46:21 PM
If you're concerned with the cost of vet care...
...you should look into getting health insurance for your pet.
Quote from: Exterminator on March 15, 2013, 09:58:48 AM
...you should look into getting health insurance for your pet.
I don't have a pet.
Quote from: me on March 15, 2013, 12:28:41 AM
We're talking money here that hasn't already been allocated. Those cuts that are being made could be made somewhere else, like laying off WH colligraphers, cutting unnessary office staff, staying in DC and doing those little speeches on TV rather than traveling here and there doing stump speeches, no lavish parties like the one planned for Michelle, and the list goes on. He is doing the cuts in such a manner as to make the public irrate and get his way and that is just wrong. This has happened before and the types of cuts he's doing weren't done then. More and more people are realizing they're being played and someday you may see it too.
You are dangerous. :spooked:
Here are a couple more things that could have been cut. $27 million to the country of Morocco to teach the folks over there how to make pottery and $1.5 million to the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston to study why many lesbian Americans are overweight. Real important stuff there huh? :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on March 15, 2013, 12:14:43 PM
Here are a couple more things that could have been cut. $27 million to the country of Morocco to teach the folks over there how to make pottery and $1.5 million to the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston to study why many lesbian Americans are overweight. Real important stuff there huh? :rolleyes:
Funny how I didn't hear you squalling about the exact same bullshite being done by the repugnicans.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 15, 2013, 12:25:31 PM
Funny how I didn't hear you squalling about the exact same bullshite being done by the repugnicans.
White Republicans...hello!
Quote from: Palehorse on March 15, 2013, 12:25:31 PM
Funny how I didn't hear you squalling about the exact same bullshite being done by the repugnicans.
We're we
16 trillion or more in debt? How do you know I wasn't squalling about it?
Quote from: me on March 15, 2013, 10:42:48 AM
I don't have a pet.
I meant "you" in the generic sense for anyone worried about veterinary health care costs.
Quote from: me on March 15, 2013, 12:14:43 PM
Here are a couple more things that could have been cut. $27 million to the country of Morocco to teach the folks over there how to make pottery and $1.5 million to the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston to study why many lesbian Americans are overweight. Real important stuff there huh? :rolleyes:
They ought to add to the study, why is there so many fat ass Teabilly Republican broads. :puke: :haha:
Quote from: me on March 15, 2013, 12:30:17 PM
We're we 16 trillion or more in debt? How do you know I wasn't squalling about it?
You mean you weren't pontificating before a minority was sitting in the oval office? Really?! :spooked:
Quote from: me on March 13, 2013, 10:46:21 PM
...Dog owner Lori Heiselman was surprised where her veterinarian posted a warning on Facebook.
The notice read: "Because medical equipment and supplies will be going up in cost, that extra expense will have to passed on to the customers."...
...Why the increase? Its part of a new 2.3-percent federal excise tax on certain medical devices that just went into effect. The tax will help fund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, intended for people, not pets. Manufacturers pay the tax, but a recent survey found more than half plan to pass it along...
That's what I was saying elsewhere. Us bottom feeders have to pay because our capitalistic economic system is set up where the vet and the manufacturers take those costs as deductions and then also pass them off onto us - we get screwed both ways.
It's not going to change until us bottom feeders take control of both the government and the economy and throw out this corruption of both.
Oh and by the way, though you're trying your best to make this about 'Obamacare', you're way off the mark because you don't understand the issues at work here.
Quote from: Palehorse on March 15, 2013, 12:42:41 PM
You mean you weren't pontificating before a minority was sitting in the oval office? Really?! :spooked:
The debt wasn't that high, unemployment was under 5%, businesses were not closing at the rate they are now and I can go on and on but it's pointless because you just won't see it. Have you been to the grocery store lately or put gas in your vehicle?
Quote from: me on March 15, 2013, 11:29:14 PM
The debt wasn't that high, unemployment was under 5%, businesses were not closing at the rate they are now and I can go on and on but it's pointless because you just won't see it. Have you been to the grocery store lately or put gas in your vehicle?
What don't you Baby Cakes get that oil and gas prices are set by the world market. :doh: That's the way things work in a Capitalist country America. :doh:
Also Baby Cakes food prices would be a lot higher if the government didn't give money in farm support to the farmers. :doh:
Forget it Baby Cakes, you can't blame high gas and food prices on Obama. :haha: :haha:
QuoteCNN: Say, Did the White House Mislead Us on the Costs of Obamacare?
Guy Benson
Guy Benson
Political Editor, Townhall.com
Mar 28, 2013 10:21 AM EST
This report was prompted by two stories we've covered this week: (1) Kathleen Sebelius' belated admission that some Americans will, in fact, see their premiums rise due to the "Affordable" Care Act, and (2) the American Society of Actuaries' determination that insurers will see claim pay-outs on individual plans rise by 32 percent as a result of the law. This wasn't how things were supposed to be, according to the administration's deeply dishonest sales pitch. CNN aired this segment last night:
Yes, that report really included a clip of a White House lackey assailing a nonpartisan actuarial organization for rudely producing rigorous estimates that deviated from the president's preferred narrative. Obama vs. math -- how thoroughly appropriate. (Perhaps Obama's SuperPAC can run some ads accusing the bookkeepers of giving their numbers cancer. "These anti-women calculators are too extreme!"). In spite of the administration's churlish attacks, the professional accountants are standing by their politically- inconvenient numbers. The concession from Sebelius is doubly notable because of her infamous 2010 threat against insurers who told the truth about Obamacare's impact on costs and premiums:
Witness Kathleen Sebelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group—a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Services secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to ObamaCare and warned that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases." Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caracas. What Ms. Sebelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. ObamaCare includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents' plans until age 26 and "free" preventative care (i.e., no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers). The tone of Ms. Sebelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.
The HHS Secretary's updated line is a classic exercise in goalpost-moving and expectations management, an even starker example of which we covered over the weekend. Out: Legislative perfection! In: (Hopefully) not a "third-world experience!"
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/03/28/cnn-say-were-we-lied-to-about-the-costs-of-obamacare-n1551196
Notice this is
NOT Fox. Now just remember if you put it in the TUZ like you have a lot of other stuff yer gonna be pretty busy takin' stuff out later. :razz:
. . .There are three types of private-market insurance. Large-group plans supply coverage through an employer with more than 50 employees. Small group plans work the same way, but with the company employing fewer than 50 people. (For both types of group plans, the employees typically pay a portion of their health care premiums, and the employer pays the rest.) The third type of private insurance is in the nongroup market -- policies that people buy on their own, paying the entire cost themselves. Large group plans account for roughly 70 percent of private policies, with small-group plans accounting for about 13 percent and the nongroup market accounting for about 17 percent.
The health care law is expected to affect each of these three types of policies differently. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by 2016, insurance premiums in the large-group market would either stay the same or drop by up to 3 percent, while the small-group market would see anywhere from a drop of 2 percent to an increase of 1 percent. The biggest rises would be felt in the nongroup market, where premiums were projected to rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent. . .
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/03/fred-thompson/ex-sen-fred-thompson-says-obamcare-could-raise-pre/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/03/fred-thompson/ex-sen-fred-thompson-says-obamcare-could-raise-pre/)
Quote from: Palehorse on April 09, 2013, 07:29:38 PM
. . .There are three types of private-market insurance. Large-group plans supply coverage through an employer with more than 50 employees. Small group plans work the same way, but with the company employing fewer than 50 people. (For both types of group plans, the employees typically pay a portion of their health care premiums, and the employer pays the rest.) The third type of private insurance is in the nongroup market -- policies that people buy on their own, paying the entire cost themselves. Large group plans account for roughly 70 percent of private policies, with small-group plans accounting for about 13 percent and the nongroup market accounting for about 17 percent.
The health care law is expected to affect each of these three types of policies differently. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by 2016, insurance premiums in the large-group market would either stay the same or drop by up to 3 percent, while the small-group market would see anywhere from a drop of 2 percent to an increase of 1 percent. The biggest rises would be felt in the nongroup market, where premiums were projected to rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent. . .
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/03/fred-thompson/ex-sen-fred-thompson-says-obamcare-could-raise-pre/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/03/fred-thompson/ex-sen-fred-thompson-says-obamcare-could-raise-pre/)
. . .Not much will be different as the law is put into place for those who get insurance through their employers, and that's the bulk of Americans. The Society of Actuaries/Lewin Group report estimates that those with employer-based insurance will decline by 2 million because of the law, for a total of 155 million people. That's similar to estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office.
However, new minimum benefit standards will mean more generous insurance plans for many of those who buy health coverage on their own on the individual market, which has been able to offer cheap, bare-bones plans. Plus, tens of millions of people will join this market through state-based exchanges — 21 million, according to the Lewin analysis. . . .http://factcheck.org/2013/04/insurance-premium-spin/ (http://factcheck.org/2013/04/insurance-premium-spin/)
So once again, we see repugnicans using the "sky is falling" ploy, trying to scare the panties off "Mericans" , the majority of which will see a minimal increase, if any at all, in premiums. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on April 09, 2013, 07:29:38 PM
. . .There are three types of private-market insurance. Large-group plans supply coverage through an employer with more than 50 employees. Small group plans work the same way, but with the company employing fewer than 50 people. (For both types of group plans, the employees typically pay a portion of their health care premiums, and the employer pays the rest.) The third type of private insurance is in the nongroup market -- policies that people buy on their own, paying the entire cost themselves. Large group plans account for roughly 70 percent of private policies, with small-group plans accounting for about 13 percent and the nongroup market accounting for about 17 percent.
The health care law is expected to affect each of these three types of policies differently. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by 2016, insurance premiums in the large-group market would either stay the same or drop by up to 3 percent, while the small-group market would see anywhere from a drop of 2 percent to an increase of 1 percent. The biggest rises would be felt in the nongroup market, where premiums were projected to rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent. . .
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/03/fred-thompson/ex-sen-fred-thompson-says-obamcare-could-raise-pre/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/03/fred-thompson/ex-sen-fred-thompson-says-obamcare-could-raise-pre/)
Notice that's dated 2012. "
Kathleen Sebelius' belated admission that some Americans will, in fact, see their premiums rise due to the "Affordable" Care Act,". I would think she knows what she's talking about.
Quote from: me on April 09, 2013, 08:06:18 PM
Notice that's dated 2012. " Kathleen Sebelius' belated admission that some Americans will, in fact, see their premiums rise due to the "Affordable" Care Act,". I would think she knows what she's talking about.
Notice my information is dated 2013. . .
some Americans does
not equate to
all, nor even
most. Scare tactics. The fact is, those who will see the highest increases are those who are not within group plans. (And before you go down that path let me reiterate that the healthcare exchanges being set up will utilize group plans as participation increases.)
So you're saying Sebelius is wrong?
Quote from: me on April 09, 2013, 08:51:29 PM
So you're saying Sebelius is wrong?
Show me where I said that?
What I am saying is your post / position is attempting to take the statement and eliminate the word "some" entirely and thereby inferring all will see this result. That is scare tactics, plain and simple; especially when one considers the majority of Americans will not see such an impact.
Quote from: Palehorse on April 09, 2013, 09:01:06 PM
Show me where I said that?
What I am saying is your post / position is attempting to take the statement and eliminate the word "some" entirely and thereby inferring all will see this result. That is scare tactics, plain and simple; especially when one considers the majority of Americans will not see such an impact.
I just posted what CNN reported pointing out that all isn't as it was stated it would be after all.
QuoteThe concession from Sebelius is doubly notable because of her infamous 2010 threat against insurers who told the truth about Obamacare's impact on costs and premiums:
[/b]
Quote from: me on April 09, 2013, 09:17:27 PM
I just posted what CNN reported pointing out that all isn't as it was stated it would be after all. [/b]
Nope. You never said that. (Until now).
You were grasping at straws hoping no one would notice the word "some". (As was your source). A little digging shows the results I posted, which defines "some" quite nicely.
The fact is, NO ONE really knows what the impact is going to end up doing. It could actually end up with insurers making even more insane profits than they do already, due to the fact that the whole younger population will now be insured and paying monthly premiums for basically nothing. They will not use it unless a personal catastrophe hits them. They do not go to doctors, they do not get checkups, they only use insurance when they fall off their skateboards and break their arms, legs, or dent their skulls, or contract some morphed virus or something. Period.
The math the CBO used assumes a use rate that mimics the 30 year old and above use. So its likely faulty. Moreover, the insurers are using worst case scenarios to imply that this will break them. Hell, with the revenues they've generated each and every year for the last 3 decades, they can afford a 32% hit to their bottom line. The rest of the country is having to absorb such a hit so why not them?
In fact, I read an article this week that outlined the bankruptcy rate of doctors is rapidly increasing. And it's not because of "Obamacare" or Medicare / Medicaid adjustments, or anything like that. It's because of High Deductible Healthcare Plans, the 30+% decrease in personal income, and the fact that both of these things are driving people to make decisions to forego healthcare treatments, combined with the high cost of medicines.
People are having to choose between paying the mortgage or paying for medicine / testing / doctor's visits, and the mortgage wins every time. (Mortgage is used as an example but the term is used in this case to imply food, electric bill, etc.).
I can personally attest to the fact that HDHC plans take a HUGE bite out of your discretionary spending funds. Hell, I am still paying the bills for the heart cath I had in January, and that is on top of depletion of my HSA balance of over 5k. :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on April 09, 2013, 09:24:33 PM
Nope. You never said that. (Until now).
You were grasping at straws hoping no one would notice the word "some". (As was your source). A little digging shows the results I posted, which defines "some" quite nicely.
The fact is, NO ONE really knows what the impact is going to end up doing. It could actually end up with insurers making even more insane profits than they do already, due to the fact that the whole younger population will now be insured and paying monthly premiums for basically nothing. They will not use it unless a personal catastrophe hits them. They do not go to doctors, they do not get checkups, they only use insurance when they fall off their skateboards and break their arms, legs, or dent their skulls, or contract some morphed virus or something. Period.
The math the CBO used assumes a use rate that mimics the 30 year old and above use. So its likely faulty. Moreover, the insurers are using worst case scenarios to imply that this will break them. Hell, with the revenues they've generated each and every year for the last 3 decades, they can afford a 32% hit to their bottom line. The rest of the country is having to absorb such a hit so why not them?
In fact, I read an article this week that outlined the bankruptcy rate of doctors is rapidly increasing. And it's not because of "Obamacare" or Medicare / Medicaid adjustments, or anything like that. It's because of High Deductible Healthcare Plans, the 30+% decrease in personal income, and the fact that both of these things are driving people to make decisions to forego healthcare treatments, combined with the high cost of medicines.
People are having to choose between paying the mortgage or paying for medicine / testing / doctor's visits, and the mortgage wins every time. (Mortgage is used as an example but the term is used in this case to imply food, electric bill, etc.).
I can personally attest to the fact that HDHC plans take a HUGE bite out of your discretionary spending funds. Hell, I am still paying the bills for the heart cath I had in January, and that is on top of depletion of my HSA balance of over 5k. :mad:
Which was my point before this thing even passed, although you won't agree I know. No one took the time to read it and that "pass it then find out what's in it" could have been a huge and very expensive mistake. It was rushed and something that important shouldn't have been. It should have been out in the open, not in private meetings, and there wouldn't be so many surprises now. This was not thought out well at all.
Quote from: me on April 09, 2013, 10:14:50 PM
Which was my point before this thing even passed, although you won't agree I know. No one took the time to read it and that "pass it then find out what's in it" could have been a huge and very expensive mistake. It was rushed and something that important shouldn't have been. It should have been out in the open, not in private meetings, and there wouldn't be so many surprises now. This was not thought out well at all.
They read it. Don't fall for that crap. Maybe not all of them but more than a handful read it. It has been three years since it was passed, and there was over a year of caterwauling before that.
They read it. . .
Quote from: Exterminator on April 10, 2013, 09:20:30 AM
No, it's even worse.
So now CNN is on the shit list 'cause they started telling things like they are part of the time too. Wow, ya'll will be lost if all the lamestream media starts telling the bad stuff won't ya?
Quote from: Palehorse on April 09, 2013, 10:26:13 PM
They read it. Don't fall for that crap. Maybe not all of them but more than a handful read it. It has been three years since it was passed, and there was over a year of caterwauling before that.
They read it. . .
Sure they did. :wink:
Quote from: me on April 10, 2013, 01:41:43 PM
So now CNN is on the shit list 'cause they started telling things like they are part of the time too. Wow, ya'll will be lost if all the lamestream media starts telling the bad stuff won't ya?
Uh, that was
a snippet of a CNN article spun by the ultra-right wing townhall.com. Learn to read.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 11, 2013, 08:57:51 AM
Uh, that was a snippet of a CNN article spun by the ultra-right wing townhall.com. Learn to read.
Hey, it came straight out of her mouth. Just keep ignoring and excusing and you'll be the one caught up short.
It's called 'context' - learn it. :yes:
Quote from: Y on April 11, 2013, 04:36:17 PM
It's called 'context' - learn it. :yes:
How could something like that statement be taken out of context? It was what it was. It was either meant in a monetary way or hands on. If it was a hands on thing then the attorney's better get a grip and forget suing and if it was meant in a monetary way your wallet is gonna get much thinner so the government can become more involved.
Quote from: Y on April 11, 2013, 04:36:17 PM
It's called 'context' - learn it. :yes:
See her reply? Totally clueless.
Quote from: Exterminator on April 11, 2013, 06:16:48 PM
See her reply? Totally clueless.
It appears that it's not me who is clueless here.
http://fox59.com/2013/06/28/st-vincent-to-lay-off-865-employees/#axzz2XYSO79yq
:lipsrsealed2:
Quote from: me on June 28, 2013, 07:06:11 PM
http://fox59.com/2013/06/28/st-vincent-to-lay-off-865-employees/#axzz2XYSO79yq
:lipsrsealed2:
Can you establish a link between the HCRA and these layoffs? Yeah; didn't think so. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 28, 2013, 10:35:08 PM
Can you establish a link between the HCRA and these layoffs? Yeah; didn't think so. :rolleyes:
QuoteThe health care system says the decision will affect all of its 22 hospitals across the state.
Sources say the cuts will affect administrative positions with many of those jobs being on the city's north side.
The reductions are meant to save money as Obamacare and budget cuts decrease hospital reimbursement rates.
Currently, St. Vincent employs 17,000 Hoosiers.
Read more: http://fox59.com/2013/06/28/st-vincent-to-lay-off-865-employees/#ixzz2XZMrSeP8
It couldn't possibly be that they are trying to operate their BUSINESS like any other BUSINESS and incorporate LEAN methodology and Six Sigma tools in order to maximize their already burgeoning profit levels now could it? :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 29, 2013, 02:53:47 PM
It couldn't possibly be that they are trying to operate their BUSINESS like any other BUSINESS and incorporate LEAN methodology and Six Sigma tools in order to maximize their already burgeoning profit levels now could it? :rolleyes:
Ya, that's it. All these businesses, especially the small businesses, are just using the HCB as an excuse and have found way to make more money even with the fact that their costs are going to rise. Damn people anyway for wanting their businesses to stay sustainable so they can actually make money.
My daughter works for a big health care provider in VA and they were told there would be layoffs and delays in treatment because of the healthcare laws. A little thing like treating lots more people with reduced reimbursement rates.
And now we hear from the Unenlightened Chorus. How droll. . . :rolleyes:
One of the things the HCRA does is force corporate hospitals masquerading as charitable religious hospitals to actually provide some percentage of their services at no cost to those who are unable to otherwise afford it. St. Vincent's definitely falls into that category.
"Heaven" forbid that a charitable organization that reaps the benefits of said classification actually have to provide charity above profit! :wink:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 30, 2013, 01:50:17 PM
One of the things the HCRA does is force corporate hospitals masquerading as charitable religious hospitals to actually provide some percentage of their services at no cost to those who are unable to otherwise afford it. St. Vincent's definitely falls into that category.
Hum, that's strange since they send someone around if you go to the emergency room before you're dismissed to explain how to sign up for help with your bill if you have no insurance. They also come around if you're admitted to make sure people know the different ways you can get help. Even if you have insurance and fall into certain guidelines income wise you can still get help so don't try peddling that B S.
Our former neighbor has a friend staying with them who found out he has emphysema and is always treated when he goes in and they know he has no means to pay.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 30, 2013, 01:54:19 PM
"Heaven" forbid that a charitable organization that reaps the benefits of said classification actually have to provide charity above profit! :wink:
Like they St. V, has NOT provided enough FREEBIES already?
I didn't say these hospitals didn't give some care away (as they are required by law to do) but the two of you should probably do a little research to find out how small a percentage of their overall services that is. In the case of some such hospitals, it is less than 1%. The HCRA mandates a certain percentage which will cut into their profits and yes, probably cause them to lay off some non-essential staff.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 30, 2013, 04:41:09 PM
I didn't say these hospitals didn't give some care away (as they are required by law to do) but the two of you should probably do a little research to find out how small a percentage of their overall services that is. In the case of some such hospitals, it is less than 1%. The HCRA mandates a certain percentage which will cut into their profits and yes, probably cause them to lay off some non-essential staff.
Fuhgettaboudit. Trying to teach a pig to dance is futile. Especially when it's a lot easier to just blame it on the darkie in the white house.
:pigdance:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 30, 2013, 05:32:33 PM
Fuhgettaboudit. Trying to teach a pig to dance is futile. Especially when it's a lot easier to just blame it on the darkie in the white house.
:pigdance:
You sense of humor is NOT appreciated NOR is it remotely funny....but then again, I really don't give a rats ass.
remember NOTHING is free..........somebody HAS to pay for it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 30, 2013, 05:52:07 PM
You sense of humor is NOT appreciated NOR is it remotely funny....but then again, I really don't give a rats ass.
remember NOTHING is free..........somebody HAS to pay for it.
They are so deeply engrossed in all that propaganda BS and the many distractions they just can't see things for what they really are. Notice how the putdowns start when they are uncomfortable with what we're saying so they don't have to accept the truth. Also notice Ex never did answer my question from a few weeks ago. I really need to hunt that up again.
Here it is again Ex just in case you "miss" it again in the other thread. You can answer too PH if you would like.
Question for you. If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist? What does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
c'mon me...........they are so much brighter than most folks......they only deal with facts. ;)
until they get in the way...
Don't count on an answer from him......perhaps a wisecrack, but nothing serious.
Most American's NOW realize just how dangerous Obamacare is.
Quote from: me on June 30, 2013, 06:10:00 PM
If I agree with a black person who disagrees with Obama on policy does that still make me a racist?
No, you being a racist makes you a racist. Straw man arguments don't change that.
QuoteWhat does that make the black person who dislikes his policies?
An idiot.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 30, 2013, 06:29:29 PM
No, you being a racist makes you a racist. Straw man arguments don't change that.
An idiot.
That is not an argument of any kind it is a question which should be answered. Just say, I have no good answer instead of avoiding it with replied which mean nothing. An idiot? Really? What kind of answer is that?
Quote from: me on June 30, 2013, 08:07:33 PM
That is not an argument of any kind it is a question which should be answered. Just say, I have no good answer instead of avoiding it with replied which mean nothing. An idiot? Really? What kind of answer is that?
The kind that keeps you repeating a question front loaded with hyperbole for weeks on end.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on June 30, 2013, 05:52:07 PM
...but then again, I really don't give a rats ass.
remember NOTHING is free..........somebody HAS to pay for it.
Yes. You do. Or wouldn't rise to the bait like a trout every time it is presented.
We've been telling you that for damn near half a decade now.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 30, 2013, 08:23:26 PM
The kind that keeps you repeating a question front loaded with hyperbole for weeks on end.
So I guess you can't answer it either so you choose to put the question down instead. You all are priceless.
Quote from: me on June 30, 2013, 08:51:11 PM
So I guess you can't answer it either so you choose to put the question down instead. You all are priceless.
Hater.
Quote from: Palehorse on June 30, 2013, 09:46:29 PM
Hater.
Yep, that would be me the one with the nasty attitude towards everyone who disagrees with me, full of hate and spewing hate filled remarks at others while demeaning them for daring to think differently. Yep, there is proof of it all over the forum.
OP/ED | 5/09/2013 @ 12:14PM |5,467 views
Actually, Sen. Baucus, ObamaCare Is Facing Multiple Train Wrecks
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' gaff—defined in Washington as when someone inadvertently tells the truth—about ObamaCare being a "train wreck" was actually an understatement: ObamaCare faces multiple train wrecks.
Baucus was referring to the implementation of ObamaCare: the missed deadlines, the confusion, and perhaps most importantly, the political fallout. But there are several other train wrecks, abject failures that have received little attention. And Republicans have had little or nothing to do with them.
Train Wreck No. 1 — Electronic health records, or EHRs, were supposed to create an electronic version of patients' medical records that could be transferred from doctor to doctor or hospital to hospital, known as "interoperability."
The Obama administration included $20 billion in the 2009 "stimulus bill" to promote the adoption of EHRs. Doctors and hospitals would be paid if they implemented EHRs in a "meaningful" way. The oft-repeated justification was that EHRs would save money—Obama cited an $81 billion savings that no one now believes—and improve the quality of care.
Well, the title of a January New York Times report reveals what many health policy experts predicted: "In Second Look, Few Savings from Digital Health Records." As it turns out the only ones benefiting from EHRs are the companies that lobbied for the legislation, doubling some of those companies' profits. As the Times points out, "the legislation has been a windfall to top executives at the leading health records companies."
Had anyone taken the time to look at the VA and its hospital system, which has had versions of electronic health records for decades, they might have been a little less optimistic. A recent National Center for Policy Analysis report explains, "efforts to integrate Department of Defense medical records for service members with VA electronic health records for new veterans have failed, hamstringing attempts to provide a continuum of care for veterans with service-connected conditions, as well as costing taxpayers more than $1 billion dollars."
Electronic health records may eventually become the gold standard in health care, but we're not there yet and Obama's billions of taxpayer dollars may have even slowed the progress.
Train Wreck No. 2 — President Obama rammed through the first major new entitlement in 45 years, but instead of people embracing it, most don't want it; not businesses, not insurers, not doctors, not individuals. Apparently, not even Democrats who voted for it.
Reuters reports that the largest insurers, most of which initially supported the legislation, are very reluctant to enter the health insurance exchanges, where millions are supposed to have access to numerous health insurance options. "In recent days, executives at the four largest U.S. health insurers say they are likely to sell insurance plans on less than a third of the exchanges, reluctant to venture out beyond the states where they already offer coverage."
And insurers aren't alone. A majority of the public has supported repeal since the legislation passed, and the "repealers" have recently grown. Of course, business trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business have been fighting ObamaCare from the beginning.
The reception has been so bad that the Obama administration signed a $20 million public relations contract a year ago in an attempt to convince the public they want ObamaCare, and it just signed two more for another $10 million. That's $30 million of your tax dollars to sell something most of you don't want.
Train Wreck No. 3 — Health insurance premiums will explode. In January retired actuary Mark Litow and I published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining why ObamaCare will push up premiums for some people by 100 percent.
In the last two months, as insurers have begun to announce their ObamaCare premiums, it's clear we were right. States that largely destroyed their health insurance markets, like Massachusetts and New York, may not see much change—at least for a few years. But states that did a good job of ensuring access to affordable coverage will see their premiums skyrocket, especially in the individual market for younger adults.
Note that the rise in premiums is not a result of Obama's sloppy implementation efforts; it's due to the fact that the people writing the legislation didn't have a clue how health insurance works or how it affects consumer choices. They thought—and Obama repeated it several times—that getting everyone covered would lower health care spending. They also thought that adding free services would reduce health care costs, when virtually any actuary would have told them the opposite.
Train Wreck No. 4 — And let's not forget those with major pre-existing medical conditions, the uninsurables. ObamaCare put $5 billion aside to fund a new system of high risk pools to cover them—even though 35 state-based high risk pools already existed with about 220,000 people enrolled.
While Democratic planners expected some 375,000 people would be eligible to enroll in the program, only about 100,000 have. And yet the program is running out of money, and so the administration has closed it to new enrollees.
Let me repeat that: One of Obama's primary justifications for demanding health care reform was to help the uninsurables get coverage, and he has closed that provision to new entrants.
Yes, ObamaCare will be a train wreck, many times over—just wait until the IRS cranks up its enforcement efforts or it becomes clear that people cannot get health insurance subsidies in the federally created exchanges.
Democrats went to great lengths to completely restructure the U.S. health care system and get all the "credit" for it. And now they are increasingly afraid they will.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/05/09/actually-sen-baucus-obamacare-is-facing-multiple-train-wrecks/
It is exactly the train wreck that most republicans said it would be............When Pelosi says she must pass a several thousand page bill before she reads it all is a great sign that it IS indeed going to be a train wreck and exemplifies POOR leadership......and now we have a mess.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 24, 2013, 10:27:21 PM
It is exactly the train wreck that most republicans said it would be...
Actually, it isn't but a n****r got it passed where decades of conservatives failed so it must be wrong! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 25, 2013, 12:12:47 AM
Actually, it isn't but a n****r got it passed where decades of conservatives failed so it must be wrong! :rolleyes:
Because no one wanted it is why it never got passed and Pelosi and Reed are the ones that got it passed.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 25, 2013, 12:12:47 AM
Actually, it isn't but a n****r got it passed where decades of conservatives failed so it must be wrong! :rolleyes:
You are a racist, period. That is also your only excuse when you know for a fact that you are wrong. You use it everytime.
Just because it passed, doesn't mean it was a good thing. It was loaded with crap. But, don't let that stop anybody.
Quote from: me on July 25, 2013, 12:27:48 AM
Because no one wanted it is why it never got passed and Pelosi and Reed are the ones that got it passed.
This belongs in the TUZ lie tracker thread. Both parties have been trying to get some sort of health care bill put together for decades.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 25, 2013, 07:36:54 AM
Because it's still true.
No it is not. Not even close to any sort of truth. Not even remotely. You like to think that, but you could NOT be more wrong.
The bottom line is, it was poorly written, and full of bad ideas. That is why many democrats are realizing it, and are abandoning it. Are they just being racists too?
Quote from: Exterminator on July 25, 2013, 07:36:15 AM
This belongs in the TUZ lie tracker thread. Both parties have been trying to get some sort of health care bill put together for decades.
We're discussing this recent one that got passed not any other one. And as far as that TUZ is concerned you can stick it where the sun don't shine.
Quote from: me on July 25, 2013, 09:18:36 AM
We're discussing this recent one that got passed not any other one.
Rather than wallowing in your ignorance, why don't you ever take the time to actually learn something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States)
QuoteAnd as far as that TUZ is concerned you can stick it where the sun don't shine.
Under your fat rolls?
Quote from: Exterminator on July 25, 2013, 11:31:36 AM
Rather than wallowing in your ignorance, why don't you ever take the time to actually learn something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States)
Under your fat rolls?
And that has what to do with this HCB or what I posted?
Quote from: me on July 25, 2013, 12:18:13 PM
And that has what to do with this HCB or what I posted?
Maybe .... fat rolls are an indication that you may more better health care than a healthy person. :biggrin:
Quote from: me on July 25, 2013, 12:18:13 PM
And that has what to do with this HCB or what I posted?
Dear god...go back and re-read the last couple of pages on this and if you still can't keep up with the big dogs, stay on the porch. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on July 25, 2013, 01:09:18 PM
Dear god...go back and re-read the last couple of pages on this and if you still can't keep up with the big dogs, stay on the porch. :rolleyes:
I didn't post what I'm talking about now a couple of pages ago you're just trying to change the subject and deflect again.
Quote from: me on July 25, 2013, 02:24:33 PM
I didn't post what I'm talking about now a couple of pages ago you're just trying to change the subject and deflect again.
I did...now back onto the porch with you!
Quote from: Exterminator on July 25, 2013, 03:33:37 PM
I did...now back onto the porch with you!
Na, I'd rather post this again so you can, maybe, get things figured out and quit using that same tired dismissal BS.
Quote from: me on July 24, 2013, 10:04:54 PM
OP/ED | 5/09/2013 @ 12:14PM |5,467 views
Actually, Sen. Baucus, ObamaCare Is Facing Multiple Train Wrecks
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus' gaff—defined in Washington as when someone inadvertently tells the truth—about ObamaCare being a "train wreck" was actually an understatement: ObamaCare faces multiple train wrecks.
Baucus was referring to the implementation of ObamaCare: the missed deadlines, the confusion, and perhaps most importantly, the political fallout. But there are several other train wrecks, abject failures that have received little attention. And Republicans have had little or nothing to do with them.
Train Wreck No. 1 — Electronic health records, or EHRs, were supposed to create an electronic version of patients' medical records that could be transferred from doctor to doctor or hospital to hospital, known as "interoperability."
The Obama administration included $20 billion in the 2009 "stimulus bill" to promote the adoption of EHRs. Doctors and hospitals would be paid if they implemented EHRs in a "meaningful" way. The oft-repeated justification was that EHRs would save money—Obama cited an $81 billion savings that no one now believes—and improve the quality of care.
Well, the title of a January New York Times report reveals what many health policy experts predicted: "In Second Look, Few Savings from Digital Health Records." As it turns out the only ones benefiting from EHRs are the companies that lobbied for the legislation, doubling some of those companies' profits. As the Times points out, "the legislation has been a windfall to top executives at the leading health records companies."
Had anyone taken the time to look at the VA and its hospital system, which has had versions of electronic health records for decades, they might have been a little less optimistic. A recent National Center for Policy Analysis report explains, "efforts to integrate Department of Defense medical records for service members with VA electronic health records for new veterans have failed, hamstringing attempts to provide a continuum of care for veterans with service-connected conditions, as well as costing taxpayers more than $1 billion dollars."
Electronic health records may eventually become the gold standard in health care, but we're not there yet and Obama's billions of taxpayer dollars may have even slowed the progress.
Train Wreck No. 2 — President Obama rammed through the first major new entitlement in 45 years, but instead of people embracing it, most don't want it; not businesses, not insurers, not doctors, not individuals. Apparently, not even Democrats who voted for it.
Reuters reports that the largest insurers, most of which initially supported the legislation, are very reluctant to enter the health insurance exchanges, where millions are supposed to have access to numerous health insurance options. "In recent days, executives at the four largest U.S. health insurers say they are likely to sell insurance plans on less than a third of the exchanges, reluctant to venture out beyond the states where they already offer coverage."
And insurers aren't alone. A majority of the public has supported repeal since the legislation passed, and the "repealers" have recently grown. Of course, business trade associations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business have been fighting ObamaCare from the beginning.
The reception has been so bad that the Obama administration signed a $20 million public relations contract a year ago in an attempt to convince the public they want ObamaCare, and it just signed two more for another $10 million. That's $30 million of your tax dollars to sell something most of you don't want.
Train Wreck No. 3 — Health insurance premiums will explode. In January retired actuary Mark Litow and I published an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal explaining why ObamaCare will push up premiums for some people by 100 percent.
In the last two months, as insurers have begun to announce their ObamaCare premiums, it's clear we were right. States that largely destroyed their health insurance markets, like Massachusetts and New York, may not see much change—at least for a few years. But states that did a good job of ensuring access to affordable coverage will see their premiums skyrocket, especially in the individual market for younger adults.
Note that the rise in premiums is not a result of Obama's sloppy implementation efforts; it's due to the fact that the people writing the legislation didn't have a clue how health insurance works or how it affects consumer choices. They thought—and Obama repeated it several times—that getting everyone covered would lower health care spending. They also thought that adding free services would reduce health care costs, when virtually any actuary would have told them the opposite.
Train Wreck No. 4 — And let's not forget those with major pre-existing medical conditions, the uninsurables. ObamaCare put $5 billion aside to fund a new system of high risk pools to cover them—even though 35 state-based high risk pools already existed with about 220,000 people enrolled.
While Democratic planners expected some 375,000 people would be eligible to enroll in the program, only about 100,000 have. And yet the program is running out of money, and so the administration has closed it to new enrollees.
Let me repeat that: One of Obama's primary justifications for demanding health care reform was to help the uninsurables get coverage, and he has closed that provision to new entrants.
Yes, ObamaCare will be a train wreck, many times over—just wait until the IRS cranks up its enforcement efforts or it becomes clear that people cannot get health insurance subsidies in the federally created exchanges.
Democrats went to great lengths to completely restructure the U.S. health care system and get all the "credit" for it. And now they are increasingly afraid they will.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2013/05/09/actually-sen-baucus-obamacare-is-facing-multiple-train-wrecks/
:rolleyes:
From Mike Huckabee...
A businessman in Texas just sold three pizza parlors. So how does that affect you? Brace yourself... The story next...Back in 2010, Bob Westbrook owned three Cici's Pizza parlors. While the people who wrote and passed Obamacare couldn't be bothered to read it, Bob didn't have that luxury. He was president of the Texas Restaurant Association, so it was his job to find out what was in Obamacare.
What he found was that he'd be forced to buy his 96 fulltime workers heath coverage, which would bankrupt him -- or pay a fine $78,000 bigger than all three restaurants' profits combined.
So he did the only logical thing: he gave up and sold his businesses. My guess is that those 96 fulltime jobs will soon become 200 part time jobs.
Hey, that's more than double the job creation, right? So how does this affect you? Multiply Bob's story by every medium-sized business in America. And now you know why Obama is so anxious to put off Obamacare until after the election.
Because it slices up American jobs like a pizza.
LMAO...Mike Huckabee...
Quote from: Exterminator on July 26, 2013, 12:55:36 PM
LMAO...Mike Huckabee...
He is a good bass player ya gotta give him that much.
Quote from: me on July 26, 2013, 01:22:28 PM
He is a good bass player ya gotta give him that much.
... but he's dumb as dirt.
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2013, 01:30:33 PM
... but he's dumb as dirt.
seriously? :rolleyes: c'mon L.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 26, 2013, 02:08:10 PM
It's all relative.
Exactly.
And since we're talking about IQs today, the average IQ of the people in the state that elected him is less than 100 according to multiple sources.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 01:58:21 PM
seriously? :rolleyes: c'mon L.
Yes. He's a creationist.
I've listened to his show so I'm not talking about him without knowledge.
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2013, 02:10:46 PM
Exactly.
And since we're talking about IQs today, the average IQ of the people in the state that elected him is less than 100 according to multiple sources.
The state that gave us Bill Clinton.
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2013, 02:12:39 PM
Yes. He's a creationist.
I've listened to his show so I'm not talking about him without knowledge.
So that makes him, dumb as dirt?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 02:13:51 PM
The state that gave us Bill Clinton.
Yeah because that 8 years of peace and prosperity really sucked; huh?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 02:14:15 PM
So that makes him, dumb as dirt?
Yes. One of the following is true.
1. He's dumb as dirt.
2. He's a political opportunist capitalizing on people who are dumb as dirt.
3. He's both.
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2013, 02:18:55 PM
Yes. One of the following is true.
1. He's dumb as dirt.
2. He's a political opportunist capitalizing on people who are dumb as dirt.
3. He's both.
The same can be said about Obama then.
Quote from: Exterminator on July 26, 2013, 02:17:04 PM
Yeah because that 8 years of peace and prosperity really sucked; huh?
Thanks to Newt..... ;)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 02:19:53 PM
The same can be said about Obama then.
Feel free to cite some examples to back that up.
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2013, 02:21:38 PM
Feel free to cite some examples to back that up.
I will just use one of YOUR examples, because it fit to a tee...
"He's a political opportunist capitalizing on people who are dumb as dirt."
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 02:23:40 PM
I will just use one of YOUR examples, because it fit to a tee...
"He's a political opportunist capitalizing on people who are dumb as dirt."
All politicians are opportunists to a certain extent. I said Huckabee was dumb as dirt for his views on creationism.
Where would you start with Obama along those same lines? What specifically does Obama believe/support that qualifies him as dumb as dirt?
Quote from: Locutus on July 26, 2013, 02:27:16 PM
All politicians are opportunists to a certain extent. I said Huckabee was dumb as dirt for his views on creationism.
Where would you start with Obama along those same lines? What specifically does Obama believe/support that qualifies him as dumb as dirt?
I would say that Obama too, is a creationist....isn't he? He says he is a Christian.........so if you couple those together, then him and Huck are about the same....according to your own analogy....right?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 02:31:42 PM
I would say that Obama too, is a creationist....isn't he? He says he is a Christian.........so if you couple those together, then him and Huck are about the same....according to your own analogy....right?
Negative.
Christian <> Creationist
Are you a creationist?
I believe that God created our universe.
as did Obama:
"What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it ... it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know."
http://www.mediaite.com/online/not-just-rubio-obama-said-in-2008-that-biblical-story-of-creation-is-essentially-true/ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/not-just-rubio-obama-said-in-2008-that-biblical-story-of-creation-is-essentially-true/)
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 03:02:09 PM
I believe that God created our universe.
as did Obama:
"What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it ... it may not be 24-hour days, and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know."
http://www.mediaite.com/online/not-just-rubio-obama-said-in-2008-that-biblical-story-of-creation-is-essentially-true/ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/not-just-rubio-obama-said-in-2008-that-biblical-story-of-creation-is-essentially-true/)
Two central tenets of the creationists state the the literal story of the creation in Genesis is without fault and that evolution is a false science.
Are you a creationist?
Quote from: Bo D on July 26, 2013, 03:13:10 PM
Two central tenets of the creationists state the the literal story of the creation in Genesis is without fault and that evolution is a false science.
Are you a creationist?
We are not talking about me right now, we are talking about Obama and Huckabee.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 03:14:45 PM
We are not talking about me right now, we are talking about Obama and Huckabee.
Ah ha! So ... when the conversation takes a turn which shows you have no idea what you are talking about, you refuse to answer a logical question which has relevance to the turn of the discussion.
You quoted Hucklebee.
Locutus opined that he is dumb as dirt because he is a creationist.
You tried to equate Christianity with creationism by invoking an Obama quote.
Locutus and I tried to ascertain whether you claim to be a creationist, ergo - dumber than dirt like Hucklebee. :biggrin:
At least, we know the difference between Christianity and creationism.
Obama claims both. Christian AND Creationism.
So does Huck
Locutus thinks Huck is dumb as dirt based upon that perception.
Therefore,
He MUST believe that Obama TOO is dumb as dirt. Correct?
besides, I am waiting for L, answer.......he must be digging hard, because he has been at it for a while now...
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
Obama claims both. Christian AND Creationism.
So does Huck
Locutus thinks Huck is dumb as dirt based upon that perception.
Therefore,
He MUST believe that Obama TOO is dumb as dirt. Correct?
besides, I am waiting for L, answer.......he must be digging hard, because he has been at it for a while now...
No. Not correct. Obama does
NOT claim Creationism.
This is YOUR quote .....
"What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it ... it may not be 24-hour days, [
Creationists believe in a LITERAL six day creation]
and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know." [
Creationists believe that the story of Genesis is the only possible story of creation ... that evolution is heresy.]
Quote from: Bo D on July 26, 2013, 04:13:49 PM
No. Not correct. Obama does NOT claim Creationism.
This is YOUR quote .....
"What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it ... it may not be 24-hour days, [ Creationists believe in a LITERAL six day creation] and that's what I believe. I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't, and I think it's a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I'm a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don't presume to know." [Creationists believe that the story of Genesis is the only possible story of creation ... that evolution is heresy.]
You forgot to underline the whole sentence so I'll do it for you. :wink:
So, let me get this straight.........Huck is dumb as dirt because he believes in the Bible. But Obama is NOT because he don't have the guts to say he believes in the Bible...but he DOES believe in God and the God created the earth and universe.
I'm not trying to get legalistic here Bo on Creationism.......just to the point that Locutus was making about being dumb as dirt.
Not going to argue about the technicalities of creationism.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 04:28:23 PM
So, let me get this straight.........Huck is dumb as dirt because he believes in the Bible. But Obama is NOT because he don't have the guts to say he believes in the Bible...but he DOES believe in God and the God created the earth and universe.
I'm not trying to get legalistic here Bo on Creationism.......just to the point that Locutus was making about being dumb as dirt.
Not going to argue about the technicalities of creationism.
Gosh, two examples of redirecting the subject to someones character rather than the issue at hand in one day. What does Huck's character have to do with the HCRA or what I posted anyway? NOTHING, topic redirect because ya'll don't want to face the truth is all.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 04:28:23 PM
Not going to argue about the technicalities of creationism.
But "the technicalities of creationism" is the very basis of Hucklebee's stupidity. Believing in the Bible does not necessarily make one stupid. But I would venture to guess that a great number of Christians DO accept the theory of evolution.
Quote from: me on July 26, 2013, 04:36:33 PM
Gosh, two examples of redirecting the subject to someones character rather than the issue at hand in one day. What does Huck's character have to do with the HCRA or what I posted anyway? NOTHING, topic redirect because ya'll don't want to face the truth is all.
Go back to your beer and Slim Jims if you can't keep up. We don't question his character. We just said he is dumber than dirt. I'm sure you can relate to that.
Quote from: Bo D on July 26, 2013, 04:40:58 PM
Go back to your beer and Slim Jims if you can't keep up. We don't question his character. We just said he is dumber than dirt. I'm sure you can relate to that
Don't care to keep up with ya'lls redirection but now if you want to get back to what I posted about the HCRA, which Huck's IQ has nothing to do with, ya got a deal. :wink:
Quote from: me on July 26, 2013, 04:46:51 PM
Don't care to keep up with ya'lls redirection but now if you want to get back to what I posted about the HCRA, which Huck's IQ has nothing to do with, ya got a deal. :wink:
You got a beef with the discussion about Hucklebee then take it up with Hank. He's the one who brought him into this discussion.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 25, 2013, 10:36:08 PM
From Mike Huckabee...
A businessman in Texas just sold three pizza parlors. So how does that affect you? Brace yourself... The story next...Back in 2010, Bob Westbrook owned three Cici's Pizza parlors. While the people who wrote and passed Obamacare couldn't be bothered to read it, Bob didn't have that luxury. He was president of the Texas Restaurant Association, so it was his job to find out what was in Obamacare.
What he found was that he'd be forced to buy his 96 fulltime workers heath coverage, which would bankrupt him -- or pay a fine $78,000 bigger than all three restaurants' profits combined.
So he did the only logical thing: he gave up and sold his businesses. My guess is that those 96 fulltime jobs will soon become 200 part time jobs.
Hey, that's more than double the job creation, right? So how does this affect you? Multiply Bob's story by every medium-sized business in America. And now you know why Obama is so anxious to put off Obamacare until after the election.
Because it slices up American jobs like a pizza.
Here is what I posted about Huck, which IS about HCRA. Locutus said he was dumb as dirt..and blah, blah, blah...here we are.
I asked why he thought that and he said ....actually, I don't even care anymore.............I'm ready for a long weekend.
See ya!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 04:59:36 PM
Here is what I posted about Huck, which IS about HCRA. Locutus said he was dumb as dirt..and blah, blah, blah...here we are.
I asked why he thought that and he said ....actually, I don't even care anymore.............I'm ready for a long weekend.
See ya!
Ya know. It's kinda like those global warming 'experts' you guys like to quote who turn out to be veterinarians. We just like to consider the source and in this case the source about the HCRA, Huckabee, is dumber than dirt.
You have a good, long weekend.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 03:42:22 PM
Obama claims both. Christian AND Creationism.
So does Huck
Locutus thinks Huck is dumb as dirt based upon that perception.
Therefore,
He MUST believe that Obama TOO is dumb as dirt. Correct?
besides, I am waiting for L, answer.......he must be digging hard, because he has been at it for a while now...
Negative again. I've just had a busier than normal afternoon.
Although in my absence, Bo D did a heck of a job pretty much explaining the difference. Creationism generally means a literal interpretation of the Genesis story. From all accounts, that appears to be what Huckabee believes given that he is a Southern Baptist pastor and all.
From Wikipedia:
Teaching of evolution
"Huckabee has voiced his support of intelligent design and he has stated that he does not accept the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. He was quoted in July 2004 on Arkansans Ask, his regular show on the Arkansas Educational Television Network: "I think that students also should be given exposure to the theories not only of evolution but to the basis of those who believe in creationism." Huckabee has also stated, "I do not necessarily buy into the traditional Darwinian theory, personally."[61][62][63][64]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mike_Huckabee
As I said, dumb as dirt.
Go back and read it again HH. I said that Christian <> Creationist back when you started us down this road. I said Huckabee is dumb as dirt because of his positions as cited above. Not because he's a Christian. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 26, 2013, 02:31:42 PM
I would say that Obama too, is a creationist....isn't he? He says he is a Christian.........so if you couple those together, then him and Huck are about the same....according to your own analogy....right?
^^
FYI, you went astray right here.
Okay, as normal, this has been spun and twisted.
First of all,
This all started when I posted a story that Mike Huckabee shared about how the HCRA is having a negative effect on small business. Which IS a very interesting look at a person who IS a small business and studied the laws and realized the impacts it carries.
Then comes the personal attacks at Mike Huckabee. That he is dumb as dirt. Then came some shots at the IQ level of people from his state. Nothing to do with the story I posted about the HCRA.
THEN, I asked WHY he was "dumb as dirt". The answer I got was because he is a creationist. So, my conclusion was that he is NO longer qualified to an intelligent opinion, because he believes in that God created the universe. Tit for tat, 6 days or how ever long it took for God to create it.
I then replied that Obama TOO, believes that GOD created the universe. I made the mistake of calling him a creationist. Okay, you win that part, but Obama still believes in GOD and that He created everything. Maybe Obama and Huckabee will disagree on the exact time work, but BOTH believe in God and His creations.
This whole thing was spun around from the point from the story I posted is that HCRA is either going to force business' to close or to quit having so many full time employees and hire more part time employees. Which is NOT good for our economy.
Twist and turn everything you want, but it is NOT a good law. PERIOD.
The answer I got was
Quote from: Henry Hawk on July 27, 2013, 12:18:42 PM
Okay, as normal, this has been spun and twisted.
First of all,
This all started when I posted a story that Mike Huckabee shared about how the HCRA is having a negative effect on small business. Which IS a very interesting look at a person who IS a small business and studied the laws and realized the impacts it carries.
Then comes the personal attacks at Mike Huckabee. That he is dumb as dirt. Then came some shots at the IQ level of people from his state. Nothing to do with the story I posted about the HCRA.
THEN, I asked WHY he was "dumb as dirt". The answer I got was because he is a creationist. So, my conclusion was that he is NO longer qualified to an intelligent opinion, because he believes in that God created the universe. Tit for tat, 6 days or how ever long it took for God to create it.
I then replied that Obama TOO, believes that GOD created the universe. I made the mistake of calling him a creationist. Okay, you win that part, but Obama still believes in GOD and that He created everything. Maybe Obama and Huckabee will disagree on the exact time work, but BOTH believe in God and His creations.
This whole thing was spun around from the point from the story I posted is that HCRA is either going to force business' to close or to quit having so many full time employees and hire more part time employees. Which is NOT good for our economy.
Twist and turn everything you want, but it is NOT a good law. PERIOD.
The answer I got was
After all the bad and stupid things your god has done, you still believe there is a god? Hawk, you're dumb as dirt. :wacko: :ogod: :choo: :choo: :haha:
With all of his power you would think with a lot of prayer he could replace a arm, leg, an eye and of all things fix crippled children of all their pain and anguish. Beside all of the children he lets starve to death. :yes: :pray: :rolleyes:
Oh yes, vote Republican, they will help you in your sickness and pain. :haha: :zoners: They are such good Christians. Shall we all :puke:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57602611/afl-cio-obamacare-implementation-highly-disruptive/
QuoteBS/AP/ September 12, 2013, 11:01 AM
AFL-CIO: Obamacare implementation "highly disruptive"
As Republicans in Congress debate their strategy for obstructing the implementation of Obamacare, some of President Obama's closest allies are airing their grievances over the law's negative consequences.
At a convention in Los Angeles on Wednesday, the labor organization the AFL-CIO passed a resolution declaring that the Affordable Care Act will drive up costs of union-sponsored health plans to the point that workers and employers are forced to abandon them.
While the resolution is strongly worded -- it calls implementation of Obamacare "highly disruptive" to union health care plans -- some unions wanted to take the resolution even further. A draft originally offered by Sean McGarvey, head of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, said the AFL-CIO could no longer support the health care law and called for its repeal unless changes were made to protect union multi-employer plans.
GOP rift over anti-Obamacare strategy stalls budget bill
Despite Obamacare, execs still expect to keep hiring
As it was passed, the resolution claims the new law will increase costs for health plans that are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers in the construction, retail and transportation industries. That could encourage employers to hire fewer union workers or abandon the health plans altogether and force union members to seek lower quality coverage on the new health exchanges.
Union officials are seeking rule changes that would make their low-income workers eligible for the same types of federal subsidies they could get in the exchanges. They have also suggested rules that would treat their multi-employer plans as qualified exchange plans under the new law.
But the Congressional Research Service issued a memo earlier this year finding that neither change is allowed through rulemaking. The AFL-CIO resolution calls for the law to be amended by Congress if new rules cannot satisfy their concerns.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka held meetings at the White House last month in which he and other union leaders pressed the administration to make changes. Trumka has said he is encouraged that the White House is listening, but that no firm proposals have been made.
Republicans have seized on the AFL-CIO's complaints to back up its argument for slowing down the law's implementation and ultimately repealing it. They've also argued, however, that labor shouldn't get special treatment from Washington.
"We know big labor is leaning on the president to let them rewrite the same law they helped ram through," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on the Senate floor Thursday. "And apparently he's listening to them. "What about everybody else that's not in big labor?"
The latest poll surveying public opinion about Obamacare, from CNN, shows that weeks before open enrollment begins for the new health care exchanges, just 51 percent of Americans favor all or most of the provisions in the law.
A labor official told The Associated Press that White House officials had been calling labor leaders for days to urge them not to voice their concerns in the form of a resolution. The official, who wasn't authorized to discuss the conversations publicly and requested anonymity, said many union leaders insisted that they wanted to highlight their concerns.
Asked about any efforts to discourage unions from passing the resolution, the White House said in a statement Wednesday night that officials "are in regular contact with a variety of stakeholders, including unions, as part of our efforts to ensure smooth implementation and to improve the law."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57602611/afl-cio-obamacare-implementation-highly-disruptive/
So much for the conservative myths. (http://www.upworthy.com/his-first-4-sentences-are-interesting-the-5th-blew-my-mind-and-made-me-a-little-sick-2)
Quote from: Exterminator on September 18, 2013, 02:40:04 PM
So much for the conservative myths. (http://www.upworthy.com/his-first-4-sentences-are-interesting-the-5th-blew-my-mind-and-made-me-a-little-sick-2)
He is your source of info about the HCRB??????? You expect us to take this as fact?????? :haha: :rotfl: :rotfl:
QuoteBorn John Michael Green
August 24, 1977 (age 36)
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Occupation Writer, critic
Nationality American
Education B.A., English and Religious studies
Alma mater Kenyon College
Period 2005-present
Genres Young-adult fiction, radio, video
Notable work(s)
Looking for Alaska
An Abundance of Katherines
Paper Towns
Let It Snow
Will Grayson, Will Grayson
The Fault in Our Stars
Notable award(s) Michael L. Printz Award
2006 Looking for Alaska
Spouse(s) Sarah Urist Green
Children 2
Relative(s) Hank Green (brother)
Quote from: me on September 18, 2013, 03:14:37 PM
He is your source of info about the HCRB??????? You expect us to take this as fact??????
He's a lot more credible than some uneducated housewife from Andertucky yet you spew your "profound insight" here daily.
Of course, you can't refute the facts he presents because you have no idea how to look anything up!
Quote from: Exterminator on September 18, 2013, 03:20:36 PM
He's a lot more credible than some uneducated housewife from Andertucky yet you spew your "profound insight" here daily.
Of course, you can't refute the facts he presents because you have no idea how to look anything up!
Looked him up didn't I? :wink:
Quote from: me on September 18, 2013, 03:28:21 PM
Looked him up didn't I? :wink:
Look up the facts he presented and tell us what you find. I'm guessing you won't...or can't.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 18, 2013, 03:47:46 PM
Look up the facts he presented and tell us what you find. I'm guessing you won't...or can't.
Wouldn't matter who I got them from or where your reaction would be negative so, no, I won't bother to take the time. Did that once and won't do it again. Just remember, my refusal to do so doesn't make you right.
Quote from: me on September 18, 2013, 03:52:00 PM
Wouldn't matter who I got them from or where your reaction would be negative so, no, I won't bother to take the time. Did that once and won't do it again. Just remember, my refusal to do so doesn't make you right.
Fucking liar...you know he's right and are too fucking lazy to prove it to yourself because it's the opposite of what Fux News told you to think.
Quote from: Exterminator on September 18, 2013, 03:55:27 PM
Fucking liar...you know he's right and are too fucking lazy to prove it to yourself because it's the opposite of what Fux News told you to think.
Guess I struck a nerve huh? What a come back.....shakin' in my boots here....NOT!!!!! Liberal's are soooo predictable.
Quote from: me on September 18, 2013, 08:16:38 PM
Guess I struck a nerve huh? What a come back.....shakin' in my boots here....NOT!!!!! Liberal's are soooo predictable.
You didn't strike a nerve with me. How ignorant you choose to remain reflects only on you.
Oops......
QuoteCompany with $1.2 billion Obamacare contract under investigation for 'serious fraud'
4:13 PM 09/30/2013
A British multinational being paid $1.2 billion to implement Obamacare's federal insurance exchanges is under investigation after allegedly overcharging the British government by tens of millions of dollars.
Reuters reports that Britain's Serious Fraud Office is now looking into Serco, a massive service and security firm employing 120,000 worldwide, after the company reportedly overbilled its government client as much as $80 million for criminal electronic monitoring devices.
Around one in six of the criminals listed were already in prison, had left the country, were not required to wear a device, or were even dead.
The alleged fraud prompted an audit from the U.K.'s Ministry of Justice earlier this summer. Late last week, the ministry sent information from that audit to the Serious Fraud Office, asking that it consider a criminal case against the company.
In early July, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) granted Serco a $1.25 billion contract to review and process paper insurance applications for Obamacare's 34 federally-operated state exchanges. News of the investigation broke days later, and the Obama administration rushed to defend its corporate partner.
"Serco is a highly-skilled company that has a proven track record in providing cost-effective services to numerous other federal agencies," said a spokesman for HHS' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency charged with implementing the exchanges.
"The selection met all of the requirements for a full and open competition," he continued, "and the timing enables us to be ready for marketplace open enrollment starting on October 1."
Alan Hill, the spokesman for Serco's American subsidiary, told The Washington Post in July that a "firewall" existed between the American and British wings of the company. "When a foreign entity is involved, I think that means that U.S. interests are protected," he said.
The firm has already hired hundreds of new employees to fill Obamacare processing centers in Missouri, Arkansas and Kentucky. The Missouri office alone filled 600 new jobs in the last week in preparation for the individual exchange roll-out scheduled for Tuesday.
Tags: Obamacare, Serco
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/30/company-with-1-2-billion-obamacare-contract-under-investigation-for-serious-fraud/#ixzz2hWXH4VjH
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/26/uk-serco-sfo-idUKBRE98P12Q20130926
Yep, there is fraud a lot of fraud. Just look at all of the damn crooks in Congress. :zoners:
Aren't these guy's aware people have been fired or audited for less than this????? :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/v/H1zb_WII5b8#t=76
Step right up, folks; it's time to play Look What Showed Up In My Inbox Today!
That is a youtube video of an MSNBC show. It is real and fact period.
Quote from: me on October 21, 2013, 02:42:53 PM
That is a youtube video of an MSNBC show. It is real and fact period.
So what's your point?
Watch it and see.
Quote from: me on October 21, 2013, 03:58:09 PM
Watch it and see.
Watched it. Saw douche-bags. I don't watch MSNBC...ever...or any other news outlet. I base my opinions on publicly available information and form my own opinions rather than letting someone tell me what to think or what that information means.
So you have no clue about the problems that are arising with the HCRA then, is that correct?
Quote from: me on October 21, 2013, 11:03:08 PM
So you have no clue about the problems that are arising with the HCRA then, is that correct?
That isn't what I said but I am a pragmatist and understand that there are no perfect systems.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 22, 2013, 08:02:28 AM
That isn't what I said but I am a pragmatist and understand that there are no perfect systems.
Which they'd be quick to point out themselves if a conservative were at the helm at this juncture. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on October 22, 2013, 08:31:49 PM
Which they'd be quick to point out themselves if a conservative were at the helm at this juncture. :rolleyes:
They had nothing to do with the contract to the company that built the website, nothing, zilch, nada, nothing.
Quote from: me on October 22, 2013, 09:38:59 PM
They had nothing to do with the contract to the company that built the website, nothing, zilch, nada, nothing.
Who signed the contract for Indiana's failed welfare system modernization project?
And that has what to do with this?
Quote from: me on October 23, 2013, 08:11:07 AM
And that has what to do with this?
That's an example of another less than perfect system...a disaster, actually...under the control of a Republican. I can't find your posts where you were lambasting him over the waste of millions of Indiana taxpayer dollars?
Quote from: Exterminator on October 23, 2013, 09:50:45 AM
That's an example of another less than perfect system...a disaster, actually...under the control of a Republican. I can't find your posts where you were lambasting him over the waste of millions of Indiana taxpayer dollars?
At least the contract was with a U S business and he had enough sense to end it when he found it wasn't working. It also was a secure site unlike the HCRA site, they tell you after you've entered your info that is isn't secure.
Quote from: me on October 23, 2013, 11:00:42 AM
At least the contract was with a U S business and he had enough sense to end it when he found it wasn't working.
Read: yeah but he's white and a Republican.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 23, 2013, 11:33:10 AM
Read: yeah but he's white and a Republican.
And that has what to do with anything. That doesn't impact the entire U S nor does it cost anyone in the form of a tax penalty if they're not signed up. He will not even delay the tax for the individual like he did for big business in case they don't get it fixed and some people can't get signed up in time. Even the phone number you are given for getting help can't help you if you aren't already signed up, they direct you back to the web site if you aren't. It was also a secure web site unlike the HCRA web site.
Quote from: me on October 23, 2013, 01:04:40 PM
And that has what to do with anything. That doesn't impact the entire U S nor does it cost anyone in the form of a tax penalty if they're not signed up. He will not even delay the tax for the individual like he did for big business in case they don't get it fixed and some people can't get signed up in time. Even the phone number you are given for getting help can't help you if you aren't already signed up, they direct you back to the web site if you aren't. It was also a secure web site unlike the HCRA web site.
So what you are say is true, like the phone number you say you personally are given doesn't work. Huh? So "ME" you are saying that you have tried to get information on Obamacare and you personally can't find out what is going on. Is this a fact or are you bullshitting us like you do all of the time? :confused: :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Troll on October 23, 2013, 01:14:09 PM
So what you are say is true, like the phone number you say you personally are given doesn't work. Huh? So "ME" you are saying that you have tried to get information on Obamacare and you personally can't find out what is going on. Is this a fact or are you bullshitting us like you do all of the time? :confused: :rolleyes:
Dude, she got an email that said that so it must be true.
Quote from: me on October 23, 2013, 01:04:40 PM
It was also a secure web site unlike the HCRA web site.
WTF are you talking about??
Quote from: me on October 21, 2013, 12:56:28 PM
Aren't these guy's aware people have been fired or audited for less than this????? :eek:
http://www.youtube.com/v/H1zb_WII5b8#t=76
Watch this, it is not an email. Call the 800 number yourself and ask for help signing up. If you aren't they direct you back to the web site to sign up, it is a waste.
Quote from: Locutus on October 23, 2013, 01:51:38 PM
WTF are you talking about??
You are giving personal information on a web site which is not secure when you sign up for the HCRA on and are told after you have already given your info. Oh, and when I tried the web site I was directed to different companies in this area, not given different prices and policies to compare, and was told these companies would contact me either by email or phone to talk to me about the different plans and prices.
healthcare.gov is a secure website despite what your inbox told you.
More lies? Shocking! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on October 23, 2013, 02:46:45 PM
More lies? Shocking! :rolleyes:
20+ years in IT and I still haven't figured out what http
s means. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Locutus on October 23, 2013, 02:57:44 PM
20+ years in IT and I still haven't figured out what https means. :rolleyes:
LOL! :biggrin:
Quote from: Locutus on October 23, 2013, 02:57:44 PM
20+ years in IT and I still haven't figured out what https means. :rolleyes:
And so?????
Quote from: me on October 23, 2013, 05:43:12 PM
And so?????
You're really going to make me explain that?
Quote from: Locutus on October 23, 2013, 08:07:22 PM
You're really going to make me explain that?
Now before you do remember that information is shared with other places and there would be no reason for them to warn you that the information you just gave is not secure if it were. Also I do realize the S stands for secure but since you get that warning I would take that to mean the private information, SS# and possibly bank account #'s, you input is not encrypted and can be seen by anyone who has admin type access to those sites.
$500 million dollars plus for a web site that doesn't work????? :eek: :rant: :rant: :rant: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: me on October 24, 2013, 07:10:34 PM
$500 million dollars plus for a web site that doesn't work????? :eek: :rant: :rant: :rant: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
How much money did your Republicans put in their drug bill that didn't work at the start of it Honey Buns. :rolleyes:
:no:
We live in such a sad state of affairs....these are some of the worst times for most Americans.
Aw...you should go take your Midol. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on October 25, 2013, 09:47:20 AM
Aw...you should go take your Midol. :biggrin:
I would if I thought it would help....I think I need a Fukitol! :razz:
Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance By Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye, NBC News
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."
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be "grandfathered," meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don't meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, "40 to 67 percent" of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, "the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range."
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, "if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan," was still saying in 2012, "If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance."
"This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn't keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn't make it either," said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
The White House does not dispute that many in the individual market will lose their current coverage, but argues they will be offered better coverage in its place, and that many will get tax subsidies that would offset any increased costs.
"One of the main goals of the law is to ensure that people have insurance they can rely on – that doesn't discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. The consumers who are getting notices are in plans that do not provide all these protections – but in the vast majority of cases, those same insurers will automatically shift their enrollees to a plan that provides new consumer protections and, for nearly half of individual market enrollees, discounts through premium tax credits," said White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo.
"Nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces people out of their health plans: The law allows plans that covered people at the time the law was enacted to continue to offer that same coverage to the same enrollees – nothing has changed and that coverage can continue into 2014," she said.
Individual insurance plans with low premiums often lack basic benefits, such as prescription drug coverage, or carry high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. The Affordable Care Act requires all companies to offer more benefits, such as mental health care, and also bars companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.
Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the president's promise that consumers would be able to keep their health care. "What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide," Carney said. "So it's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act."
Other experts said that most consumers in the individual market will not be able to keep their policies. Nancy Thompson, senior vice president of CBIZ Benefits, which helps companies manage their employee benefits, says numbers in this market are hard to pin down, but that data from states and carriers suggests "anywhere from 50 to 75 percent" of individual policy holders will get cancellation letters. Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who chairs the health committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says that estimate is "probably about right." She added that a few states are asking insurance companies to cancel and replace policies, rather than just amend them, to avoid confusion.
A spokesman for America's Health Plans says there are no precise numbers on how many will receive cancellations letters or get notices that their current policies don't meet ACA standards. In both cases, consumers will not be able to keep their current coverage.
Those getting the cancellation letters are often shocked and unhappy.
George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.
And the best option he's found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.
"The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable."
"I'm sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick," Schwab added. "Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable."
Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, is raising a new baby while running her own PR firm. She said she received a letter last July from Cigna, her insurance company, that said the company would no longer offer her individual plan, and promised to send a letter by October offering a comparable option. So far, she hasn't received anything.
"I'm completely overwhelmed with a six-month-old and a business," said Goldwater. "The last thing I can do is spend hours poring over a website that isn't working, trying to wrap my head around this entire health care overhaul."
Goldwater said she supports the new law and is grateful for provisions helping folks like her with pre-existing conditions, but she worries she won't be able to afford the new insurance, which is expected to cost more because it has more benefits. "I'm jealous of people who have really good health insurance," she said. "It's people like me who are stuck in the middle who are going to get screwed."
Richard Helgren, a Lansing, Mich., retiree, said he was "irate" when he received a letter informing him that his wife Amy's $559 a month health plan was being changed because of the law. The plan the insurer offered raised his deductible from $0 to $2,500, and the company gave him 17 days to decide.
The higher costs spooked him and his wife, who have painstakingly planned for their retirement years. "Every dollar we didn't plan for erodes our standard of living," Helgren said.
Ulltimately, though Helgren opted not to shop through the ACA exchanges, he was able to apply for a good plan with a slightly lower premium through an insurance agent.
He said he never believed President Obama's promise that people would be able to keep their current plans.
"I heard him only about a thousand times," he said. "I didn't believe him when he said it though because there was just no way that was going to happen. They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."
For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock. He recently got his own notice that he and his wife cannot keep their current policy, which he described as one of the best, so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. Now, he said, the best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase.
"Mr. President, I like the coverage I have," Laszweski said. "It is the best health insurance policy you can buy."
Pleeese Henry tell us how the HCRA has affected you. :confused: :rolleyes:
So I guess if it doesn't effect you then you don't care about those who it is effecting, is that correct? Hell of an attitude but typical liberal.
Quote from: The Troll on October 29, 2013, 06:55:36 PM
Pleeese Henry tell us how the HCRA has affected you. :confused: :rolleyes:
Wrong again Dumbrah! Your head has more rocks in it than a stone quarry and that is the facts. :thumbsup: :biggrin:
My cost of my insurance has gone up. So far, my employer is eating that. My son has had his contributions of his premiums double, from his employer. Are you REALLY that arrogant to think that this is NOT effecting America?
The bottom line is, Americans were LIED to, bald-faced, by our POTUS. Millions of Americans CANNOT keep their existing HC plans, as were PROMISED.
Thousands of Americans are NO LONGER full time employee's.
St. Vincent Hospital has "Let-go" hundreds of employees as a direct result of "Obamacare".
So keep on thinking that the democrat party is for Americans. THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT. :rant:
From the NY Times:
WASHINGTON — President Obama finds himself under fire on two disparate fronts these days, both for the botched rollout of his signature health care program and for the secret spying on allied heads of state. In both instances, his explanation roughly boils down to this: I didn't know.
Yeah, a GREAT F'ing LEADER.... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 30, 2013, 08:18:01 AM
My cost of my insurance has gone up. So far, my employer is eating that. My son has had his contributions of his premiums double, from his employer. Are you REALLY that arrogant to think that this is NOT effecting America?
The bottom line is, Americans were LIED to, bald-faced, by our POTUS. Millions of Americans CANNOT keep their existing HC plans, as were PROMISED.
Thousands of Americans are NO LONGER full time employee's.
St. Vincent Hospital has "Let-go" hundreds of employees as a direct result of "Obamacare".
So keep on thinking that the democrat party is for Americans. THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT. :rant:
Holy hell! Please tell me you aren't so shallow as to actually believe the tripe you posted!
The facts are, CONGRESS defanged the HCRA by taking out the portions that were intended to prevent the outlandish premium increases we have been seeing for more than a decade now. Those "millions of Americans" that cannot keep their healthcare are the unemployed and the disenfranchised that are quickly becoming the majority in this nation. The very ones you and your ilk want to sweep under the rug and forget about.
St Vincent's is just the tip of the iceberg; especially when you consider that all hospitals are now for profit businesses. . . It has nothing to do with the HCRA.
Why do you think they call it "Obamacare"? Because they are counting on that deep-seated racial hate to blind you to the truth!
It saddens me to think that bright men such as yourself has been convoluted into thinking the way you do.
It only takes a person to sit back and look, to see what is happening. No rocket science degree is required. Just a tad of common sense.
Our country is headed off of a cliff....and those who are in charge are leading the pack.
The fact that many insurance policies will not be grandfathered in is not news. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=1&)
"Plans will lose their grandfather status if they choose to make significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers."
But Obama said...IF you like your policy, you can KEEP it. PERIOD.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 30, 2013, 12:42:23 PM
The fact that many insurance policies will not be grandfathered in is not news. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=1&)
"Plans will lose their grandfather status if they choose to make significant changes that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers."
A lot of those policies had to be changed to conform with Obama care, it was not the fault of the insurance company but they are convenient scape goat for this administration who will admit to nothing which doesn't sit well with people.
And I'm noticing more and more Obama knows nothing about anything when it comes to problems and it is in his favor to play dumb. I'm thinking a lot of those things ya'll put in TUZ lie tracker are going to have to start finding their way out as this HCB goes further into effect. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 30, 2013, 01:45:26 PM
But Obama said...IF you like your policy, you can KEEP it. PERIOD.
Quote from: me on October 30, 2013, 02:12:08 PM
A lot of those policies had to be changed to conform with Obama care, it was not the fault of the insurance company but they are convenient scape goat for this administration who will admit to nothing which doesn't sit well with people.
And I'm noticing more and more Obama knows nothing about anything when it comes to problems and it is in his favor to play dumb. I'm thinking a lot of those things ya'll put in TUZ lie tracker are going to have to start finding their way out as this HCB goes further into effect. :wink:
Oh holy hell. You two are ridiculous! :rolleyes:
It's like trying to convince a two year old that standing on the edge of a chair is dangerous. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on October 30, 2013, 02:41:33 PM
Oh holy hell. You two are ridiculous! :rolleyes:
It's like trying to convince a two year old that standing on the edge of a chair is dangerous. :rolleyes:
Yep, the health care bill sought to stop predatory practices already in use by the insurance industry and these two clowns actually seem to support allowing that to continue. Of course, it couldn't be about racially motivated hatred or anything like that...
Quote from: Palehorse on October 30, 2013, 02:41:33 PM
Oh holy hell. You two are ridiculous! :rolleyes:
Why is it so difficult for you to admit, that he LIED? He did it, even MSMNC is convinced he did. There really isn't even a good argument against it. He flat out lied.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 30, 2013, 02:47:59 PM
Yep, the health care bill sought to stop predatory practices already in use by the insurance industry and these two clowns actually seem to support allowing that to continue. Of course, it couldn't be about racially motivated hatred or anything like that...
In case you hadn't heard insurance rates are now soaring and the deductibles are increasing not to mention the fact a lot of people can't keep their preferred doctors or hospitals because they aren't part of the "network". If you like your HCP or if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and you can keep your healthcare plan....Not so in a lot of cases. He lied period.
Quote from: me on October 30, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
In case you hadn't heard insurance rates are now soaring and the deductibles are increasing...
Lies. Just because it shows up in your email doesn't make it true.
If insurance companies are taking advantage of the situation and using Obamacare as their excuse to continue doing what they were doing for years before Obamacare existed anyway, you can thank the Republicans for the changes to the original bill that gave them the opportunity to do so. Conservatives did this; fucking own it.
Quote from: Exterminator on October 30, 2013, 03:28:50 PM
Lies. Just because it shows up in your email doesn't make it true. If insurance companies are taking advantage of the situation and using Obamacare as their excuse to continue doing what they were doing for years before Obamacare existed anyway, you can thank the Republicans for the changes to the original bill that gave them the opportunity to do so. Conservatives did this; fucking own it.
Show me the changes that allow that. Did you read the entire bill as it was written? If you say you did you're a liar because we never got to see the entire bill and you'd still be reading unless you took a course in super speed reading. Remember Pelosi's statement, "We need to pass it to find out what's in it?" Well, now we're finding out. He didn't even help write it so he probably didn't know what was in it either.
Quote from: me on October 30, 2013, 03:24:19 PM
In case you hadn't heard insurance rates are now soaring and the deductibles are increasing not to mention the fact a lot of people can't keep their preferred doctors or hospitals because they aren't part of the "network". If you like your HCP or if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor and you can keep your healthcare plan....Not so in a lot of cases. He lied period.
Seems you haven't been paying attention for at least the last 7 years or so.
I've been screaming about the cost of healthcare for nearly a decade; well before the HCRA was ever thought of, much less the POTUS being elected into office for his first term.
Anybody who thinks this is something new hasn't been paying attention. I am paying over 5k a year in premiums and am carrying a 4k deductible; and then they will only pay 80% of the charges. The first 4k of expenses each and every year come straight out of my pocket. Been that way for almost 3 years. Beofre that I was dealing with 30-50% premium increases EVERY year.
The only lying being done is by those members of congress responsible for defanging the HCRA in exchange for heavy contributions to their campaigns and under the table pay offs.
You keep right on believing that if you want. Like Pelosi said, we are now finding out what's in the bill and most of it isn't good. You didn't read the fine print because it wasn't put out there to be read. We are going to end up with substandard care with who knows what kind of doctor before this is all over.
Quote from: Palehorse on October 30, 2013, 09:02:28 PM
Seems you haven't been paying attention for at least the last 7 years or so.
I've been screaming about the cost of healthcare for nearly a decade; well before the HCRA was ever thought of, much less the POTUS being elected into office for his first term.
Anybody who thinks this is something new hasn't been paying attention. I am paying over 5k a year in premiums and am carrying a 4k deductible; and then they will only pay 80% of the charges. The first 4k of expenses each and every year come straight out of my pocket. Been that way for almost 3 years. Beofre that I was dealing with 30-50% premium increases EVERY year.
The only lying being done is by those members of congress responsible for defanging the HCRA in exchange for heavy contributions to their campaigns and under the table pay offs.
A Manhattan Institute analysis found that, on average, the cheapest plan offered in a given state, under Obamacare, will be 99 percent more expensive for men, and 62 percent more expensive for women, than the cheapest plan offered under the old system. And those disparities are even wider for healthy people.
That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on October 31, 2013, 08:26:03 AM
. . .
That raises an obvious question. If 50 million people are uninsured today, mainly because insurance is too expensive, why is it better to make coverage even costlier?
Again, defanging the HCRA is the root cause here, and we all know who is to blame for that.
Their (the insurance companies) theory is that since the government is subsidizing the premiums for the poor and uninsured, its "free money". And they've been raping the working stiffs for decades now, so why not continue?
Quote from: me on October 30, 2013, 09:49:58 PM
You keep right on believing that if you want. . . :blah: :blah: :blah:
Thanks. I will. Because it is the absolute truth.
Quote from: Palehorse on October 31, 2013, 05:01:33 PM
Again, defanging the HCRA is the root cause here, and we all know who is to blame for that.
Their (the insurance companies) theory is that since the government is subsidizing the premiums for the poor and uninsured, its "free money". And they've been raping the working stiffs for decades now, so why not continue?
Thanks. I will. Because it is the absolute truth.
Free money????? What do you think they use to pay claims with? If a person is paying, as an example, $250pr month for insurance with drug coverage and a $20 copay and they're on a drug, or drugs, which cost $400pr month the insurance is paying out more than they are taking in for that person even with the copay. Now put that on a higher scale for thousands of people and then do the math. Yes, I realize there are people who have insurance who either don't use it or use it very little like me but they are rare. Most people with insurance go to the Dr. for every little sniffle just because they can. Then there are the Dr.'s who scam the insurance companies for thousands of dollars. All you keep referring to is the money the insurance companies take in start thinking about the money they pay out too.
Quote from: me on October 31, 2013, 05:37:35 PM
Free money????? What do you think they use to pay claims with? If a person is paying, as an example, $250pr month for insurance with drug coverage and a $20 copay and they're on a drug, or drugs, which cost $400pr month the insurance is paying out more than they are taking in for that person even with the copay. Now put that on a higher scale for thousands of people and then do the math. Yes, I realize there are people who have insurance who either don't use it or use it very little like me but they are rare. Most people with insurance go to the Dr. for every little sniffle just because they can. Then there are the Dr.'s who scam the insurance companies for thousands of dollars. All you keep referring to is the money the insurance companies take in start thinking about the money they pay out too.
You really need to update your hard drive and processor, because you are woefully misinformed.
Do you realize just how much employers pay in premiums? Do you realize that virtually ALL of the large corporations are self-insured and merely use the insurance companies as a third party administrator? (And as of the last couple of decades most of the jobs worth having pay-wise are for large corporations). Yet, those premiums at these same large corporations are doubling, tripling, and more; and have been for over 2 decades!
Moreover, who is the one that started bitching in this topic within the last 24 hours about healthcare premiums? Hum? :rolleyes: (You'd argue with the undertaker that was preparing you for burial if you could; convinced you were still alive despite the absence of brain activity.)
Finally, you do realize that the profit levels of these same health insurance companies are only surpassed by those of the oil industry? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes, they are profiting on the sick and infirm. Pure and simple. :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on October 31, 2013, 06:09:07 PM
You really need to update your hard drive and processor, because you are woefully misinformed.
Do you realize just how much employers pay in premiums? Do you realize that virtually ALL of the large corporations are self-insured and merely use the insurance companies as a third party administrator? (And as of the last couple of decades most of the jobs worth having pay-wise are for large corporations). Yet, those premiums at these same large corporations are doubling, tripling, and more; and have been for over 2 decades!
Moreover, who is the one that started bitching in this topic within the last 24 hours about healthcare premiums? Hum? :rolleyes: (You'd argue with the undertaker that was preparing you for burial if you could; convinced you were still alive despite the absence of brain activity.)
Finally, you do realize that the profit levels of these same health insurance companies are only surpassed by those of the oil industry? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes, they are profiting on the sick and infirm. Pure and simple. :mad:
Both insurance companies and unions are extortionists but the union pays out no money they just collect it and run interference. But so what if insurance companies make a profit are they in it as non-profit organizations? Isn't the government doing the same thing because you know we're going to end up with government healthcare in the long haul because the government is going to start putting more and more regulations on insurance companies until it drives them out of business. Of course there is always the concierge doctors that only the rich will be able to afford while the rest of us will have the clinic type care because of the shortage of good doctors who want to work for nothing.
Quote from: me on October 31, 2013, 07:21:56 PM
Both insurance companies and unions are extortionists but the union pays out no money they just collect it and run interference. But so what if insurance companies make a profit are they in it as non-profit organizations? Isn't the government doing the same thing because you know we're going to end up with government healthcare in the long haul because the government is going to start putting more and more regulations on insurance companies until it drives them out of business. Of course there is always the concierge doctors that only the rich will be able to afford while the rest of us will have the clinic type care because of the shortage of good doctors who want to work for nothing.
Holy hell. You're just full of innuendo, conjecture, and supposition; nowhere within is the truth to be found! :rolleyes:
You act as if the "great white hope" is dead. . . Oh wait. . . I guess in your view it is! :rotfl:
Quote from: me on October 31, 2013, 07:21:56 PM
Both insurance companies and unions are extortionists but the union pays out no money they just collect it and run interference. But so what if insurance companies make a profit are they in it as non-profit organizations? Isn't the government doing the same thing because you know we're going to end up with government healthcare in the long haul because the government is going to start putting more and more regulations on insurance companies until it drives them out of business. Of course there is always the concierge doctors that only the rich will be able to afford while the rest of us will have the clinic type care because of the shortage of good doctors who want to work for nothing.
On another front; What is "reasonable profit" when it comes to the well being, longevity, and quality of life as they pertain to a human being?
When you look at the profit levels of the medical insurance companies, they are just below those of the oil industry; reaching record levels in consecutive quarters over the past decade or so.
Since its $20.8 billion merger deal in late 2004, Anthem Blue Cross and Wellpoint have grown into the nation's biggest insurer, now providing coverage to 35 million people. Even with the nation mired in a deep recession, Anthem Blue Cross has not hesitated to continue its pattern of hiking rates for customers. Within the past six months, 80% of holders of individual policies have received notice of premium increases up to 39%.
At the same time, of course, there is little promise of better coverage of medical bills. In California, the average claim-rejection rate is 1 in 5. In particular, the insurer has become known for routinely canceling individual policies of pregnant women and patients who are chronically ill. This led the state of California to fine Anthem Blue Cross $1 million.
Of course, California's experience was not an isolated incident. In 2008, Nevada reached a $1 million settlement with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield for overcharging policyholders. Kentucky officials ordered Anthem Health Plans to refund $23.7 million to 81,000 seniors and disabled patients over inaccurate Medicare claims payments. Colorado obtained a $5.7 million refund for its Anthem Blue Cross customers.
Doctors have filed suit against the corporation, with 800,000 saying they were denied rightful payment for services they provided for policyholders. And the federal government barred Anthem Blue Cross and Wellpoint from participating in a Medicare program after the corporations denied medicines to seniors.
Two years ago, Blue Cross sent $950 million to its parent company WellPoint's corporate headquarters in Indiana. Routinely Blue Cross PPO has posted profits levels on individual plans of 20% or more of all revenue. Within the all PPO plans for Blue Cross they have posted profit margins of 18% consistently. All while imposing premium increases of 17 to 26% and more upon its insured.
In 2010 in Illinois alone, the company raked in 1.1 billion of pure profit, doubling the previous years profit, and it has been going steadily higher since 1996, when Blue Cross was acquired by Wellpoint and went from a not for profit entity to a for profit entity. Multiply that by 50 states and well, you get the picture. BILLIONS of dollars in profits on the backs of the sick and infirm. :mad: And it is a never ending cycle of premium increases.
Again, they cry poor when in reality they are as rich as the oil companies ; and just as influential. :mad: :mad:
Wellpoints 2012 revenue? $61.7 billion
Quote from: Palehorse on October 31, 2013, 07:49:51 PM
On another front; What is "reasonable profit" when it comes to the well being, longevity, and quality of life as they pertain to a human being?
When you look at the profit levels of the medical insurance companies, they are just below those of the oil industry; reaching record levels in consecutive quarters over the past decade or so.
Since its $20.8 billion merger deal in late 2004, Anthem Blue Cross and Wellpoint have grown into the nation's biggest insurer, now providing coverage to 35 million people. Even with the nation mired in a deep recession, Anthem Blue Cross has not hesitated to continue its pattern of hiking rates for customers. Within the past six months, 80% of holders of individual policies have received notice of premium increases up to 39%.
At the same time, of course, there is little promise of better coverage of medical bills. In California, the average claim-rejection rate is 1 in 5. In particular, the insurer has become known for routinely canceling individual policies of pregnant women and patients who are chronically ill. This led the state of California to fine Anthem Blue Cross $1 million.
Of course, California's experience was not an isolated incident. In 2008, Nevada reached a $1 million settlement with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield for overcharging policyholders. Kentucky officials ordered Anthem Health Plans to refund $23.7 million to 81,000 seniors and disabled patients over inaccurate Medicare claims payments. Colorado obtained a $5.7 million refund for its Anthem Blue Cross customers.
Doctors have filed suit against the corporation, with 800,000 saying they were denied rightful payment for services they provided for policyholders. And the federal government barred Anthem Blue Cross and Wellpoint from participating in a Medicare program after the corporations denied medicines to seniors.
Two years ago, Blue Cross sent $950 million to its parent company WellPoint's corporate headquarters in Indiana. Routinely Blue Cross PPO has posted profits levels on individual plans of 20% or more of all revenue. Within the all PPO plans for Blue Cross they have posted profit margins of 18% consistently. All while imposing premium increases of 17 to 26% and more upon its insured.
In 2010 in Illinois alone, the company raked in 1.1 billion of pure profit, doubling the previous years profit, and it has been going steadily higher since 1996, when Blue Cross was acquired by Wellpoint and went from a not for profit entity to a for profit entity. Multiply that by 50 states and well, you get the picture. BILLIONS of dollars in profits on the backs of the sick and infirm. :mad: And it is a never ending cycle of premium increases.
Again, they cry poor when in reality they are as rich as the oil companies ; and just as influential. :mad: :mad:
Wellpoints 2012 revenue? $61.7 billion
You're talking about a company as though it were a person. The "company" has to maintain a certain amount of back up money which can be taken out of that "pure profit" because it isn't actually profit. Do you own any stock? If so would you invest in a company that wasn't profitable? Get out of that box you're in and think.
Quote from: me on October 31, 2013, 08:29:47 PM
You're talking about a company as though it were a person. The "company" has to maintain a certain amount of back up money which can be taken out of that "pure profit" because it isn't actually profit. Do you own any stock? If so would you invest in a company that wasn't profitable? Get out of that box you're in and think.
I'm not the one granting corporations individual constitutional rights, but that's another argument.
It IS pure profit. FOR profit out of a historically NOT for profit entity.
Hippocratic Oath
I do solemnly vow, to that which I value and hold most dear:
That I will honor the Profession of Medicine, be just and generous to its members, and help sustain them in their service to humanity;
That just as I have learned from those who preceded me, so will I instruct those who follow me in the science and the art of medicine;
That I will recognize the limits of my knowledge and pursue lifelong learning to better care for the sick and to prevent illness;
That I will seek the counsel of others when they are more expert so as to fulfill my obligation to those who are entrusted to my care;
That I will not withdraw from my patients in their time of need;
That I will lead my life and practice my art with integrity and honor, using my
power wisely;
That whatsoever I shall see or hear of the lives of my patients that is not fitting to be spoken, I will keep in confidence;
That into whatever house I shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick;
That I will maintain this sacred trust, holding myself far aloof from wrong, from
corrupting, from the tempting of others to vice;
That above all else I will serve the highest interests of my patients through the practice of my science and my art;
That I will be an advocate for patients in need and strive for justice in the care of the sick.
I now turn to my calling, promising to preserve its finest traditions, with the reward of a long experience in the joy of healing.
I make this vow freely and upon my honor.http://weill.cornell.edu/deans/pdf/hippocratic_oath.pdf (http://weill.cornell.edu/deans/pdf/hippocratic_oath.pdf)
And then the insurance companies got involved, at first with similar creed, which gave way to greed; for wealth and power which corrupts without limitation.
Now insurance companies know more about what medicines, regimens, and body chemistry you need to maintain without ever having laid eyes upon you; over and above that which your personal physician(s) who in many cases have spent a life-time with you, caring for your well being, health, and quality of life. And the insurance companies expect you to pay them handsomely for the "privilege".
Insurance companies have bastardized medicine, and there are many hospitals that jumped onto the bandwagon for the very same motivations.
There was a time when physicians were among one of the most philanthropic and noble endeavors on the planet. And then the insurance companies got involved; first demanding a say in your healthcare, then seizing it, then receiving legal, constitutionally protected rights, and the means / power with which to rob every single one of the insured as well as the ability to purchase the legislation that bolsters their ability to do so.
The HCRA is a primary example of what I am talking about here; a bill that started out to correct many of the blatant abuses listed in the previous portions of this post, ends up as a blank check to not only continue the abuses, but to increase them as well.
And you don't see a damned bit of it because you are blinded by the racist propagandists that have infested the republican party. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
It isn't this writer who is "in a box", but rather you. And you are so blind you don't see the bars on it do you?
The government is doing the same thing, telling us what's good for us and what medicine and treatments they will approve for us, as well as telling the doctors how to treat patients. You can't possibly think that's better. Just remember you are at the age where the government may find it not feasible to treat you for certain illnesses because of cost effectiveness and your ability to contribute to the pot for any length of time. Ever watch Logan's Run? Oh, and that's not a jab at your age 'cause I'm there too and so are 2 of my 3 kids.
Quote from: me on October 31, 2013, 10:03:08 PM
The government is doing the same thing, telling us what's good for us and what medicine and treatments they will approve for us, as well as telling the doctors how to treat patients. You can't possibly think that's better. Just remember you are at the age where the government may find it not feasible to treat you for certain illnesses because of cost effectiveness and your ability to contribute to the pot for any length of time. Ever watch Logan's Run? Oh, and that's not a jab at your age 'cause I'm there too and so are 2 of my 3 kids.
More conjecture and supposition, based upon propaganda.
The GOVERNMENT is not going to be involved in your healthcare. It WANTS to regulate the industry; something they did routinely until Rappin Ronnie Rayguns deregulation barn dance days; which loosed the dogs of greed upon us all.
Why do you think you've been so bombarded with propaganda (which you believe without question) that was and is critical of the HCRA? Who do you think is paying for all that? (Here's a hint; it isn't big oil but it does follow their playbook).
Quote from: Palehorse on October 31, 2013, 10:09:50 PM
More conjecture and supposition, based upon propaganda.
The GOVERNMENT is not going to be involved in your healthcare. It WANTS to regulate the industry; something they did routinely until Rappin Ronnie Rayguns deregulation barn dance days; which loosed the dogs of greed upon us all.
Why do you think you've been so bombarded with propaganda (which you believe without question) that was and is critical of the HCRA? Who do you think is paying for all that? (Here's a hint; it isn't big oil but it does follow their playbook).
Ok, just sit back and watch as this unfolds.
Quote from: Palehorse on October 31, 2013, 05:01:33 PM
Again, defanging the HCRA is the root cause here, and we all know who is to blame for that.
Their (the insurance companies) theory is that since the government is subsidizing the premiums for the poor and uninsured, its "free money". And they've been raping the working stiffs for decades now, so why not continue?
EXACTLY why Government intervention RUINS a good thing for the middle class........and THAT is who is being HURT by this.
It is NOT just a republican thing and until people realize this, we will forever be screwed. It is POLITICAL THING. And the fucking democrat leaders have as much, no...MORE blood on their hands as anyone.
That is why I have a ounce of faith in the Ted Cruz way. He is at least doing what he said he would do when he was elected to office.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57610328/obamacare-enrollments-got-off-to-very-slow-start-documents-show/
Quote from: Palehorse on October 31, 2013, 10:09:50 PM
Why do you think you've been so bombarded with propaganda (which you believe without question) that was and is critical of the HCRA? Who do you think is paying for all that? (Here's a hint; it isn't big oil but it does follow their playbook).
The gullible soak that shit up!
My insurance costs skyrocketed because of Obamacare. I'm going to be paying almost $20.00 a month more! Rat bastards!
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 01, 2013, 08:04:04 AM
. . .
That is why I have a ounce of faith in the Ted Cruz way. He is at least doing what he said he would do when he was elected to office.
Cruz is nothing more and nothing less than the political zealot puppet of the tea billies; and while I agree he is doing what he said he would do, that is exactly
why he should be removed from office. (Along with every other obstructionist practicing zealot that has served to obstruct progress for nearly 5 years now). :mad: :mad: :mad:
His "brand" is nothing more than the re-packaged tea party snake oil they've been hawking for years, and is one of the root causes for this mess.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 01, 2013, 10:50:56 AM
The gullible soak that shit up!
My insurance costs skyrocketed because of Obamacare. I'm going to be paying almost $20.00 a month more! Rat bastards!
Yeah. Mine is staying the same as far as I know; still as sky high as it has been.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 01, 2013, 11:11:03 AM
Cruz is nothing more and nothing less than the political zealot puppet of the tea billies; and while I agree he is doing what he said he would do, that is exactly why he should be removed from office. (Along with every other obstructionist practicing zealot that has served to obstruct progress for nearly 5 years now). :mad: :mad: :mad:
His "brand" is nothing more than the re-packaged tea party snake oil they've been hawking for years, and is one of the root causes for this mess.
The way I see it, his integrity and passion is EXACTLY what we need in this country right now.. I will do everything in my soul to see that my next rep or senator has exactly that mentality to serve our country....and I will do it full of pride.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 01, 2013, 11:11:03 AM
that is exactly why he should be removed from office.
Yeah, those bastards that do what they PROMISED us the would do and what we ASKED them to do....really suck! :rant: :rolleyes:
unlike the bastards that outright LIED to the Nation....telling us that Hope & Change is on its way... :rolleyes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 01, 2013, 01:19:29 PM
...telling us that Hope & Change is on its way... :rolleyes:
He has since learned that you can't fix stupid.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 01, 2013, 01:38:54 PM
He has since learned that you can't fix stupid.
it was the "stupid" that voted for him and got him elected.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 01, 2013, 01:19:29 PM
Yeah, those bastards that do what they PROMISED us the would do and what we ASKED them to do....really suck! :rant: :rolleyes:
unlike the bastards that outright LIED to the Nation....telling us that Hope & Change is on its way... :rolleyes:
Obstructionist politics is nothing but destructive; period. Cruz and those just like him, under the guise of the tea billies and their false patriotism, are ruining this country.
If they get their way we will have the rich 1% and the poor 99%. You can clearly see this is their plan if you would take those rose colored glasses off and see things in the stark bright light of day. But you refuse to do this, clutching to the false hope these miscreants are providing you and blind to the fact it is a Trojan Horse.
Hope and Change requires cooperation and a large portion of good-faith; all but absent within the GOP and Tea-Billy Parties over the last 5 years. Minus that there is little ANYONE could do to positively impact the nation and its day-to-day business. (As we have seen).
The GOP / Tea Party will soon reap the bitter harvest they have sown in the mid-term elections. And we'll see how they like being out in the cold.
President Obama was wrong to tell the GOP / Tea Party to get to the back of the bus. He SHOULD have told them to get the fuck off the bus and walk their happy asses across one of our borders! :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 01, 2013, 02:14:08 PM
it was the "stupid" that voted for him and got him elected.
Cruz; that is exactly how he obtained office.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 01, 2013, 02:16:26 PM
President Obama was wrong to tell the GOP / Tea Party to get to the back of the bus. He SHOULD have told them to get the fuck off the bus and walk their happy asses across one of our borders! :yes:
Yeah, that is exactly what he would like to have done.....being a f'ing Chicago thug politician. The most corrupt city in this country....and he is merely carrying that over to Washington. It was THAT attitude that forced some to utilize every tactic in the book to keep him from getting his "agenda" carried out that would have, without a doubt, shot this country down the proverbial toilet.
The thing is this.....every person I know, that has a brain, clearly see's it this way too. We will indeed see what happens in 2014. The last chance we may have to turning this nation back around and making it once agian prosperous for ALL Americans.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 01, 2013, 02:14:08 PM
it was the "stupid" that voted for him and got him elected.
Really? I'm only asking since it would seem that the least literate people on this forum are those who hate him.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 01, 2013, 02:29:07 PM
Yeah, that is exactly what he would like to have done.....being a f'ing Chicago thug politician.
Tell us again how your hatred of this man isn't rooted in racism; won't you? :rolleyes:
QuoteThe thing is this.....every person I know, that has a brain, clearly see's it this way too.
Do they know how to use commas correctly?
Quote from: Exterminator on November 01, 2013, 02:51:47 PM
Tell us again how your hatred of this man isn't rooted in racism; won't you? :rolleyes:
The thing is this.....every person I know, that has a brain, clearly see's it this way too.
Do they know how to use commas correctly?
I'm not taking a english exam.....I am shooting at the hips, rambling on and on. I get excited when I type with an attitude.
and despite what you have trained yourself to think, race has nothing what-so-ever in my disgust over this potus.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 01, 2013, 03:05:12 PM
and despite what you have trained yourself to think, race has nothing what-so-ever in my disgust over this potus.
Really? Odd because the statement I quoted is absolutely racist.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 01, 2013, 03:10:21 PM
Really? Odd because the statement I quoted is absolutely racist.
Why is it racist?
Quote from: Exterminator on November 01, 2013, 03:10:21 PM
Really? Odd because the statement I quoted is absolutely racist.
Are YOU insinuating that some of the people I know that have a brain are all white? If so, you would be wrong, because three people I work with are African American, and they totally are against Obama and the democrats. One of them is an extreme Tea Party advocate.
Senate Democrats supported rule that led to insurance cancellations
October 31st, 2013
06:38 PM ET
11 hours ago
Senate Democrats supported rule that led to insurance cancellations
Posted by
CNN Investigative Correspondent Chris Frates
Washington (CNN) - Senate Democrats voted unanimously three years ago to support the Obamacare rule that is largely responsible for some of the health insurance cancellation letters that are going out.
In September 2010, Senate Republicans brought a resolution to the floor to block implementation of the grandfather rule, warning that it would result in canceled policies and violate President Barack Obama's promise that people could keep their insurance if they liked it.
"The District of Columbia is an island surrounded by reality. Only in the District of Columbia could you get away with telling the people if you like what you have you can keep it, and then pass regulations six months later that do just the opposite and figure that people are going to ignore it. But common sense is eventually going to prevail in this town and common sense is going to have to prevail on this piece of legislation as well," Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said at the time.
"The administration's own regulations prove this is not the case. Under the grandfathering regulation, according to the White House's own economic impact analysis, as many as 69 percent of businesses will lose their grandfathered status by 2013 and be forced to buy government-approved plans," the Iowa Republican said.
On a party line vote, Democrats killed the resolution, which could come back to haunt vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this year.
Senate Democrats like Mary Landrieu, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan and Mark Begich – all of whom voted against stopping the rule from going into effect and have since supported delaying parts of Obamacare.
The rule set up the criteria for what insurance plans would be grandfathered, or exempted, from the new Obamacare requirements. Democrats argued then that the rule was necessary to insure that insurance companies weren't able to drastically change their plans and still remain exempt from Obamacare.
Republicans are "saying that basically we will grandfather it in, but the insurance companies can change it however they want, and you are stuck with it," Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in 2010.
The rule essentially prevents insurance companies from keeping their grandfathered status if they make changes to their plans. In practice, insurance companies are loath to leave their plans unchanged so grandfathered plans are disappearing, and people are being forced to change their plans to meet Obamacare's more robust coverage requirements.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/31/senate-democrats-supported-rule-that-lead-to-insurance-cancellations/
But even tho people have had their insurance cancelled they will be able to buy other and better insurance at a lower price. :yes: You want to put up a $100 bill that they can't, Clarabell. :rolleyes: :razz:
Quote from: The Troll on November 02, 2013, 10:42:14 PM
But even tho people have had their insurance cancelled they will be able to buy other and better insurance at a lower price. :yes: You want to put up a $100 bill that they can't, Clarabell. :rolleyes: :razz:
You keep right on believing that if you want.
I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.
ByEdie Littlefield SundbyNov. 3, 2013 6:37 p.m. ET Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers. My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits. [/i]
Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed.[/i]
Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. [/i]
The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.
Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.
But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pull
ing out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.
You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).
So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are. Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs.
Perhaps that's the point.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 04, 2013, 10:44:48 AM
I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.
ByEdie Littlefield SundbyNov. 3, 2013 6:37 p.m. ET Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers. My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits. [/i]
Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed.[/i]
Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. [/i]
The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.
Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.
But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pull
ing out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.
You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).
So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are. Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs.
Perhaps that's the point.
Just who is Eddie Littlefield? Where does he live? And do we all think that his insurance was dropped because of the one million dollars they had dropped on him. :confused: Think about all of the other who have been dropped by their insurance companies in the past for costing them too much. Hummmm?
United Healthcare made a "business decision" and is pulling out of a large swath of markets across the country. In fact my current employer was once a member of that market, and as such they were an option available to all of the company's employees; but no more. UHC pulled out of that market as well.
So exactly how is this the fault of the HCRA?
The reality is likely a lot closer to it being a case where the company's decades of billion dollar profits has allowed it to invest in other industries and markets that provide it a healthy revenue stream without incurring the risks associated with covering human beings.
Sheesh. Is there nothing they will not spin to blame it on the HCRA? :rolleyes:
Quote
"But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pull
ing out of the individual California market. "
The insurance company made the "business decision", not the HCRA. That is exactly how they roll now. It comes with a "for profit" business plan; identify the higher risks and eliminate them.
In past years many insurance companies imposed a 1 million dollar life-time benefit cap on heath insurance policies. The HCRA eliminated that, and so their marketing departments crunched the data, identified the "naturally occurring clusters" of high-claims throughout their coverage areas and eliminated them. "Good business practices" for any for profit industry.
That's part of the collateral damage imposed upon us all by the defanging of the HCRA by congress. And why should they care? They have awesome coverage for themselves, and a healthy stream of secondary income via the health insurance industry and the contribution scam.
You guys don't get it. You are eating up the diversionary tactics, (otherwise known as bait and switch), the very perpetrators of this FUBAR are feeding you. :rolleyes:
While I am very sorry for this individuals plight, (if it is real and that is a VERY big IF), he has had 11 months to prepare for this situation too. Oh, the premiums are higher and the coverage less? Welcome to the reality of the real world under the defanged HCRA. Don't blame the game, blame the player(s); CONGRESS! :mad:
And when the insurance companies decide they can't cope with the HCRA regs which have been imposed on them by the HCB and go out of business guess who your insurer will be........well of course.....the government.......duh....single payer.....Canada...UK....long waits for doctors....no premium healthcare available any longer except for the government and the very rich. Good doctors are already pulling out of taking medicaid and medicare and some are being dropped.
Quote from: me on November 04, 2013, 09:04:38 PM
And when the insurance companies decide they can't cope with the HCRA regs which have been imposed on them by the HCB and go out of business guess who your insurer will be........well of course.....the government.......duh....single payer.....Canada...UK....long waits for doctors....no premium healthcare available any longer except for the government and the very rich. Good doctors are already pulling out of taking medicaid and medicare and some are being dropped.
To call names as usual, "ME" you are truly one hell of a big selfish dumbass. :haha: :haha: What a fool too. :yes:
Quote from: The Troll on November 04, 2013, 10:28:02 PM
To call names as usual, "ME" you are truly one hell of a big selfish dumbass. :haha: :haha: What a fool too. :yes:
What???? Go take your meds Troll.
Quote from: me on November 04, 2013, 09:04:38 PM
And when the insurance companies decide they can't cope with the HCRA regs which have been imposed on them by the HCB and go out of business guess who your insurer will be........well of course.....the government.......duh....single payer.....Canada...UK....long waits for doctors....no premium healthcare available any longer except for the government and the very rich. Good doctors are already pulling out of taking medicaid and medicare and some are being dropped.
Oh come on! Don't strain something reaching like that.
Just stay alert.
And now for the truth: (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/11/05/insurance-companies-obamacare-scam/)
Insurance Scam; How Private Insurance Companies Are Using Obamacare Fears To Rip People Off
By now you've probably heard horror stories about how the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare, has forced so many people to lose their insurance policies. You've heard that affordable health insurance policies are being canceled and replaced with policies that are far more expensive than the canceled policies. But have you heard that across the country, insurance regulators are cracking down on the private insurance companies, because of the scam they are running on their customers? Probably not.
Insurance companies, what's going on?
What's going on? Diane Barrette is a good example of what's going on. Barrette, a 56 year old woman from Florida, who claimed on CBS News that her $54 health insurance policy was going to cost $591 a month because of Obamacare, was a victim of exactly the kind of scam that these state agencies are dealing with.
Barrette had received a letter from one of the private insurance companies, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, telling her that her old policy was canceled. The letter went on to say that the company would be replacing it with the new policy, and quoted a price that was ten times the cost of the old policy. CBS highlighted Barrette's story as if she were the victim of Obamacare. She wasn't. She was the victim of another private insurance industry scam. If CBS had been doing their job and acting as reporters and not right wing spokespeople, they would have known it, too.
Here's how this scam works.
How this scam works is that private insurance companies send out letters notifying existing customers that their current policy has been canceled, because of the ACA's new requirements. They then offer customers a new, ACA compliant policy at far higher rates than what the customer would pay if he went through the ACA marketplace. In most cases the insurance companies do not tell their customers what other options are available or even let them know they have a choice under the new law. Some insurance companies have pressed their customers to sign up for the new policies by a certain date, saying if they don't, their health coverage will be lost.
Consumer Reports found her a policy for $165.00.
On the program, Barrette tells CBS that she has to hurry and make up her mind by November 1st or she will lose out on her chance to buy in. CBS offered her no explanation of her alternatives, but Consumer Reports examined Barrette's story shortly after it aired. They easily found her a policy in the Marketplace for $165.00, not the $591 Blue Cross Blue Shield was shamelessly going to charge her.
What's more, Consumer Reports also looked at her old policy, the one she was paying $54 a month for. They determined that it was "junk." In essence, Barrette had been paying one of these corrupt private insurance companies nearly $650 per year, to have almost no real medical coverage, under her previous Blue Cross Blue Shield policy.
Insurance companies are exploiting the people who are looking to them for advice.
Talking Points Memo (TPM) recently published an in depth expose' on how insurance companies like Blue Cross and Blue Shield are scamming people all across the country. While in most states it's not criminal, it's a scam nonetheless. By telling consumers that their policies have been canceled under the new law and offering them insurance plans that cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars more than what those consumers would pay in the marketplace, these insurance companies are exploiting the people who are looking to them for advice. High pressure tactics are used to get confused customers to sign up for these overpriced policies, including threatening letters and harassing phone calls.
Humana was fined more than $65,000 in Kentucky for this scam.
In Kentucky, state insurance regulators went after Humana for the scheme. In that state, Humana was one of the worst of these private insurance companies, guilty of exploiting people's fears over Obamacare. The company sent out thousands of letters to their Kentucky customers telling them their policies were canceled and that they had only a short window of time to buy into new (expensive) policies. The letter also told them that their premiums would go up once Obamacare went into effect. In all, 2,200 people fell for the scam, rushing to buy the marked up policies that the company was selling. The policies were sold at a much higher cost than what is offered in the ACA Marketplace. Humana was fined more than $65,000 for the scam. The 2,200 customers who signed up to buy the more expensive policies were released from their contract with the company.
In Washington, state regulators issued a consumer alert about the scams.
In Washington, state regulators issued a consumer alert about the scams.Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler wrote: Don't just take what your insurance company says, make sure you shop around. You have the right to buy any plan inside the new exchange or in the outside market.
The scam is taking place all across the country, not just in some areas or some states. Consumer complaints have been lodged in Colorado, Missouri and Florida, just to name a few. Since health insurance companies like Humana and Blue Cross Blue Shield operate on a national basis, it is not surprising to see these kinds of letters being received all across the U.S.
"The reality is that this could do real harm."
Laura Etherton, a health policy analyst at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, told TPM: If you're an insurance company, you're trying to hang onto the consumers you have at the highest price you can get them.You can take advantage of the confusion about what people get to have now. It's a new world. It's disappointing that insurance companies are sending confusing letters to consumers to take advantage of that confusion. The reality is that this could do real harm.
Quote from: me on November 04, 2013, 10:49:43 PM
What???? Go take your meds Troll.
I do and will take meds because my UAW medical drug plan makes it affordable thank you Sweetie Potoota. :biggrin:
Quote from: The Troll on November 05, 2013, 02:40:05 PM
I do and will take meds because my UAW medical drug plan makes it affordable thank you Sweetie Potoota. :biggrin:
At least for now. :wink:
For those of you who missed this last night on the CMA Awards. I didn't watch them but did see snippets of this earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/v/YR3_mM4bpCY
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/politics/obama-obamacare-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/politics/obama-obamacare-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
He apologized, but does anyone think it is enough for the hyenas? Of course not! Nothing will appease them short of the public lynching of the man. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 07, 2013, 08:08:28 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/politics/obama-obamacare-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/politics/obama-obamacare-apology/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
He apologized, but does anyone think it is enough for the hyenas? Of course not! Nothing will appease them short of the public lynching of the man. :rolleyes:
Only if they actually do something. At this point it's only empty words said because the heat was on and he got caught trying to twist what he said in the first place.
Quote from: me on November 07, 2013, 08:17:59 PM
Only if they actually do something. At this point it's only empty words said because the heat was on and he got caught trying to twist what he said in the first place.
See what I mean? :rolleyes:
As for being able to do anything about it, don't hold your breath. Congress will just "say no" as they have for the last 5 years. :mad:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 07, 2013, 08:22:31 PM
See what I mean? :rolleyes:
As for being able to do anything about it, don't hold your breath. Congress will just "say no" as they have for the last 5 years. :mad:
He went around them to grant waivers for big business on their tax he can do it for this. He's all talk anyway so I don't really figure he will even try to do anything. He knew when he said everyone could keep their policies and doctors that it wasn't going to happen and said it anyway then tried to twist what he said so, like I said in the first place, it was just empty words to take the heat off temporarily. About all he can do at this point is what he was asked to do in the first place and delay it for a year to keep more people from losing theirs and get that damn website straightened up.
The man OUTRIGHT LIED. He said what he had to to be sure that bill was passed.
Perhaps in his own mind, he believed he was doing a good thing by lying. He knew if this bill did not pass then, it would NOT happen on his watch.
I honestly believe he has good intentions..........but as we know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
In other news, the racists still hate the non-white president!
Quote from: Exterminator on November 08, 2013, 09:20:04 AM
In other news, the racists still hate the non-white president!
:no:
Denial...not a river in Egypt.
:biggrin: good one!
But the bottom line is this....the POTUS did, without any doubt in this world to any thinking, rational human being....LIED.
He is, a LIAR. PERIOD. (To steal his phrase.....if you like your current insurance, you can keep it..."PERIOD".
I'm keeping my current insurance; are you?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 08, 2013, 11:14:39 AM
:biggrin: good one!
But the bottom line is this....the POTUS did, without any doubt in this world to any thinking, rational human being....LIED.
He is, a LIAR. PERIOD. (To steal his phrase.....if you like your current insurance, you can keep it..."PERIOD".
What is the difference if Obama lied about not being dropped from a bad insurance policy or George W. Bush lying about weapons of war in Iraq which killed over 5,000 of our young men and women and crippled for life and wounded over 40,000 our men and women. :mad: How about that Henry. :confused: :mad: I never hear you curse George W. for that. :rant:
Quote from: Exterminator on November 08, 2013, 12:59:13 PM
I'm keeping my current insurance; are you?
At least as far as you know now. Does it comply to the Obama regulations? Are you sure?
Quote from: The Troll on November 08, 2013, 02:20:14 PM
What is the difference if Obama lied about not being dropped from a bad insurance policy or George W. Bush lying about weapons of war in Iraq which killed over 5,000 of our young men and women and crippled for life and wounded over 40,000 our men and women. :mad: How about that Henry. :confused: :mad: I never hear you curse George W. for that. :rant:
Tell that to the people who have cancer who no longer have coverage and their doctors aren't in any of the alternate Obama plans. Tell that to the people who are 60 who don't need pre-natal care or any of the coverage that's now required that are paying more and getting less what the difference is. Just remember all the letters haven't gone out yet and you may be the recipient of one even though you're on Medicare because you have that GM Cadillac plan. What are you going to do if your favorite doctor is no longer on the list of approved doctors?
Quote from: me on November 08, 2013, 02:26:03 PM
At least as far as you know now. Does it comply to the Obama regulations? Are you sure?
Yes and yes...it is going up a whopping $20.00 a month, though. Woooo....
Quote from: me on November 08, 2013, 02:30:15 PM
Tell that to the people who have cancer who no longer have coverage and their doctors aren't in any of the alternate Obama plans. Tell that to the people who are 60 who don't need pre-natal care or any of the coverage that's now required that are paying more and getting less what the difference is. Just remember all the letters haven't gone out yet and you may be the recipient of one even though you're on Medicare because you have that GM Cadillac plan. What are you going to do if your favorite doctor is no longer on the list of approved doctors?
You clearly couldn't be bothered to read the truth I posted and prefer to continue to spread these bullshit lies of yours.
(https://scontent-b-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/q71/1451469_226538597514542_224672684_n.jpg)
Quote from: me on November 08, 2013, 02:30:15 PM
Tell that to the people who are 60 who don't need pre-natal care or any of the coverage that's now required that are paying more and getting less what the difference is.
If you're 60 and need pre-natal care, then you're in more trouble than any health care plan can fix.
Quote from: me on November 08, 2013, 02:30:15 PM
What are you going to do if your favorite doctor is no longer on the list of approved doctors?
And how is that any different from the HMO plans that have been around for many years?
Quote from: Bo D on November 08, 2013, 03:53:55 PM
If you're 60 and need pre-natal care, then you're in more trouble than any health care plan can fix.
That was what the people thought who had to take those policies under Obamacare thought too. Have you been on the site to see the choices in the policies and the prices?
And how is that any different from the HMO plans that have been around for many years?
You still had choices and now you don't. You could go to a doctor who wasn't on the plan and only paid the difference between what your plan paid and what he charged under the HCRB you pay it all if you go to a doctor not on the list.
60 years old - PRENATAL CARE???? Do you understand the term "prenatal?"
"And how is that any different from the HMO plans that have been around for many years?
You still had choices and now you don't. You could go to a doctor who wasn't on the plan and only paid the difference between what your plan paid and what he charged under the HCRB you pay it all if you go to a doctor not on the list."
The HMO that I have does not pay a penny for out-of-network doctors.
More flotsam from the racist crowd.
Oh, those Obama care horror stories they've been telling? They've fizzled out and guess what, they were way over-blown.
There's a surprise! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Bo D on November 08, 2013, 05:31:01 PM
60 years old - PRENATAL CARE???? Do you understand the term "prenatal?"
"And how is that any different from the HMO plans that have been around for many years?
You still had choices and now you don't. You could go to a doctor who wasn't on the plan and only paid the difference between what your plan paid and what he charged under the HCRB you pay it all if you go to a doctor not on the list."
The HMO that I have does not pay a penny for out-of-network doctors.
Guess you have a substandard plan then because the one my ex had covered out-of-network doctors but only paid what they paid the ones in the network. Having had 3 kids, yes, I understand pre-natal care and it's something not needed by anyone, male or female, who is 60yrs old which is why it should not be one of the requirements under the HCRB.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 04, 2013, 10:44:48 AM
I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.
ByEdie Littlefield SundbyNov. 3, 2013 6:37 p.m. ET Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers. My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits. [/i]
Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed.[/i]
Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. [/i]
The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.
Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.
But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pull
ing out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.
You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).
So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are. Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.
What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs.
Perhaps that's the point.
LIES! (Surprise) :rolleyes:
. . .Here are just some of the mythical stories journalists have helped dispel — and the lessons we can learn from them about the reality of the Affordable Care Act:
Deborah Cavallaro was making the rounds on television complaining about how her current insurance plan was canceled under Obamacare. So Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik talked to her. Her current plan cost $293 per month but had a deductible of $5,000 per year and out-of-pocket annual limits of $8,500. Also, the current plan covered just two doctor's visits per year.
But in the California insurance exchange, which Hiltzik helped Cavallaro check, she could get a "silver" plan for $333 per month — $40 more than she's currently paying. But the new plan has only a $2,000 deductible and maximum out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350. Plus all doctor visits would be covered. Hiltzik writes, "Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile."
Dianne Barrette also popped up on television on a CBS news report in which she lamented that her $54-per-month insurance plan had been canceled under Obamacare. But Nancy Metcalf at Consumer Reports investigated Barrette's story and found that her current policy was a "textbook example of a junk plan that isn't real health insurance at all." According to Metcalf, if Barrette had ever tried to use her insurance for anything more than a sporadic doctor's visit, "she would have ended up with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt."
The plan, for instance, only pays for hospitalization in cases of "complications of pregnancy." Instead, Metcalf found that Barrette could get a "silver" plan in the state insurance exchange for $165 per month that would actually cover Barrette in the case of any sort of serious or even moderate illness. Which is the very definition of insurance, isn't it?
Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-four gallbladder cancer survivor, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal blaming the Affordable Care Act for her canceled insurance policy. In her essay, Littlefield wrote that because of Obamacare, "I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan." But, according to Igor Volsky of Think Progress, Sundby's insurer, United Healthcare, "dropped her coverage because they've struggled to compete in California's individual health care market for years and didn't want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby."
Earlier this year, United, which has publicly supported the Affordable Care Act, announced that it would pull out of the individual market in California. A company representative said it withdrew because its individual plans have never had a huge presence in the state. According to United, and in compliance with state law, the company won't be able to re-enter the California individual market until 2017.
By then though, competitors will get stuck with sicker patients like Sundby signing up in the first wave of Obamacare. This means that companies like United can cover cheaper patients if it decides to go back to the California individual insurance market.. . .http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/kohn-obamacare-journalists/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/kohn-obamacare-journalists/)
So not only do we have yet another case of drastic embellishment of facts, but outright lies being told, and then being used as "facts" to support the whining, crying, kicking, and screaming of idiots!
Quote from: Palehorse on November 08, 2013, 06:06:45 PM
LIES! (Surprise) :rolleyes:
. . .Here are just some of the mythical stories journalists have helped dispel — and the lessons we can learn from them about the reality of the Affordable Care Act:
Deborah Cavallaro was making the rounds on television complaining about how her current insurance plan was canceled under Obamacare. So Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik talked to her. Her current plan cost $293 per month but had a deductible of $5,000 per year and out-of-pocket annual limits of $8,500. Also, the current plan covered just two doctor's visits per year.
But in the California insurance exchange, which Hiltzik helped Cavallaro check, she could get a "silver" plan for $333 per month — $40 more than she's currently paying. But the new plan has only a $2,000 deductible and maximum out-of-pocket expenses at $6,350. Plus all doctor visits would be covered. Hiltzik writes, "Is that better than her current plan? Yes, by a mile."
Dianne Barrette also popped up on television on a CBS news report in which she lamented that her $54-per-month insurance plan had been canceled under Obamacare. But Nancy Metcalf at Consumer Reports investigated Barrette's story and found that her current policy was a "textbook example of a junk plan that isn't real health insurance at all." According to Metcalf, if Barrette had ever tried to use her insurance for anything more than a sporadic doctor's visit, "she would have ended up with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical debt."
The plan, for instance, only pays for hospitalization in cases of "complications of pregnancy." Instead, Metcalf found that Barrette could get a "silver" plan in the state insurance exchange for $165 per month that would actually cover Barrette in the case of any sort of serious or even moderate illness. Which is the very definition of insurance, isn't it?
Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-four gallbladder cancer survivor, published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal blaming the Affordable Care Act for her canceled insurance policy. In her essay, Littlefield wrote that because of Obamacare, "I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan." But, according to Igor Volsky of Think Progress, Sundby's insurer, United Healthcare, "dropped her coverage because they've struggled to compete in California's individual health care market for years and didn't want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby."
Earlier this year, United, which has publicly supported the Affordable Care Act, announced that it would pull out of the individual market in California. A company representative said it withdrew because its individual plans have never had a huge presence in the state. According to United, and in compliance with state law, the company won't be able to re-enter the California individual market until 2017.
By then though, competitors will get stuck with sicker patients like Sundby signing up in the first wave of Obamacare. This means that companies like United can cover cheaper patients if it decides to go back to the California individual insurance market.. . .
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/kohn-obamacare-journalists/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/kohn-obamacare-journalists/)
So not only do we have yet another case of drastic embellishment of facts, but outright lies being told, and then being used as "facts" to support the whining, crying, kicking, and screaming of idiots!
. . .UnitedHealth alerted Sundby way back in January that it was pulling out of the California individual insurance market entirely. An inescapable question is whether it did so because of Obamacare, or whether it's just using Obamacare as an excuse to do something it was itching to do anyway. UnitedHealth's own statements point to the latter.
The firm informed investors of its decision in May, when it announced it would exit the individual market in all but a dozen states. Since Obamacare's coverage standards are the same in all states, plainly it wasn't Obamacare—or Obamacare alone--that prompted its departure from California.
The more likely explanation is that UnitedHealth simply couldn't compete in California's individual market and no longer wished to try. As Igor Volsky of Think Progress and others have pointed out, the company served fewer than 8,000 individual customers in the state, where its chief focus is on the large-employer market. A company spokeswoman told MarketWatch that it had been struggling to deal with this tiny slice of business for quite some time: "Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members," she said. (Emphasis ours.)
The company also told investors that it was wary of the individual insurance exchanges in general because it figured that the wave of new enrollees in the first year or so would be the sickest and therefore most expensive. Apparently it's willing to face that risk in only a dozen states. Its message isn't an uplifting one: The company is cutting back on individual coverage because it doesn't want to serve high-cost patients—patients like, for example, Edie Littlefield Sundby.
What this tells you is that Sundby was fated to lose her UnitedHealth plan sooner or later, Obamacare or not. California law allows insurers to leave its customers high and dry if they choose to abandon an entire market. Sundby's insurer wanted out, and skipped town as soon as it could find a plausible excuse.
Its behavior is, indeed, a flaw of the Affordable Care Act, just not the one the Wall Street Journal wants you to think about. The flaw is that the act leaves the insurance system in the hands of profit-seeking firms like UnitedHealth, which don't want to serve customers most in need because they're not where the biggest profits are. The solution, naturally, is for government to cut commercial insurers out of the system entirely, but one suspects that's not what the editors of the Journal would favor.
It's important to understand what Sundby's options would be in a non-Obamacare world, once UniHealth abandoned her: They'd be dire. As a stage-4 cancer patient, she'd be uninsurable except at an enormous price, and possibly not at all. (As far as UnitedHealth is concerned, she's already uninsurable.) The only reason she can find any replacement insurance policies to choose from today is that the Affordable Care Act now forbids carriers to reject her, to refuse to cover her cancer treatment, or to base her premiums on her medical condition.
It's not a rap on Sundby to point out, moreover, that she's not representative of the typical individual insurance customer affected by the Affordable Care Act. (She and her husband are software entrepreneurs.). . .
So it appears my theory is pretty damn near to exactly what transpired in this case. . .
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-horror-story-20131105,0,6361694.story#axzz2k6AOoV3S (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-horror-story-20131105,0,6361694.story#axzz2k6AOoV3S)
Quote from: Palehorse on November 08, 2013, 05:33:28 PM
More flotsam from the racist crowd.
Oh, those Obama care horror stories they've been telling? They've fizzled ot and guess what, they were way over-blown.
There's a surprise! :rolleyes:
Sibelius Drops New Bombshell: Employer Plans Will Also Drop Workers From Coverage By Joseph R. Carducci on November 6, 2013
I don't care if you've been under a rock or had your head in the sand for the past few weeks, you have still most likely heard about the millions of people who have lost their health insurance recently. This was not due to some type of 'glitch' in this system, this IS the system. This is exactly as Obama has designed ObamaCare to function.
Yes, we all know Obama promised everyone that they could keep their plans. He promised us that if we liked our healthcare plans no one would take them away. He even emphasized this by looking right into the camera and appearing to push back a single little tear from cheek and said "period." In my mind this meant that there would need to be no more explaining and no more equivocating, nothing.
This Wednesday, the HHS ObamaCare Queen herself, Kathleen Sebelius was to be found on Capitol Hill. This time her royal duty was to protect Obama's hide once again as she testified in front of the Senate Finance Committee. As expected, she was grilled about Obama and his broken promises. Specifically about how people were losing their health plans left and right. Presumably, many of them would have liked to remain insured given the fact that before ObamaCare passed something like 90 percent of insured Americans were happy with their plans.
Obama had also repeatedly stated that plans which were held before ObamaCare passed and went into effect would be 'grandfathered' in. Of course, this week we have Obama doing some fancy talking trying to explain and equivocate, adding new wrinkles to his so-called promise. Apparently, there were to be some caveats with these prior-held plans like they had to meet the new ObamaCare standards. If not, they will be canceled. This is why we have already seen several million Americans receive cancellation notices from their insurers.During her testimony today, the HHS Queen informed us that the same caveat applies to employer based insurance plans as well. In other words, if you are currently covered under a plan provided by your employer, watch out! Chances are quite good that it will not meet these new ObamaCare 'standards.' But, if we listen to the explanations and equivocations from Obama this should not matter, because all of these plans were 'sub-standard' anyway, right? No matter that we obviously picked the best options from our choices, no matter if we like the plan or not, it was just another lousy option according to our perfect community organizer in chief.I love how now Obama is trying to talk his way out of this way. Everyone with even half a brain understands that he is now a liar...and a liar in the worst way. He did not even lie to make us feel better. He lied to get a lousy, sub-standard healthcare plan passed that he KNEW was going to force millions into options that will end up costing them a lot more money and offer care that we either don't need or will not use. He knew all this ahead of time and deliberately shoved this down our throats.
The estimates are now running quite high. As the employer mandate takes effect later, we will eventually see something like 93 million Americans losing their healthcare plans. This is a combination of those who have lost their plans through the individual market and the employer market. Sad. That is indeed some caveat...and Queen Kathleen continues to protect this guy and say that he kept his word!What do YOU think? Are you worried about losing an employer based plan? Do you think Obama has kept his promise? Should we have expected a 'caveat?' Is 93 million people just no big deal, or do the Democrats now have a big problem?
http://downtrend.com/jrc410/sebelius-drops-new-bombshell-employer-plans-will-also-drop-workers-from-coverage/
Now listen real close to what she says "must" be included in "all" insurance policies starting in 2014.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-23-2012/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--2
Quote from: me on November 08, 2013, 06:32:13 PM
Sibelius Drops New Bombshell: Employer Plans Will Also Drop Workers From Coverage By Joseph R. Carducci on November 6, 2013
I don't care if you've been under a rock or had your head in the sand for the past few weeks, you have still most likely heard about the millions of people who have lost their health insurance recently. This was not due to some type of 'glitch' in this system, this IS the system. This is exactly as Obama has designed ObamaCare to function.
Yes, we all know Obama promised everyone that they could keep their plans. He promised us that if we liked our healthcare plans no one would take them away. He even emphasized this by looking right into the camera and appearing to push back a single little tear from cheek and said "period." In my mind this meant that there would need to be no more explaining and no more equivocating, nothing.
This Wednesday, the HHS ObamaCare Queen herself, Kathleen Sebelius was to be found on Capitol Hill. This time her royal duty was to protect Obama's hide once again as she testified in front of the Senate Finance Committee. As expected, she was grilled about Obama and his broken promises. Specifically about how people were losing their health plans left and right. Presumably, many of them would have liked to remain insured given the fact that before ObamaCare passed something like 90 percent of insured Americans were happy with their plans.
Obama had also repeatedly stated that plans which were held before ObamaCare passed and went into effect would be 'grandfathered' in. Of course, this week we have Obama doing some fancy talking trying to explain and equivocate, adding new wrinkles to his so-called promise. Apparently, there were to be some caveats with these prior-held plans like they had to meet the new ObamaCare standards. If not, they will be canceled. This is why we have already seen several million Americans receive cancellation notices from their insurers.
During her testimony today, the HHS Queen informed us that the same caveat applies to employer based insurance plans as well. In other words, if you are currently covered under a plan provided by your employer, watch out! Chances are quite good that it will not meet these new ObamaCare 'standards.' But, if we listen to the explanations and equivocations from Obama this should not matter, because all of these plans were 'sub-standard' anyway, right? No matter that we obviously picked the best options from our choices, no matter if we like the plan or not, it was just another lousy option according to our perfect community organizer in chief.
I love how now Obama is trying to talk his way out of this way. Everyone with even half a brain understands that he is now a liar...and a liar in the worst way. He did not even lie to make us feel better. He lied to get a lousy, sub-standard healthcare plan passed that he KNEW was going to force millions into options that will end up costing them a lot more money and offer care that we either don't need or will not use. He knew all this ahead of time and deliberately shoved this down our throats.
The estimates are now running quite high. As the employer mandate takes effect later, we will eventually see something like 93 million Americans losing their healthcare plans. This is a combination of those who have lost their plans through the individual market and the employer market. Sad. That is indeed some caveat...and Queen Kathleen continues to protect this guy and say that he kept his word!
What do YOU think? Are you worried about losing an employer based plan? Do you think Obama has kept his promise? Should we have expected a 'caveat?' Is 93 million people just no big deal, or do the Democrats now have a big problem?
http://downtrend.com/jrc410/sebelius-drops-new-bombshell-employer-plans-will-also-drop-workers-from-coverage/
Now listen real close to what she says "must" be included in "all" insurance policies starting in 2014.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-23-2012/exclusive---kathleen-sebelius-extended-interview-pt--2
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Critical thinking my ass
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 08, 2013, 11:19:14 PM
Critical thinking my ass
You know what's pathetic HH? I even put the link to the video of her saying what had to be included in all the policies up and they still won't listen. I think it's either selective hearing or they don't want to admit they're wrong or put up with what we are putting up with should they go against the POTUS or any of his policies.
some folks need to take a LONG look in the mirror, once in a while. :yes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 08, 2013, 06:06:45 PM
So not only do we have yet another case of drastic embellishment of facts, but outright lies being told, and then being used as "facts" to support the whining, crying, kicking, and screaming of idiots!
And yet they persist even after having been shown how ignorant they are.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 09, 2013, 09:52:12 AM
And yet they persist even after having been shown how ignorant they are.
Go back and listen to the video I posted real close Ex. It is Sebelius herself not a journalist or blogger it is her own words concerning the things which are included in "all" the HCRB requirements including the employer mandates which don't take effect until later.
Quote from: me on November 09, 2013, 11:19:47 AM
Go back and listen to the video I posted real close Ex. It is Sebelius herself not a journalist or blogger it is her own words concerning the things which are included in "all" the HCRB requirements including the employer mandates which don't take effect until later.
And despite being shown how the scheming and lying health insurance industry is spinning the requirements to their advantage, YOU do not see the need for these things? Really? Are you that ignorant? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 09, 2013, 11:26:03 AM
And despite being shown how the scheming and lying health insurance industry is spinning the requirements to their advantage, YOU do not see the need for these things? Really? Are you that ignorant? :rolleyes:
Go listen to the video....You and Ex are still not exempt from losing your policies the employer mandate just isn't in effect yet. What do you not understand about the policies did not comply with the HCRB and these people were dropped because of that which, btw, Obama and Sebelius knew was going to happen when he lied about people being able to keep their current doctor, hospital, and plan.
Quote from: me on November 09, 2013, 12:46:15 PM
Go listen to the video....You and Ex are still not exempt from losing your policies the employer mandate just isn't in effect yet. What do you not understand about the policies did not comply with the HCRB and these people were dropped because of that which, btw, Obama and Sebelius knew was going to happen when he lied about people being able to keep their current doctor, hospital, and plan.
Quit being a jerk "ME" give HCRA a chance. If it fails you and Henry can crow off your heads. :choo: :choo: :choo:
Quote from: me on November 09, 2013, 12:46:15 PM
Go listen to the video....You and Ex are still not exempt from losing your policies the employer mandate just isn't in effect yet. What do you not understand about the policies did not comply with the HCRB and these people were dropped because of that which, btw, Obama and Sebelius knew was going to happen when he lied about people being able to keep their current doctor, hospital, and plan.
The fact of the matter is ANY fucking change to legislation that impacts healthcare insurers will result in the elimination of non-competing policies and programs, as well as those that do not comply with the laws of the land. That this is a surprise to anyone is the real fucking joke here.
I already know how insurance companies and insurers work and operate, and based upon decades of personal experience with them as the insured, I learned from the process. Apparently I am in the minority here, but none-the-less it is a fact. How else do you think I knew those horse-shit examples you and Hank hoisted up were nothing more than embellished lies?
Your statement above is nothing more than spinning facts that are common sense to anyone who understands a for profit business enterprise, whether it is selling a service, product, or commodities, and attempting to place blame upon an individual or individuals who had absolutely nothing to do with the process. All over sour grapes and hyperbole that are being nurtured by the republican party courtesy of the tea-billy infestation.
You conservatives swagger about saying you don't want government regulation of businesses, then squall like a scalded cat when the lack of same results in actions like the very ones you are hoisting up as examples of this administrations failures! Hypocrites!
You will do nothing but sit around wringing your hands and parroting the propaganda, even if the changes have little to no impact upon you personally.
And yet, you expect others to take you at your word on anything? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 09, 2013, 03:28:27 PM
The fact of the matter is ANY fucking change to legislation that impacts healthcare insurers will result in the elimination of non-competing policies and programs, as well as those that do not comply with the laws of the land. That this is a surprise to anyone is the real fucking joke here.
I already know how insurance companies and insurers work and operate, and based upon decades of personal experience with them as the insured, I learned from the process. Apparently I am in the minority here, but none-the-less it is a fact. How else do you think I knew those horse-shit examples you and Hank hoisted up were nothing more than embellished lies?
Your statement above is nothing more than spinning facts that are common sense to anyone who understands a for profit business enterprise, whether it is selling a service, product, or commodities, and attempting to place blame upon an individual or individuals who had absolutely nothing to do with the process. All over sour grapes and hyperbole that are being nurtured by the republican party courtesy of the tea-billy infestation.
You conservatives swagger about saying you don't want government regulation of businesses, then squall like a scalded cat when the lack of same results in actions like the very ones you are hoisting up as examples of this administrations failures! Hypocrites!
You will do nothing but sit around wringing your hands and parroting the propaganda, even if the changes have little to no impact upon you personally.
And yet, you expect others to take you at your word on anything? :rolleyes:
Ok then I guess you won't even listen to the facts as presented by Sebelius herself. These changes have already had an impact on some people I know and could have an impact on some of my family when the employer mandate takes effect so, yes, I am concerned.
Quote from: me on November 09, 2013, 07:13:10 PM
These changes have already had an impact on some people I know and could have an impact on some of my family when the employer mandate takes effect so, yes, I am concerned.
Good. The only people really being affected negatively by the ACA are the parasites who were milking the system before and are now being forced to be responsible members of society.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 11, 2013, 08:51:27 AM
Good. The only people really being affected negatively by the ACA are the parasites who were milking the system before and are now being forced to be responsible members of society.
Tell that to the people who got their hours cut from 40 to under 30. Are they parasites?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 11, 2013, 09:09:05 AM
Tell that to the people who got their hours cut from 40 to under 30. Are they parasites?
No, but the people spreading that myth certainly are. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/fact-check-employers-are-not-cutting-back-workers-hours-because-of-obamacare/)
Quote from: Exterminator on November 11, 2013, 09:23:12 AM
No, but the people spreading that myth certainly are. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/27/fact-check-employers-are-not-cutting-back-workers-hours-because-of-obamacare/)
Bullshit! Ex.
All you have to do is google this and you get tons of examples. Here is one that took like three seconds to find.
http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/110513-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 11, 2013, 10:30:47 AM
Bullshit! Ex.
All you have to do is google this and you get tons of examples. Here is one that took like three seconds to find.
http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/110513-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm
You did a great job of providing a list of employers who were already skirting the previous law and their responsibility to provide benefits by letting employees work right up to the threshold of where they would be considered full-time and the employer would have to cover them. The threshold has now been moved; get over it. The difference is that with the ACA, those part time employees will now have health care coverage where before they could not have. So they lose a few hours a week but their families are now covered against medical emergencies. I'm really not seeing the downside.
While we're on the subject, how morally bereft does one have to be to blame Obama, who only wants to provide health care to the country's citizens, rather than blaming those really responsible who rely on paying their slave labor substandard wages and providing no benefits to them so that they can become ever more obscenely wealthy.
Papa John's John Schnatter certainly can't afford to treat people fairly; right? What would he do without his 40,000 sq ft. palace with it's multiple swimming pools, private lake, $7 million 6,000 sq ft. guest house and 22 car multi-level underground parking garage complete with its very own "valet office", car wash and a gigantic motorized turn table-driveway to help park stretch limousines?
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/9bqf1lHK3bDqYYzrpalfYA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTUwMA--/http://yre.zenfs.com/en_us/cms/homes/Curbed/screen-shot-2011-11-10-at-8-59-38-pm-thumb.jpg)
Scumbag #2: Jimmy John Liautaud who, if he were forced to treat his employees fairly, might not be able to take as many trips in which the fat fuck kills endangered species for sport. Anyone who would frequent his establishments knowing that the money they spend there contributes to this is also a scumbag who himself is worthy of being hunted down and killed. At the very least, I would spit in the face of any such person.
(http://www.smilepolitely.com/images/uploads/splog/2011jun/elephant_2.png)
One question comes to mind. If he is killing endangered species for a sport, then why isn't he being sued or in jail?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 11, 2013, 02:03:24 PM
One question comes to mind. If he is killing endangered species for a sport, then why isn't he being sued or in jail?
Not sure how he pulls it off...money pulls a lot of strings but pictures don't lie.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 11, 2013, 02:21:52 PM
Not sure how he pulls it off...money pulls a lot of strings but pictures don't lie.
Sorry to say but in this day and time, PICTURES DO LIE.
Denial...Jimmy John is a fat fucking pig and a scum bag.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 11, 2013, 03:12:17 PM
Denial...Jimmy John is a fat fucking pig and a scum bag.
Do you know him personally?
Quote from: Exterminator on November 11, 2013, 01:38:12 PM
While we're on the subject, how morally bereft does one have to be to blame Obama, who only wants to provide health care to the country's citizens, rather than blaming those really responsible who rely on paying their slave labor substandard wages and providing no benefits to them so that they can become ever more obscenely wealthy.
Papa John's John Schnatter certainly can't afford to treat people fairly; right? What would he do without his 40,000 sq ft. palace with it's multiple swimming pools, private lake, $7 million 6,000 sq ft. guest house and 22 car multi-level underground parking garage complete with its very own "valet office", car wash and a gigantic motorized turn table-driveway to help park stretch limousines?
(http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/9bqf1lHK3bDqYYzrpalfYA--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTUwMA--/http://yre.zenfs.com/en_us/cms/homes/Curbed/screen-shot-2011-11-10-at-8-59-38-pm-thumb.jpg)
Yup. Scumbags like this guy are the very reason for legislation to prevent them from benefitting on the backs of their minimum wage employees. :mad: :mad: :mad:
Quote from: me on November 11, 2013, 04:30:13 PM
Do you know him personally?
Anyone who would defend someone who proudly poses with an African elephant he has killed is as big a scumbag as the person who killed the elephant. Karma is a mother fucker.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 11, 2013, 02:21:52 PM
Not sure how he pulls it off...money pulls a lot of strings but pictures don't lie.
No they don't lie do they? :rolleyes:
(http://news.jasperdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Barack-O.-1024x768.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on November 12, 2013, 10:02:12 AM
Anyone who would defend someone who proudly poses with an African elephant he has killed is as big a scumbag as the person who killed the elephant. Karma is a mother fucker.
I will admit, I think anyone posing with an elephant that they just killed is a scumbag. I get it. That sucks.
But, I won't begrudge anyone who has built an empire at making a delicious sandwich at a great price. He made it happen. He didn't put a gun to nobody's head to work for him. He has employed thousands and has helped our economy when he builds a new location. If you don't like him don't eat his stuff, I get that too.
I am not a fan for the reason you pointed out with his hunting desire.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 12, 2013, 10:20:04 AM
No they don't lie do they? :rolleyes:
(http://news.jasperdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Barack-O.-1024x768.jpg)
You're an idiot. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on November 12, 2013, 12:02:02 PM
You're an idiot. :rolleyes:
And you are an asshole. rolleyes:
Rep. Kurt Schrader, a Democrat from Oregon, said that President Obama was "grossly misleading" on Obamacare. "Very misleading," the Democratic congressman says of Obama's promise that you can keep your health care plan, if you like it.
"So I think the president saying you could stay with it and not being honest that a lot of these policies were going to get cancelled was grossly misleading to the American public and is causing added stress and added strife as we go through a really difficult time with health care."
Schrader also accused White House press secretary Jay Carney of "double talk" for also misleading on Obamacare.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 12, 2013, 12:04:36 PM
Rep. Kurt Schrader, a Democrat from Oregon, said that President Obama was "grossly misleading" on Obamacare. "Very misleading," the Democratic congressman says of Obama's promise that you can keep your health care plan, if you like it.
"So I think the president saying you could stay with it and not being honest that a lot of these policies were going to get cancelled was grossly misleading to the American public and is causing added stress and added strife as we go through a really difficult time with health care."
Schrader also accused White House press secretary Jay Carney of "double talk" for also misleading on Obamacare.
You left out this part (guess it didn't fit your agenda):
"I think next year at the election time, people are going to want to know, was I able to sign up? And what is the shape of the benefit package I'm going to get and how much is it going to cost me, at the end of the day? I think this will, the sign-up period and problems and the horrendous problems that are going on right now will be way in the past."
Quote from: Exterminator on November 12, 2013, 12:13:13 PM
You left out this part (guess it didn't fit your agenda): "I think next year at the election time, people are going to want to know, was I able to sign up? And what is the shape of the benefit package I'm going to get and how much is it going to cost me, at the end of the day? I think this will, the sign-up period and problems and the horrendous problems that are going on right now will be way in the past."
Well that was just a speculation, trying to defend something he has NO IDEA how it is going to turn out. Why should we believe it is going to get better? It is about as wrong as wrong can be right now. Just as many republicans SAID IT WOULD BE.
Even Bill Clinton knows the potus screwed up...
(http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/commitment_20131112_111324.jpg)
Imagine that, two rich people from Illinois hunting for sport, one has the approval of the liberals and the other is hated by them for hunting for sport and being rich. One went hunting with his own money and the other went hunting on taxpayer money. One worked his way to the top and the other BS'ed his way to the top. Bet ya can't guess which one the liberals approve of. :wink:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 12, 2013, 10:20:04 AM
No they don't lie do they? :rolleyes:
(http://news.jasperdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Barack-O.-1024x768.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on November 11, 2013, 01:42:54 PM
Scumbag #2: Jimmy John Liautaud who, if he were forced to treat his employees fairly, might not be able to take as many trips in which the fat fuck kills endangered species for sport. Anyone who would frequent his establishments knowing that the money they spend there contributes to this is also a scumbag who himself is worthy of being hunted down and killed. At the very least, I would spit in the face of any such person.
(http://www.smilepolitely.com/images/uploads/splog/2011jun/elephant_2.png)
Quote from: Exterminator on November 11, 2013, 01:42:54 PM
Scumbag #2: Jimmy John Liautaud who, if he were forced to treat his employees fairly, might not be able to take as many trips in which the fat fuck kills endangered species for sport. Anyone who would frequent his establishments knowing that the money they spend there contributes to this is also a scumbag who himself is worthy of being hunted down and killed. At the very least, I would spit in the face of any such person.
(http://www.smilepolitely.com/images/uploads/splog/2011jun/elephant_2.png)
Sorry, HH. It looks like Ex is right. There are more than a few images like that around with a copyright notice that belongs to the Safari group he uses.
I never knew he was into that kind of shit, but thanks to Ex and a little research, I do now.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 12, 2013, 12:17:46 PM
Even Bill Clinton knows the potus screwed up...
(http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/commitment_20131112_111324.jpg)
Now as to this little gem, wouldn't that require legislation in order to allow that? Is that something that Obama can even do since it's the insurance companies themselves that are canceling these sub-par policies?
Quote from: Locutus on November 12, 2013, 12:30:34 PM
Sorry, HH. It looks like Ex is right. There are more than a few images like that around with a copyright notice that belongs to the Safari group he uses.
I never knew he was into that kind of shit, but thanks to Ex and a little research, I do now.
Locutus, don't get me wrong, I am not defending the dirtbag for his hunting skills. I asked a question. I too googled it and found nothing to defend him on this....
I am defending his entreprenuership. Like him or not, he built a great empire of tasty sandwiches.
Quote from: Locutus on November 12, 2013, 12:32:31 PM
Now as to this little gem, wouldn't that require legislation in order to allow that? Is that something that Obama can even do since it's the insurance companies themselves that are canceling these sub-par policies?
Yeah, I thought the same thing too....unless he drops the whole bill, which he will never do...I don't think there is much he can do.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 12, 2013, 12:37:33 PM
I am defending his entreprenuership. Like him or not, he built a great empire of tasty sandwiches.
You like his sandwiches? I thought they sucked, and wasn't going to go back simply because of that. I guess I'm spoiled by the numerous mom and pop delis that we have here in South Florida that I'm spoiled a bit when it comes to good sandwiches. ;D
Quote from: Locutus on November 12, 2013, 12:48:28 PM
You like his sandwiches? I thought they sucked, and wasn't going to go back simply because of that. I guess I'm spoiled by the numerous mom and pop delis that we have here in South Florida that I'm spoiled a bit when it comes to good sandwiches. ;D
They are not my favorite, but I have had some at a lunch & learn that was pretty good. There was adeli a block down from where I work that was a mom & pop place that had the best sandwiches around. It recently closed down though.
Quote from: Locutus on November 12, 2013, 12:32:31 PM
Now as to this little gem, wouldn't that require legislation in order to allow that? Is that something that Obama can even do since it's the insurance companies themselves that are canceling these sub-par policies?
Not all of those policies are sub-par and most replacement policies are costing more with a higher deductible and do not include the doctor of choice. Problem is the ones that are getting signed up are qualifying as medicaid and subsidized. Most who don't qualify for the subsidizes are opting to pay the fine and take their chances because it is less costly for them in the long run.
Quote from: me on November 12, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Imagine that, two rich people from Illinois hunting for sport, one has the approval of the liberals and the other is hated by them for hunting for sport and being rich. One went hunting with his own money and the other went hunting on taxpayer money. One worked his way to the top and the other BS'ed his way to the top. Bet ya can't guess which one the liberals approve of.
Yeah, uh, the picture of Obama is clearly photoshopped but are you seriously equating deer hunting (which isn't my thing but I have no real moral objection to) to slaughtering endangered elephants?
Quote from: me on November 12, 2013, 01:39:12 PM
Not all of those policies are sub-par and most replacement policies are costing more with a higher deductible and do not include the doctor of choice.
This has already proven to be a lie.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 12, 2013, 02:28:32 PM
This has already proven to be a lie.
Tell that to my friend who has MS, is paying for tri-care premium, and was told she would have to go to the VA doctors now rather than her doctor of choice. She got her letter 2 weeks ago.
Quote from: me on November 12, 2013, 03:39:39 PM
Tell that to my friend who has MS, is paying for tri-care premium, and was told she would have to go to the VA doctors now rather than her doctor of choice. She got her letter 2 weeks ago.
Here we go with your anecdotes again. :rolleyes: Please provide proof.
Quote from: me on November 12, 2013, 01:39:12 PM
Not all of those policies are sub-par and most replacement policies are costing more with a higher deductible and do not include the doctor of choice. Problem is the ones that are getting signed up are qualifying as medicaid and subsidized. Most who don't qualify for the subsidizes are opting to pay the fine and take their chances because it is less costly for them in the long run.
Try changing jobs and see what you get. (Oh, that's right you don't work for a living do you)
The reality is healthcare insurers have been abusing their customers for decades now; thanks to the deregulation during Rappin' Ronnie's years.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Locutus on November 12, 2013, 12:32:31 PM
Now as to this little gem, wouldn't that require legislation in order to allow that? Is that something that Obama can even do since it's the insurance companies themselves that are canceling these sub-par policies?
The image comes from Fux news, so consider the source. We all know they don't care about anything other than finding a way to toss the POTUS under the bus.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 12, 2013, 03:41:33 PM
Here we go with your anecdotes again. :rolleyes: Please provide proof.
Tell you what she's on her way back from Fl and is moving here from Fishers after she gets back. I'll see if she will black her name and any numbers out and let me have a copy of her letter to post here. She is so pissed she just might allow that.
Quote from: me on November 12, 2013, 06:27:53 PM
Tell you what she's on her way back from Fl and is moving here from Fishers after she gets back. I'll see if she will black her name and any numbers out and let me have a copy of her letter to post here. She is so pissed she just might allow that.
To use you the usual retort of you and your ilk; "What's wrong with that. It's a business and they have to right to run the business as they see fit."
Quote from: Palehorse on November 12, 2013, 06:24:55 PM
Try changing jobs and see what you get. (Oh, that's right you don't work for a living do you)
The reality is healthcare insurers have been abusing their customers for decades now; thanks to the deregulation during Rappin' Ronnie's years.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So what's that supposed to mean? If you're insinuating I'm not working because I'm lazy I definitely take offense at it. I am retired, I've done my time and if you're lucky by the time you're my age you'll be retired too.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 12, 2013, 06:29:53 PM
To use you the usual retort of you and your ilk; "What's wrong with that. It's a business and they have to right to run the business as they see fit."
This has nothing to do with a company. She is the veteran and she paid extra for the premium it was not a spousal coverage it was hers and something she was guaranteed.
Quote from: me on November 12, 2013, 06:38:53 PM
This has nothing to do with a company. She is the veteran and she paid extra for the premium it was not a spousal coverage it was hers and something she was guaranteed.
If you're using any of the following health plans, you have the minimum essental coverage required by the health care reform law. Unless you're considering other health coverage, you don't need to take any action at this time.
TRICARE Prime
TRICARE Prime Remote
TRICARE Prime Overseas
TRICARE Prime Remote Overseas
TRICARE Standard and Extra
TRICARE Standard Overseas
TRICARE For Life
TRICARE Reserve Select (if purchased)
TRICARE Retired Reserve (if purchased)
TRICARE Young Adult (if purchased)
US Family Health Plan
http://www.tricare.mil/Home/Welcome/About/MEC (http://www.tricare.mil/Home/Welcome/About/MEC)
In my experience they change the coverages at the premium level almost yearly. Like any other health insurance, the costs go up and the coverage goes down; or there are restrictions placed upon where and with whom you may seek treatment. No big surprise there.
I thought you were the guys saying lets cut costs? :rolleyes:
Then there is this:
What is the Affordable Care Act?
The Affordable Care Act, also known as the health care law, was created to expand access to coverage, control health care costs and improve health care quality and care coordination. The health care law does not change VA health benefits or Veterans' out-of-pocket costs.
Three things you should know:
1 VA wants all Veterans to receive health care that improves their health and well-being.
2 If you are enrolled in VA health care, you don't need to take additional steps to meet the health care law coverage standards. The health care law does not change VA health benefits or Veterans' out-of-pocket costs.
3 If you are not enrolled in VA health care, you can apply at any time.
Veterans Enrolled in VA Health Care
The good news is that Veterans enrolled in VA health care programs have health coverage that meets the new health care law's standard. You do not have to take any additional steps to have health coverage. Read more if enrolled...
Veterans Not Enrolled in VA Health Care
Veterans not currently enrolled in VA health care program can apply for enrollment at any time. Read more about enrolling...
Family Members
VA offers health care benefits for certain family members of Veterans through programs such as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) and the Spina Bifida program. Read more about VA family programs...
Your family members who are not enrolled in a VA health care program should use the Marketplace to get coverage.
Additional Health Care Law Information
We understand you may have questions about the health care law and how it might affect you and your family. We compiled basic information about the health care law to help you make informed decisions about your health care. Let us know if you have questions regarding the health care law and your VA health care at 1-877-222-VETS (8387). After all, ensuring you receive quality health care is not just our obligation, it's also our privilege.
http://www.va.gov/health/aca/ (http://www.va.gov/health/aca/)
Quote from: Palehorse on November 12, 2013, 07:09:33 PM
If you're using any of the following health plans, you have the minimum essental coverage required by the health care reform law. Unless you're considering other health coverage, you don't need to take any action at this time.
TRICARE Prime
TRICARE Prime Remote
TRICARE Prime Overseas
TRICARE Prime Remote Overseas
TRICARE Standard and Extra
TRICARE Standard Overseas
TRICARE For Life
TRICARE Reserve Select (if purchased)
TRICARE Retired Reserve (if purchased)
TRICARE Young Adult (if purchased)
US Family Health Plan
http://www.tricare.mil/Home/Welcome/About/MEC (http://www.tricare.mil/Home/Welcome/About/MEC)
In my experience they change the coverages at the premium level almost yearly. Like any other health insurance, the costs go up and the coverage goes down; or there are restrictions placed upon where and with whom you may seek treatment. No big surprise there.
I thought you were the guys saying lets cut costs? :rolleyes:
She has had it for quite sometime and didn't have to go to the VA which, under the circumstances, is, or was, a good thing.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 12, 2013, 07:12:00 PM
Then there is this:
What is the Affordable Care Act?
The Affordable Care Act, also known as the health care law, was created to expand access to coverage, control health care costs and improve health care quality and care coordination. The health care law does not change VA health benefits or Veterans' out-of-pocket costs.
Three things you should know:
1 VA wants all Veterans to receive health care that improves their health and well-being.
2 If you are enrolled in VA health care, you don't need to take additional steps to meet the health care law coverage standards. The health care law does not change VA health benefits or Veterans' out-of-pocket costs.
3 If you are not enrolled in VA health care, you can apply at any time.
Veterans Enrolled in VA Health Care
The good news is that Veterans enrolled in VA health care programs have health coverage that meets the new health care law's standard. You do not have to take any additional steps to have health coverage. Read more if enrolled...
Veterans Not Enrolled in VA Health Care
Veterans not currently enrolled in VA health care program can apply for enrollment at any time. Read more about enrolling...
Family Members
VA offers health care benefits for certain family members of Veterans through programs such as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) and the Spina Bifida program. Read more about VA family programs...
Your family members who are not enrolled in a VA health care program should use the Marketplace to get coverage.
Additional Health Care Law Information
We understand you may have questions about the health care law and how it might affect you and your family. We compiled basic information about the health care law to help you make informed decisions about your health care. Let us know if you have questions regarding the health care law and your VA health care at 1-877-222-VETS (8387). After all, ensuring you receive quality health care is not just our obligation, it's also our privilege.
http://www.va.gov/health/aca/ (http://www.va.gov/health/aca/)
Thanks but she is the one dealing with it and knows her way around as far as getting things done. She had an excellent doctor and he was fighting to get her on a medication they had recently denied her because she can't take what they recommend because she had a very bad reaction to it and he was in the process of sending them proof she dare not take these recommended drugs again when she was hit with this letter. Things are not as they appear to be PH people are being mislead all over the place. Yes, she may be paying through the nose for the coverage she had but she was willing to do that because she didn't have to deal with the VA doctors. She is also a cancer survivor.
The ACA is a scam. Period. It is a failure, and it is not going to HELP those who need help. Period.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 13, 2013, 08:06:14 AM
The ACA is a scam. Period. It is a failure, and it is not going to HELP those who need help. Period.
Oh, bullshit. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on November 13, 2013, 09:44:54 AM
Oh, bullshit. :rolleyes:
Oh, sorry. I guess I should have said it is fantastic! The best thing to ever happen to Americans!!!! Great Job Washington!! This really is a better world now.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 13, 2013, 10:30:06 AM
Oh, sorry. I guess I should have said it is fantastic! The best thing to ever happen to Americans!!!! Great Job Washington!! This really is a better world now.
It isn't perfect but it's a start.
Really? There's nothing in the Affordable Care Act that you can support? Not a single provision?
Quote from: Locutus on November 13, 2013, 11:09:23 AM
Really? There's nothing in the Affordable Care Act that you can support? Not a single provision?
Never said that.
OBAMACARE NEARS COLLAPSE: Website Fix Delayed–Dems Give Obama Deadline To Fix Broken Promise
Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:59
(Before It's News)
With few exceptions, Obamacare never had support amongst Republicans who felt it was an infringement on individual liberty and too massive of a big government program to work.
Over the past 24-hours it has become clear that the President's signature legislation is nearing its end game because of Democrats who feel it's an infringement on individual liberty and so massive of a big government program its not working.
The attacks on the program have come from everywhere. Bill Clinton told an interviewer that while he supported the program it's time for the people to keep his promise and allow people to keep their health plan. Barbara Boxer announced she is going to co-sponsor a bill which will provide relief to those who forced to lose their plan because of Obamacare. The administration is beginning to leak that they will not make the promised 11-30 fix date for the Healthcare.gov website. The 11-30 date may be unnecessary because the beltway scuttlebutt is house Democrats have told Obama that he has until this Friday, 11-15 to come up with an Obamacare fix or else they will join with house Republicans and fix it themselves.
The Bill Clinton comment was typical "Clintonian politics," it wasn't really about Obamacare, it was about his wife's campaign for president. Former President Bubba told the interviewer that he thinks Obamacare is a
good program but Obama had to back up the you can keep your heath care
promise, distancing his wife from the Obamacare problems, but not from the progressive program itself.
They were the ones who heard the promise, if you like what you've got
you can keep it," he said, referring to people who are now receiving
cancellation letters from insurers. "I personally believe, even if it
takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the
federal government made to these people and let them keep what they
got."
Perhaps the most surprising event of the past 24-hours was Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) announcement that she will co-sponsor a bill by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) to require insurance companies to continue offering their existing health care plans — a way to make good on President Barack Obama's promise that consumers can keep their current coverage if they like it.
What makes this surprising is that the progressive Feinstein is not running for reelection until 2018. Even if she were up for reelection her's is a very safe seat. According to the Senior Senator from the "People's Republic of California," she has gotten 30,842 calls, e-mails and letters from her constituents about the President's broken "you can keep your insurance" promise.
This morning the Washington Post is reporting that the problems with the Healthcare.gov Obamcare website may not be fixed by the November 30th date as promised by the Administration, the biggest problem is it still cant handle the volume:
Software problems with the federal online health insurance marketplace, especially in handling high volumes, are proving so stubborn that the system is unlikely to work fully by the end of the month as the White House has promised, according to an official with knowledge of the project.
The insurance exchange is balking when more than 20,000 to 30,000 people attempt to use it at the same time — about half its intended capacity, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose internal information. And CGI Federal, the main contractor that built the site, has succeeded in repairing only about six of every 10 of the defects it has addressed so far.
Government workers and technical contractors racing to repair the Web site have concluded, the official said, that the only way for large numbers of Americans to enroll in the health-care plans soon is by using other means so that the online system isn't overburdened.
Most disastrous for the President is the report that Congressional Democrats have given the president 72 hours,
until Friday, to do something significant about the disastrous health
care roll-out. Otherwise, they claim they are ready to join
Congressional Republicans on an Obamacare fix.
The GOP Plan is being pushed by Fred Upton
(R-MI) is actually weaker than the one being co-sponsored by Diane Feinstein. It gives insurance companies the option of continuing all
existing health plans for a year. Feinstein's bill would require insurance
companies to continue offering existing plans.
Both plans will significantly damage Obamacare, they undermine insurance exchanges. The sticker shock people are feeling about the exchange now is nothing compared to the shock people will feel when insurance companies get to re-figure their pricing based on the actual number, ages and heath of the people who signed up.
What is lurking in the shadows is the employer mandate, which starts next year. This too will result in a horde of people losing their plans, this time it wont only be the insurance companies cancelling plans, but it will be the employers themselves who will be dropping health coverage and sending employees into the exchange.
Is Obamacare near collapse? It's very hard to see Obama getting out of this quagmire. Even if he fixes the broken promise and the web site the product Obamacare itself has lost the trust of the people. People are not going to buy a product they do not trust. Obama could try and re-sell the program to the people, but along with the lower approval ratings in the latest Quinnipiac poll for the first time a majority of Americans, 52% said they do not find President Obama honest and trustworthy. And should the website not work great on November 30th as the Washington Post suggests, the lack of trust will accelerate.
The mid-term elections are only a year away. All house seats and one-third of senate seats will be up next November, the 72-hour deadline given the President, and the Feinstein/Landrieu bill are both indications that incumbent Democrats are getting very nervous, those frayed nerves will get worse as we get closer to Election Day.
The pressure on Obama to allow a congressional fix is severe, I don't believe he will be able to withstand the political pressure, but even if things are fixed, lack of trust and the prospect of this all happening next year when the employer mandate kicks in will send this affront to personal liberty down the path of total collapse.
Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list.
Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://www.jeffdunetz.com
More blogger trash.
QuoteWashington (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats are upping the pressure on President Barack Obama to fix what's ailing his signature health care initiative with some in the party warning they may be forced to back a House Republican proposal if the White House doesn't offer an alternative by week's end.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/12/politics/obamacare/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 <-----CNN Not a blog.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 14, 2013, 07:01:31 PM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You use a blog I can use a blog.....I have a CNN story to back mine up with.
Quote from: me on November 14, 2013, 07:31:33 PM
You use a blog I can use a blog.....I have a CNN story to back mine up with.
What the hell are you blathering on about? You got your panties in a twist over being exposed as a liar or something? :rolleyes:
You better stop lapping up that hatred your homies are flooding the airwaves with. It will not end well for you. . .
credibility |ˌkredəˈbilitē|
noun
the quality of being trusted and believed in: the government's loss of credibility.
• the quality of being convincing or believable:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 14, 2013, 07:37:52 PM
What the hell are you blathering on about? You got your panties in a twist over being exposed as a liar or something? :rolleyes:
You better stop lapping up that hatred your homies are flooding the airwaves with. It will not end well for you. . .
credibility |ˌkredəˈbilitē|
noun
the quality of being trusted and believed in: the government's loss of credibility.
• the quality of being convincing or believable:
The CNN story I posted is not a lie nor is the blog which says the same damn thing.
Funny how Ted Cruz warned everybody of the downfall of "obamacare", yet all the media could do is demonize him.
Like him or not, (I know, NOT....) he called it, and he is spot on, right! :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 15, 2013, 10:30:35 AM
Funny how Ted Cruz warned everybody of the downfall of "obamacare", yet all the media could do is demonize him.
Like him or not, (I know, NOT....) he called it, and he is spot on, right! :yes:
You wishing for it doesn't make it so but keep on supporting people like Ted Cruz...that shit's golden for the progressives.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 15, 2013, 11:09:16 AM
You wishing for it doesn't make it so but keep on supporting people like Ted Cruz...that shit's golden for the progressives.
Had we listened to him, we would NOT be facing the mess we are in today. Not really a difficult idea he was suggesting, just one that made sense.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 15, 2013, 11:31:41 AM
Had we listened to him, we would NOT be facing the mess we are in today. Not really a difficult idea he was suggesting, just one that made sense.
From the looks of him, he'd probably let you blow him and you sound like you'd like to. You should send him a note!
Quote from: Palehorse on April 09, 2013, 07:39:42 PM
. . .Not much will be different as the law is put into place for those who get insurance through their employers, and that's the bulk of Americans. The Society of Actuaries/Lewin Group report estimates that those with employer-based insurance will decline by 2 million because of the law, for a total of 155 million people. That's similar to estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office.
However, new minimum benefit standards will mean more generous insurance plans for many of those who buy health coverage on their own on the individual market, which has been able to offer cheap, bare-bones plans. Plus, tens of millions of people will join this market through state-based exchanges — 21 million, according to the Lewin analysis. . . .
http://factcheck.org/2013/04/insurance-premium-spin/ (http://factcheck.org/2013/04/insurance-premium-spin/)
So once again, we see repugnicans using the "sky is falling" ploy, trying to scare the panties off "Mericans" , the majority of which will see a minimal increase, if any at all, in premiums. :rolleyes:
Hum, seems as though even factcheck backed off on this one.
FactCheck.org
A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center
Become a Facebook fan
Follow us on Tumblr
Follow us on Twitter
Get the feed
Get the E-Mail
Help us hold politicians accountable
Home
Articles
Ask FactCheck
Mailbag
Viral Spiral
Archives
About Us
Search
More
Something went wrong.
The page you are looking for could not be found.
Given a year or two ObamaCare will disappear like a fart in a Republican's brain. Being replaced by The Affordable Healthcare Act with all of the poor Republican Sheep lined up to buy the insurance the law provides. :yes: :biggrin:
:zoners:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 12, 2013, 06:29:53 PM
To use you the usual retort of you and your ilk; "What's wrong with that. It's a business and they have to right to run the business as they see fit."
Yup! This fiasco is the result of insurance companies.
They've found a way to increase their profits, lower their risk, AND pass the blame off on the 'nigra in the White House' - a trifecta for them and their corporatist political allies.
But you can't tell deadhead masses anything that doesn't come from their RW noize machine.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 13, 2013, 08:06:14 AM
The ACA is a scam. Period. It is a failure, and it is not going to HELP those who need help. Period.
If it's in ANY sense a 'scam', it's that we haven't the sense to institute nationalized healthcare - the same for energy etc..
Some things are too important to society to be left in the hands of the capitalists.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 01, 2013, 03:28:55 PM
Are YOU insinuating that some of the people I know that have a brain are all white? If so, you would be wrong, because three people I work with are African American, and they totally are against Obama and the democrats. One of them is an extreme Tea Party advocate.
I really find this proclamation by you very suspect.
It's suspicious that only now, after all this time and all the discussions of race - in particular pointed ones with me where I've specifically asked you about your relationships and knowledge of blacks, do you suddenly come up with not only one but THREE black employees ALL of whom are against "Obama and the democrats" with ONE being a TPer.
I doubt the veracity of it.
If there's ANY truth to it, I posit it only proves what I've stated all along - you don't know ANYTHING about blacks...or people in general. Blacks in that situation - and assuming ANY truth to it - surrounded by RW TP idjits like you would chameleon in order to keep themselves and their employment secure. It would be the same if the racial/political makeup were the complete opposite. You'd be doing the same.
Quote from: me on November 16, 2013, 09:00:14 AM
Hum, seems as though even factcheck backed off on this one.
Once again, you have demonstrated your absolute lack of ability to research anything. When I reached the dead link, I simply typed the name of the article into the search box on the site and voila! Took less than 5 seconds to prove that, no, the facts haven't changed: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/health-insurance-premium-spin/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/health-insurance-premium-spin/)
Quote from: Exterminator on November 18, 2013, 11:19:07 AM
Once again, you have demonstrated your absolute lack of ability to research anything. When I reached the dead link, I simply typed the name of the article into the search box on the site and voila! Took less than 5 seconds to prove that, no, the facts haven't changed: http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/health-insurance-premium-spin/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/health-insurance-premium-spin/)
But that article was written in April "before" the HCRA started taking effect and now it seems as though some of the things are wrong. Of course it's everyone's fault but his, but then again since, as I have stated before, he didn't actually write it and probably has no clue what's really in it except for what he's been told, I guess technically it wouldn't be his fault 'cause he's just a mouthpiece for getting it done. I still fail to understand how you can take as fact something that is projected to work a certain way since it is actually still an unknown and unproven theory. As a lot of engineers have found out, things can always be made to look like they'll work on paper but when you go to apply them in the real world often fail.
Quote from: me on November 18, 2013, 11:32:14 AM
I still fail to understand how you can take as fact something that is projected to work a certain way since it is actually still an unknown and unproven theory. As a lot of engineers have found out, things can always be made to look like they'll work on paper but when you go to apply them in the real world often fail.
Using your logic, we would all still be living in caves. Nothing of any signifigance was ever accomplished by anyone paralyzed by fear of failure.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 18, 2013, 12:00:55 PM
Using your logic, we would all still be living in caves. Nothing of any signifigance significance (fixed it for you) was ever accomplished by anyone paralyzed by fear of failure.
And people have been harmed by jumping headlong into things without fully understanding them or the consequences. Not only that but if you can't even spell simple words why should I, or anyone else, listen to you?
Quote from: me on November 18, 2013, 01:09:11 PM
And people have been harmed by jumping headlong into things without fully understanding them or the consequences. Not only that but if you can't even spell simple words why should I, or anyone else, listen to you?
Why would I care if you listen to me?
I just hope you're towards the end of the line of sheeple when you drop off that cliff so your landing won't be quite as hard.
Quote from: me on November 18, 2013, 01:09:11 PM
And people have been harmed by jumping headlong into things without fully understanding them or the consequences. Not only that but if you can't even spell simple words why should I, or anyone else, listen to you?
I know that George W. talked to god before going to war which killed over 4500 of our soldiers. WHY DID HE JUMP HEADLONG INTO A WAR WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE CONSEQUENCES, HUNYBUNS. :rolleyes: :razz:
Quote from: The Troll on November 18, 2013, 09:55:03 PM
I know that George W. talked to god before going to war which killed over 4500 of our soldiers. WHY DID HE JUMP HEADLONG INTO A WAR WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE CONSEQUENCES, HUNYBUNS. :rolleyes: :razz:
George Bush is no longer president in case you hadn't noticed. We are discussing the HCRA here quit deflecting with Bush.....that has nothing to do with this.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/deerladie/Obama%20political%20for%20forum/BenSteinonhealthcare_zps5480db32.png)
Lie! (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/benstein.asp)
Quote from: me on November 18, 2013, 10:54:14 PM
George Bush is no longer president in case you hadn't noticed. We are discussing the HCRA here quit deflecting with Bush.....that has nothing to do with this.
I know Sweet lips that in this day and age with all of the Cluster Fucks and Fuck ups it just impossible NOT TO THINK OF GEORGE W. BUSH. :trustme:
http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/64309797136/obamacare-levies-fines-on-non-profit-hospitals-that
Shortage of doctors????? Imagine that.....hum Coming to a state near you soon......Oh, an example of government health care in case you're wondering.
http://news.ca.msn.com/local/saskatchewan/er-hours-at-reginas-pasqua-hospital-to-be-curtailed-soon#scpshrjwfbs
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVGeorgeObamaCare91113.html
Project 21 New Visions
Elaina F. George, MD
The Next Moves in the ObamaCare Deception
by Elaina F. George, MD (bio)
Americans are being led down the wrong path.
There has been, and continues to be, a concerted effort on the part of liberal politicians — who are encouraged by the media — to convince the American people that their health care system is the worst in the industrialized world, that doctors are to blame for high costs and that someone taking responsibility for their own health insurance is both selfish and somehow hurts the less fortunate. People are also supposed to believe opposition to government intervention that is designed to pick winners and losers implies they hate the poor or are racist and/or sexist.
The truth is much simpler.
Under the guise of fairness, our government is essentially implementing an agenda of central planning. Examples include the concerted globalization of our banking system through TARP, the subjugation of much of our military's autonomy to the United Nations, the centralization of our public education system — first with the No Child Left Behind program and now with the Common Core Curriculum.
It has taken over 50 years, starting with adoption of Medicare (i.e., socialized medicine for seniors), notwithstanding the failure of HillaryCare, for government to take over American health care.
While so many are distracted by the failure of the ObamaCare web site, the first phase of ObamaCare has already been successfully underway without much notice or outrage.
ObamaCare has successfully begun to unravel the health care system as we know it. Since the law passed:
Doctors have been closing independent private practices to become employees of hospitals, joining large groups or leaving medicine completely — exacerbating the existing doctor shortage.
Community hospitals have closed. Hospitals have grown into large systems that control the marketplace. These systems essentially control access to care by buying out or otherwise squeezing out competition such as independent surgery centers.
Independent pharmacies have succumbed to the big chains that have systematically formed alliances with the medical insurance and pharmaceutical companies. With their preferred status, they have successfully kept prices high. They have also branched out into primary care clinics that cater to people with chronic diseases. This competes with better-trained primary care physicians and urgent care facilities staffed by board-certified ER physicians.
There has been an expansion of the number and scope of practice for health care extenders such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants. This leads to frontline health care being driven by less experienced practitioners.
Instead of concentrating on increasing the number of American medical students, there has been an increase in the outsourcing of medicine to foreign-trained physicians to provide care in the hospital setting.
The second phase is now coming into focus.
It's not an accident that people are being thrown off their existing insurance. The perfect storm was created to achieve this goal: The out-of-pocket caps on cost for the individual were delayed; there is a 25 percent surcharge on so-called Cadillac health plans; and policies protected by the grandfather clause were never meant to stand up to the regulations and compliance written into the law.
The fact that it will be cheaper for an employer to now drop coverage and pay the fine should provide ample proof that the Cloward-Piven strategy is in play. Named after the radical sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, this is the idea of overwhelming the system to break it in order to rebuild it. The end result, however, is not Medicare for all — but actually a single-payer system set up as Medicaid for all. Once the patients are in this system, is there any doubt doctors will be next?
People should pay attention to the trial balloon recently sent up by Kathleen Murphy, a candidate for a state-level delegate in Virginia, who allegedly suggested doctors should be legally forced to take Medicare and Medicaid money.
The goal is collectivism, which allows the government to be the arbiter of what constitutes what is best for everyone, except the elite and their cronies. That is the ObamaCare endgame.
For a physician, not only will this mean the illegal restriction of trade, it will also mean the end of The Hippocratic Oath and the death of the doctor-patient relationship.
# # #
Dr. Elaina George, a member of the national advisory council of the Project 21 black leadership network, is a board-certified otolaryngologist and host of a weekly talk radio show, "Medicine On Call," that explores health issues and the politics of medicine. Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.
Published by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21, other Project 21 members, or the National Center for Public Policy Research, its board or staff.
Tell me again why this shouldn't be questioned.
http://www.youtube.com/v/N54gSI4Aft0#t=15
Quote from: me on November 21, 2013, 10:15:11 PM
Shortage of doctors????? Imagine that.....hum Coming to a state near you soon......Oh, an example of government health care in case you're wondering.
http://news.ca.msn.com/local/saskatchewan/er-hours-at-reginas-pasqua-hospital-to-be-curtailed-soon#scpshrjwfbs
First of all, we don't have government health care; secondly, the ACA is not modelled after Canada's health care system; third, this is
one isolated example and, as such, illustrated nothing; and finally, you fail to mention the hundreds of countries with government run health care that have no such issues. It's the law; get over it or move to the third world country of your choice instead of continuing to try to turn this into one.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1478324/original.jpg)
Quote from: Exterminator on November 25, 2013, 08:52:50 AM
First of all, we don't have government health care; secondly, the ACA is not modelled after Canada's health care system; third, this is one isolated example and, as such, illustrated nothing; and finally, you fail to mention the hundreds of countries with government run health care that have no such issues. It's the law; get over it or move to the third world country of your choice instead of continuing to try to turn this into one.
Not yet at any rate. Then why do they all think we're nuts for doing this? This country is turning into one and I'm not the one doing it. Where is the link to your little chart?
Quote from: Exterminator on November 25, 2013, 08:52:50 AM
First of all, we don't have government health care
Bullshit!
We now have a government ran/regulated health care, call it what you will..........they (the gov) NOW tells insurance companies and the business providing the coverage, who what when, and how much, other than that it's totally free market.
What do you call Medicaid? It is ran by our government...what is VA healthcare? Both of these agencies struggle with red tape and finanial burdens they cannot afford.
Yes it is a law. A very BAD law, that has been implemented by a very sorry group of folks.
I guess we must have government airlines as well then; huh? How about government food and drug sales/distribution?
Bunch of cry-baby losers (in every sense of the word).
Quote from: Exterminator on November 25, 2013, 11:25:46 AM
I guess we must have government airlines as well then; huh? How about government food and drug sales/distribution?
Bunch of cry-baby losers (in every sense of the word).
Well call it what it is then........a government ran healthcare.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 25, 2013, 11:27:37 AM
Well call it what it is then........a government ran healthcare.
No, it's government
regulated health care. The government regulates a lot of things and has since the country was founded. Why do you only take issue with those enacted under a non-white administration?
Quote from: Exterminator on November 25, 2013, 11:41:42 AM
No, it's government regulated health care. The government regulates a lot of things and has since the country was founded. Why do you only take issue with those enacted under a non-white administration?
That's the part they don't want to recognize and it is a keystone to their foundational argument. I blame it all on the likes of Palin and her Tea Billies. They started calling it "government run healthcare" and the sheep have been bleating ever since.
The government regulates almost everything in some form or another. From refining of petroleum products, medicines, even your right to operate a motor vehicle on the roads. In fact it USED to regulate healthcare and insurance until the "deregulation" initiative undertaken by Ronnie Ray-gun and his ilk.
And it was immediately following this deregulation, that health insurers began running amok and costs started skyrocketing.
:yes: :yes: :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on November 25, 2013, 11:41:42 AM
No, it's government regulated health care. The government regulates a lot of things and has since the country was founded. Why do you only take issue with those enacted under a non-white administration?
It is what it is and that's government "ran" healthcare. Of course it won't be that technically until the whole thing comes into effect. We are being eased into it whether you believe it or not.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2013, 12:05:42 PM
That's the part they don't want to recognize and it is a keystone to their foundational argument. I blame it all on the likes of Palin and her Tea Billies. They started calling it "government run healthcare" and the sheep have been bleating ever since.
The government regulates almost everything in some form or another. From refining of petroleum products, medicines, even your right to operate a motor vehicle on the roads. In fact it USED to regulate healthcare and insurance until the "deregulation" initiative undertaken by Ronnie Ray-gun and his ilk.
And it was immediately following this deregulation, that health insurers began running amok and costs started skyrocketing.
:yes: :yes: :yes:
Same as when Hillary proposed it....government ran healthcare....I called it that then and I call it that now. I was against it then and am against it now. Has nothing to do with who started it....NOTHING...and in case you hadn't noticed Hillary is white.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 25, 2013, 08:52:50 AM
First of all, we don't have government health care; secondly, the ACA is not modelled after Canada's health care system; third, this is one isolated example and, as such, illustrated nothing; and finally, you fail to mention the hundreds of countries with government run health care that have no such issues. It's the law; get over it or move to the third world country of your choice instead of continuing to try to turn this into one.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1478324/original.jpg)
Where's the link to where you got the chart Ex?
Quote from: me on November 25, 2013, 12:54:14 PM
It is what it is and that's government "ran" healthcare. Of course it won't be that technically until the whole thing comes into effect. We are being eased into it whether you believe it or not. Same as when Hillary proposed it....government ran healthcare....I called it that then and I call it that now. I was against it then and am against it now. Has nothing to do with who started it....NOTHING...and in case you hadn't noticed Hillary is white.
Who the hell said anything about Hillary? :rolleyes:
You don't even read the replies but rather, focus on one word or a phrase and go batshit psycho over it. :rolleyes:
You are a danger to yourself, others, and this nation! :spooked:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2013, 12:05:42 PM
That's the part they don't want to recognize and it is a keystone to their foundational argument. I blame it all on the likes of Palin and her Tea Billies. They started calling it "government run healthcare"
When over 100 NEW federal and state agencies and programs are created just to advise, regulate and oversee....lets call it like it is. Government run healthcare.
Palin and The Tea party had nothing to do with what I call it in other words. I called it that when Hillary proposed hers...I just threw the other in because I sensed the "other" talking point coming on. And I thought you had reading and comprehension skills..... :rolleyes: No wonder you think the HCRA is great, you don't understand it.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2013, 02:18:38 PM
Who the hell said anything about Hillary? :rolleyes:
You don't even read the replies but rather, focus on one word or a phrase and go batshit psycho over it. :rolleyes:
You are a danger to yourself, others, and this nation! :spooked:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2013, 12:05:42 PM
That's the part they don't want to recognize and it is a keystone to their foundational argument. I blame it all on the likes of Palin and her Tea Billies. They started calling it "government run healthcare" and the sheep have been bleating ever since.
The government regulates almost everything in some form or another. From refining of petroleum products, medicines, even your right to operate a motor vehicle on the roads. In fact it USED to regulate healthcare and insurance until the "deregulation" initiative undertaken by Ronnie Ray-gun and his ilk.
And it was immediately following this deregulation, that health insurers began running amok and costs started skyrocketing.
:yes: :yes: :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on November 25, 2013, 08:52:50 AM
First of all, we don't have government health care; secondly, the ACA is not modelled after Canada's health care system; third, this is one isolated example and, as such, illustrated nothing; and finally, you fail to mention the hundreds of countries with government run health care that have no such issues. It's the law; get over it or move to the third world country of your choice instead of continuing to try to turn this into one.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1478324/original.jpg)
Where's the link Ex?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 25, 2013, 03:12:35 PM
When over 100 NEW federal and state agencies and programs are created just to advise, regulate and oversee....lets call it like it is. Government run healthcare.
So then you're okay with government run; medicine, transportation, food, etc.? :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on November 25, 2013, 03:13:35 PM
Palin and The Tea party had nothing to do with what I call it in other words. I called it that when Hillary proposed hers...I just threw the other in because I sensed the "other" talking point coming on. And I thought you had reading and comprehension skills..... :rolleyes: No wonder you think the HCRA is great, you don't understand it.
Bullshit! They have
everything to do with what you call it. . .
And excuse me, but when was Hillary the President of the United States?
As for my comprehension and reading skills; I'd match them against yours and win while sleeping! :yes: :rolleyes:
YOU guys are saying it isn't government ran healthcare....I just pointed out it IS.
I think the more government has a controll on what we do, is NOT really a good thing.
Not saying it shouldn't have its role in regulating commerce, because it does.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2013, 03:32:10 PM
So then you're okay with government run; medicine, transportation, food, etc.? :rolleyes:
Bullshit! They have everything to do with what you call it. . .
And excuse me, but when was Hillary the President of the United States?
As for my comprehension and reading skills; I'd match them against yours and win while sleeping! :yes: :rolleyes:
Do you not remember the healthcare bill Hillary tried to get passed? What difference does it make at this point whether she was president or not I didn't like it than and don't like it now.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 25, 2013, 08:52:50 AM
First of all, we don't have government health care; secondly, the ACA is not modelled after Canada's health care system; third, this is one isolated example and, as such, illustrated nothing; and finally, you fail to mention the hundreds of countries with government run health care that have no such issues. It's the law; get over it or move to the third world country of your choice instead of continuing to try to turn this into one.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1478324/original.jpg)
Where's the link to the graph Ex????
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 25, 2013, 05:02:51 PM
YOU guys are saying it isn't government ran healthcare....I just pointed out it IS.
I think the more government has a controll on what we do, is NOT really a good thing.
Not saying it shouldn't have its role in regulating commerce, because it does.
No it is NOT. The ACA
is regulation of the
insurance industry!
For cripes sake, you guys will believe
anything!
Are you
really comfortable with an insurance company deeming what treatments you can have, which doctors you can see, and what medicines you can take; without any governmental regulation of them? Do you really think that a for profit company will have your best interests in mind when they decide all of this? :eek:
Get a grip for crying out loud!
Quote from: me on November 25, 2013, 05:39:20 PM
Do you not remember the healthcare bill Hillary tried to get passed? What difference does it make at this point whether she was president or not I didn't like it than and don't like it now.
The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act, was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of
President Bill Clinton.
It wasn't Hillary's plan. You can't even remember correctly! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2013, 06:00:29 PM
The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act, was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton.
It wasn't Hillary's plan. You can't even remember correctly! :rolleyes:
Oh really????
Quote
Clinton Health Plan Outlined
Associated Press
Monday, September 17, 2007
DES MOINES -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's sweeping health-care proposal, which she plans to unveil today, would require every American to carry health insurance and offer federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of coverage.
The proposal, Clinton's first major effort to achieve universal health coverage since an ill-fated 1994 plan, carries a price tag of about $110 billion per year. The centerpiece of her "American Health Choices Plan" is an "individual mandate" requiring everyone to have health insurance -- just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance.
"It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs," said Neera Tanden, Clinton's top policy adviser. "If you like the plan you have, you keep it. If you're one of tens of millions of Americans without coverage or don't like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans to pick from and you'll get tax credits to help pay for it."
ad_icon
.
The New York Democrat is expected to introduce her plan in Iowa, whose caucuses are the nation's first primary vote. Details of the plan were provided to the Associated Press in advance of her speech.
With 47 million Americans currently uninsured, the Democratic presidential contenders have been united in advocating universal coverage. They have parted ways on certain specifics, including the individual mandate -- the plan offered by former senator John Edwards (N.C.) includes one, while the proposal outlined by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) does not.
Republican skeptics say such a mandate would be too invasive and would restrict personal freedom and choice. Liberal Democrats have expressed concern that it would be too financially burdensome for lower-income individuals and families -- a concern shared by Obama, who has said that individuals cannot be forced to purchase insurance until the cost of coverage is substantially reduced.
Clinton's aides said she believes that an individual mandate is the only way to achieve health care for all. A key component of her plan would be a federal tax subsidy to help individuals pay for coverage.
Clinton's plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers.
For individuals and families who are not covered by employers or whose employer-based coverage is inadequate, Clinton would offer expanded versions of two existing government programs: Medicare and the health insurance plan offered to federal employees. Consumers could choose between either program. Aides emphasize that no new federal bureaucracy would be created under the plan.
Aides said Clinton will propose several measures to pay for her plan, including an end to some of the Bush-era tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 per year. Edwards has vowed to completely repeal the tax cuts for high earners to pay for the cost of his plan, estimated at $90 billion to $120 billion per year, while Obama would pay for his plan in part by letting the tax cuts expire in 2010.
Clinton is also expected to emphasize cost-cutting measures to help pay for universal coverage. She has already recommended several such proposals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091700118.html
Quote from: me on November 25, 2013, 07:31:25 PM
Oh really????
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091700118.html
Really. You are talking about a campaign "plan" that never had an ice cube's chance in hell of materializing, much less coming to a vote in congress. Especially since she was not POTUS. :rolleyes:
Now, when she succeeds President Obama in the next Presidential Election, you can start worrying. . . Oh wait. There is already a Healthcare Reform law in place!
This right here demonstrates your problem; you take plans and automagically assume they are real. You take potential pitfalls as facts and assume they will occur. You take dreams and assume they are real. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2013, 09:43:17 PM
Really. You are talking about a campaign "plan" that never had an ice cube's chance in hell of materializing, much less coming to a vote in congress. Especially since she was not POTUS. :rolleyes:
Now, when she succeeds President Obama in the next Presidential Election, you can start worrying. . . Oh wait. There is already a Healthcare Reform law in place!
This right here demonstrates your problem; you take plans and automagically assume they are real. You take potential pitfalls as facts and assume they will occur. You take dreams and assume they are real. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I did not like it then and I do not like it now. If it had passed then it would have been more than a "plan" that was proposed for a vote and I would have been just as vocal against it as I am this one. You are nit picking to excuse and defend this HCRA and it ain't gonna wash. Now if you really want to nit pick Obama had nothing, or very little, to do with this HCRA he just stuck his name on it because he thought it would be a feather in his cap and it's turned into a nightmare. He doesn't even call it Obamacare anymore. Pelosi and Reid pushed it through using strong arm tactics and closed door meetings. To put it simply, the HCRA sucks and is getting more expensive by the minute.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 25, 2013, 08:52:50 AM
First of all, we don't have government health care; secondly, the ACA is not modelled modeled (fixed it for you)after Canada's health care system; third, this is one isolated example and, as such, illustrated nothing; and finally, you fail to mention the hundreds of countries with government run health care that have no such issues. It's the law; get over it or move to the third world country of your choice instead of continuing to try to turn this into one.
No wonder you didn't post the link....Huffington Post???? A blogger???? Give me a break.....Really, a blogger????? :rolleyes:
Oh, btw I looked it up, not hard if you know how to read the info from right clicking on the picture... ;)
Quote from: Palehorse on November 25, 2013, 05:57:40 PM
No it is NOT. The ACA is regulation of the insurance industry!
For cripes sake, you guys will believe anything!
Are you really comfortable with an insurance company deeming what treatments you can have, which doctors you can see, and what medicines you can take; without any governmental regulation of them? Do you really think that a for profit company will have your best interests in mind when they decide all of this? :eek:
Get a grip for crying out loud!
and for crying out fucking loud.....YOU honestly think that this government is doing what is BEST for ALL Americans? They are so fucking political, they are ONLY going to do what is going to keep THEM elected.
I seriously, with ALL MY HEAR think it is YOU that needs to get a grip!
The thing that gets me is this.
The ACA is 'SUPPOSED" to be about affordable care. THAT is so much fucking bullshit, it is pathetic.
This is NOTHING like government involvement with our food & drug industry or our Airline industry. THEIR GOAL is not to make food, drugs and airfare cheaper. They are there to make us safer.
Anytime our government is involved, it is not going to be effecient or cheap. Red tape is increased, along with costs.
THAT is why this ACA approach to making healthcare more affordable is NOT the best thing. I will say that they forced the issue to be dealt with, THAT is a good thing.
But to say that they are merely a "regulation" device is bullshit....it is without any doubt, and GOVERNMENT RAN service. Hell, the IRS has an expanded role to play in running this program...so, quit saying it is NOT a government ran program...because it most certainly IS.
Quote from: me on November 25, 2013, 03:15:11 PM
Where's the link Ex?
If you were a little smarter (or a lot, really), you'd know how to right click on the chart and find the image URL. Are you suggesting that the U.S. doesn't have the most expensive and inefficient health care system in the world because if you are, you're simply ignorant of the facts and too lazy to go look them up.
Quote from: me on November 25, 2013, 11:13:20 PM
Oh, btw I looked it up, not hard if you know how to read the info from right clicking on the picture... ;)
I see you finally figured it out. Are you disputing the facts behind it?
Quote from: Exterminator on November 26, 2013, 08:59:18 AM
If you were a little smarter (or a lot, really), you'd know how to right click on the chart and find the image URL. Are you suggesting that the U.S. doesn't have the most expensive and inefficient health care system in the world because if you are, you're simply ignorant of the facts and too lazy to go look them up.
Expensive, yes, inefficient, no. If it's so inefficient why do people who can afford it from those supposed more efficient "better" countries come here for treatment? Could it be because we have better doctors? That will become a thing of the past when they can't make enough money to help pay for their schooling and malpractice insurance let alone private office expenses because the approved doctors aren't paid enough by the ACA and people are paying so much for their coverage they can't afford to go to out of system doctors. Wouldn't it have been much better to open up insurance choices across state lines to allow the competition to lower insurance costs?
As far as your graph is concerned would you believe a graph showing different results if it was from a conservative publication and had an article written by a blogger who was also a conservative? Huffington Post????? Really????? You are getting desperate aren't you?
Quote from: Exterminator on November 26, 2013, 09:02:50 AM
I see you finally figured it out. Are you disputing the facts behind it?
I just wanted to see if you'd post it....I ain't near as dumb as you think bucko. ;)
Quote from: me on November 26, 2013, 09:55:23 AM
I just wanted to see if you'd post it....I ain't near as dumb as you think bucko. ;)
Yeah. . . you are. . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 08:40:15 AM
and for crying out fucking loud.....YOU honestly think that this government is doing what is BEST for ALL Americans? They are so fucking political, they are ONLY going to do what is going to keep THEM elected.
By "this government" what do you mean specifically? Are you talking about the United States Of America's government in totality, including every president that has ever held office, or are you talking about the darkie administration? I'm just asking for clarification here, so don't get your panties in a bigger wad.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 08:40:15 AM
I seriously, with ALL MY HEAR think it is YOU that needs to get a grip!
I have a firm grasp on reality, unlike some people. If it were any firmer it just might explode.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 08:40:15 AM
The thing that gets me is this.
The ACA is 'SUPPOSED" to be about affordable care. THAT is so much fucking bullshit, it is pathetic.
This is NOTHING like government involvement with our food & drug industry or our Airline industry. THEIR GOAL is not to make food, drugs and airfare cheaper. They are there to make us safer.
Anytime our government is involved, it is not going to be effecient or cheap. Red tape is increased, along with costs.
So again, you are a okay with insurance companies telling you what treatments you can and cannot have, what medicines you can and cannot take, and what doctors you can and cannot see? You are okay with insurance companies canceling your coverage just because you are sick, or denying you coverage because you got sick before you bought coverage with them?
You really can't be that blind. . . Can you?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 08:40:15 AM
. . .
But to say that they are merely a "regulation" device is bullshit....it is without any doubt, and GOVERNMENT RAN service. Hell, the IRS has an expanded role to play in running this program...so, quit saying it is NOT a government ran program...because it most certainly IS.
No. It is not. But you keep on running that you're gonna' get a blister.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 26, 2013, 10:11:38 AM
By "this government" what do you mean specifically? Are you talking about the United States Of America's government in totality, including every president that has ever held office, or are you talking about the darkie administration? I'm just asking for clarification here, so don't get your panties in a bigger wad.
I will say that the United States Of America's government in totality (with the liberal mentallity leading the way). Every time you guys bring up race, it only confirms to me that you are running out of solid ideas.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 26, 2013, 10:11:38 AM
I have a firm grasp on reality, unlike some people. If it were any firmer it just might explode.
At one time, I truly believed you were the most firmly grasped reality person on this forum. But, your hatred, pessimism, and overall attitude has changed my view of that.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 26, 2013, 10:11:38 AM
So again, you are a okay with insurance companies telling you what treatments you can and cannot have, what medicines you can and cannot take, and what doctors you can and cannot see? You are okay with insurance companies canceling your coverage just because you are sick, or denying you coverage because you got sick before you bought coverage with them?
Never said I was "okay" with it. But, I think there are far better avenues to fix this mess, rather than a GOVERNMENT run bill.
Open up the markets...
Why not allow portability across state lines to permit companies to compete in a free market competition...with other companies in other states.
This would open up more choices and opportunities that would reduce the cost of coverage as these companies compete for customers, they way it should work.
Offer plans to young people that they actually need, instead of forcing them to subsidize their money to buy insurance that they don't need. Allow the healthy to only buy catastrophic coverage. That lowers the price for them.
Start medical savings account with tax free money so it would lower your taxable income and allow you to spend on healthcare as you see necessary. Make your OWN decision based on your family needs. On many folks they would build up money the older they get then they could supplement along that with their existing insurance coverage.
THIS is where we would once again gain control, by utilizing FREE ENTERPRISE. Competition among insurance companies would give us ALL the flexibility to make the best choice that is RIGHT for our families and certain health conditions that we may or may not want covered.
WE, the American people would be in control NOT a corrupt government.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 26, 2013, 10:11:38 AM
You really can't be that blind. . . Can you?
I see clearly, not blinded by the bullshit propaganda being spewed by liberal mentality. It is all pretty common sense, the way our forefathers designed it to be.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 26, 2013, 10:11:38 AM
No. It is not. But you keep on running that you're gonna' get a blister.
Yes, Palehorse we are on the cusps of real government intervention into 1/6 of our economy...the HC industry...and all signs so far is, that this bill is a bust.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
I will say that the United States Of America's government in totality (with the liberal mentallity leading the way). Every time you guys bring up race, it only confirms to me that you are running out of solid ideas.
You guys are the ones perpetuating it. The rest of your response is an example of this.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
At one time, I truly believed you were the most firmly grasped reality person on this forum. But, your hatred, pessimism, and overall attitude has changed my view of that.
Hatred? Pretty harsh words coming from a conservative xtian don't you think? I intensely dislike those that would harm the least of our nation in favor of the wealthiest amongst us. Those that would hold the least of us hostage to their political ideals; ideals based upon zealotry.
Moreover, your tone and approach toward anyone who disagrees with anything you believe, say, or do, evokes an in kind response after a period of time. If you desire a respectful dialog with others then it is incumbent upon you to initiate all dialog within just such a manner. (You fail at this numerous times a day just within this forum).
You constantly kick sand in peoples faces, then you should expect the same in kind.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
Never said I was "okay" with it. But, I think there are far better avenues to fix this mess, rather than a GOVERNMENT run bill.
Open up the markets...
Really? Because I haven't seen a single one of them coming from the republican-tard side of the aisle in over 5 years thus far. And since they're in the pockets of the people this legislation was intended to regulate, one would think they'd be more than capable of coming up with an alternative that is workable for all parties; but they won't. Why? Because the insurance industry doesn't want it. Why? Because they've had several decades of running wild and free, charging the hell out of the insured, and beating on their chests while telling doctors what they can and cannot provide for their patients, and mandating the medical care of human beings that they have never even set eyes upon.
Medicine isn't a "one size fits all" science; never was and never will be. But to hear the insurance companies tell it it is.
They're so full of themselves they are charging even higher premiums and blaming it on the ACA. The reality is all that is going to do is fatten up their already obscenely healthy bottom line. And why not? Their propaganda machine, a.k.a. the republican party, is doing an amazing job of scaring the knickers off of the sheep and keeping them distracted.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
Why not allow portability across state lines to permit companies to compete in a free market competition...with other companies in other states.
This would open up more choices and opportunities that would reduce the cost of coverage as these companies compete for customers, they way it should work.
What the hell are you talking about? Insurance companies are free to operate within any state of the union, as long as they meet the requirements. The reason they don't? Those pesky little "high incident clusters" their marketing gurus use to limit risk. (The real reason for cancellations and withdrawing from certain markets).
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
Offer plans to young people that they actually need, instead of forcing them to subsidize their money to buy insurance that they don't need. Allow the healthy to only buy catastrophic coverage. That lowers the price for them.
Welcome to the "for profit free market". That is exactly the cause for this situation, and deregulation made it all possible. Aren't you happy?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
Start medical savings account with tax free money so it would lower your taxable income and allow you to spend on healthcare as you see necessary. Make your OWN decision based on your family needs. On many folks they would build up money the older they get then they could supplement along that with their existing insurance coverage.
What, your employer doesn't offer you a HSA? Really? What the hell are you going to do when they move you to a high deductible plan then? :spooked:
The fact is these high deductible plans will end up driving a drastic decline int he general health and welfare of the American population. They will forego going to the doctor over that persistent sore-throat until it feels like a K Bar slicing into them. By then the cancerous tumor will be so large, and will have metastasized, leaving the patient terminal; with only several very costly rounds of chemo and radiation treatments, along with high doses of pain killers, to extend their life a little longer.
That lump in your meat curtains? It'll go away, you will tell yourself. Until your nuts are the size of basket balls. . .
Pain in your side leaving you feeling sick to your stomach? It'll go away. Until your appendix bursts and set up peritonitis; taking a simple arthroscopic procedure to major surgery that requires you to be gutted like a fish so that the doctors can sanitize your intestines after removing whatever is left of that burst appendix. . .
And guess what! YOU get to pay the first 4k of the bills before they will cover anything; and then it will be at 80% until your reach 12k. . .
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
THIS is where we would once again gain control, by utilizing FREE ENTERPRISE. Competition among insurance companies would give us ALL the flexibility to make the best choice that is RIGHT for our families and certain health conditions that we may or may not want covered.
Seriously? You want to pick and choose what is covered "a la carte"? (I didn't realize you went to medical school. You must be using that same decision matrix as the insurance companies huh!) You've got kids Hank. You have to be prepared for anything. Do you really want to go there? :eek:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
WE, the American people would be in control NOT a corrupt government.
I see clearly, not blinded by the bullshit propaganda being spewed by liberal mentality. It is all pretty common sense, the way our forefathers designed it to be.
Yes, Palehorse we are on the cusps of real government intervention into 1/6 of our economy...the HC industry...and all signs so far is, that this bill is a bust.
You really need to take off the blinders and take a cold hard look at the reality that is healthcare today Hank. You are one serious illness away from losing everything. We all are. That's all it takes. . .
Quote from: Palehorse on November 26, 2013, 11:31:01 AM
You really need to take off the blinders and take a cold hard look at the reality that is healthcare today Hank. You are one serious illness away from losing everything. We all are. That's all it takes. . .
I have to start with this one, for whatever reason, you seem to think that people who don't think like you (liberal) doesn't realize we are having a healthcare mess. I know for a fact I am one illness away from losing it all. I pay through the nose with medical bills...unfortunatly this ACA will NOT do a damn thing to help me. It helps those who didn't already have help.
I am going to be stuck with the same shit...and rumors are surfacing, I may end up losing what I got, to go with a more expensive and less coverage plan.
I will address the rest of your retort...AFTER I indulge in a generously given Turkey dinner by a great supporter of the company i work for. :yes:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 11:45:32 AM
. . .
I will address the rest of your retort...AFTER I indulge in a generously given Turkey dinner by a great supporter of the company i work for. :yes:
Don't bother.
I won't.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
Offer plans to young people that they actually need, instead of forcing them to subsidize their money to buy insurance that they don't need. Allow the healthy to only buy catastrophic coverage. That lowers the price for them.
You really think that would work? Yes that may lower the price for them, but what about people my age (60+)? The only way to lower health care costs is to cover everyone and spread the load. Otherwise you place a terrible burden on those who could least afford health care but need it the most.
But I forgot ... the Republican plan is to let those people die early. Hence, problem solved!
Quote from: Bo D on November 26, 2013, 12:21:00 PM
You really think that would work? Yes that may lower the price for them, but what about people my age (60+)? The only way to lower health care costs is to cover everyone and spread the load. Otherwise you place a terrible burden on those who could least afford health care but need it the most.
But I forgot ... the Republican plan is to let those people die early. Hence, problem solved!
He doesn't give a damn about anyone older than he is. We can all die as far as he is concerned. His parent is covered under the all mighty GM plan, so he isn't worried about anyone else. . . Until he reaches the magic kingdom of maturity it is all good. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 26, 2013, 12:26:10 PM
He doesn't give a damn about anyone older than he is. We can all die as far as he is concerned. His parent is covered under the all mighty GM plan, so he isn't worried about anyone else. . . Until he reaches the magic kingdom of maturity it is all good. :rolleyes:
why would you say such foolish nonsense?
Quote from: Palehorse on November 26, 2013, 11:31:01 AM
Moreover, your tone and approach toward anyone who disagrees with anything you believe, say, or do, evokes an in kind response after a period of time. If you desire a respectful dialog with others then it is incumbent upon you to initiate all dialog within just such a manner. (You fail at this numerous times a day just within this forum).
My tone and approach is based upon those who approach me first. You swing..I duck and swing back. That is the way I was taught. That isn't the way I always done it on here. I used to take the high road on here for years, until I got disrepescted by someone who felt calling names was an intelligent form of debate.......then I took off the gloves and they have stayed off since then.
Quote from: me on November 26, 2013, 09:54:00 AM
Expensive, yes, inefficient, no.
High cost + high mortality does not = efficiency.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on November 26, 2013, 08:40:15 AM
THEIR GOAL is not to make food, drugs and airfare cheaper.
Really? Would you care to explain farm subsidies which artificially hold down consumer costs and (unfunded) prescription drug programs?
Quote from: Exterminator on November 26, 2013, 01:48:39 PM
High cost + high mortality does not = efficiency.
So those who can afford it come to the US because they want to experience our insufficient health care even though theirs might be better?????? That makes no sense and you know it. They come here because of the better doctors and health care. Sure there are some lousy hospitals but we also have some of the best here too. Unfortunately you won't realize what I'm talking about since he extended the deadline for employer insurance until after the mid term elections but when you get your letter just suck it up and go with the flow. See ya at the clinic with who knows what doctor.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 26, 2013, 01:51:05 PM
Really? Would you care to explain farm subsidies which artificially hold down consumer costs and (unfunded) prescription drug programs?
THAT is where they stepped out of bounds and began screwing things up.
Quote from: me on November 26, 2013, 02:42:25 PM
So those who can afford it come to the US...
Please prove that people from developed countries routinely come to the U.S. for health care. You can't because they don't. If people in the U.S. have the money and more progressive treatment is available elsewhere, in Europe for example, they go there. Go look up how many time Farrah Fawcett travelled to Germany for cancer treatments as an example.
QuoteUnfortunately you won't realize what I'm talking about since he extended the deadline for employer insurance until after the mid term elections but when you get your letter just suck it up and go with the flow. See ya at the clinic with who knows what doctor.
Nope, because unlike the menial jobs you've worked, my employer understands that to attract the caliber of employees they want, they have to offer an excellent benefit package.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 26, 2013, 04:08:44 PM
Please prove that people from developed countries routinely come to the U.S. for health care. You can't because they don't. If people in the U.S. have the money and more progressive treatment is available elsewhere, in Europe for example, they go there. Go look up how many time Farrah Fawcett travelled to Germany for cancer treatments as an example.
Nope, because unlike the menial jobs you've worked, my employer understands that to attract the caliber of employees they want, they have to offer an excellent benefit package.
Farrah Fawcett went to Germany for unconventional treatments that are not approved here and it obviously didn't work unfortunately. Bad example Ex, very bad example.
We'll see about that insurance thing when the employer requirements kick in next year. ;)
Quote from: me on November 26, 2013, 04:38:25 PM
Farrah Fawcett went to Germany for unconventional treatments that are not approved here and it obviously didn't work unfortunately. Bad example Ex, very bad example.
No, it's not. (http://www.cancerdefeated.com/newsletters/Farrah-Fawcetts-fatal-mistake.html) The fact remains that when rich people get cancer, their best options for treatment are not here in the U.S. but in Germany, a country with socialized health care. Your denial of the obvious notwithstanding, our health care in this country sucks (take a look at infant mortality rates, for example) but at least it's expensive!
QuoteWe'll see about that insurance thing when the employer requirements kick in next year. ;)
Our coverage is already compliant and won't change.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 27, 2013, 10:43:32 AM
. . .Our coverage is already compliant and won't change.
Ours is the same, except for a 5% increase in premiums.
Quote from: Exterminator on November 27, 2013, 10:43:32 AM
No, it's not. (http://www.cancerdefeated.com/newsletters/Farrah-Fawcetts-fatal-mistake.html) The fact remains that when rich people get cancer, their best options for treatment are not here in the U.S. but in Germany, a country with socialized health care. Your denial of the obvious notwithstanding, our health care in this country sucks (take a look at infant mortality rates, for example) but at least it's expensive!
Our coverage is already compliant and won't change. At least not until the extension expires.
Didn't read the disclaimer at the bottom did ya Ex?
QuoteHealth Disclaimer: The information provided above is not intended as personal medical advice or instructions. You should not take any action affecting your health without consulting a qualified health professional. The authors and publishers of the information above are not doctors or health-caregivers. The authors and publishers believe the information to be accurate but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. There is some risk associated with ANY cancer treatment, and the reader should not act on the information above unless he or she is willing to assume the full risk.
Quote from: me on November 27, 2013, 12:36:40 PM
Didn't read the disclaimer at the bottom did ya Ex?
Who gives a fuck about the disclaimer at the bottom? The reality is that no, the U.S. does not have the best health care in the world...not even close. You suffer from what I refer to as 'my dog' syndrome in which you think your dog is better than every other dog simply because it's yours. Do some research...our health care system is not that good despite being the most expensive in the world and your continuing to argue otherwise only highlights your ignorance on the subject.
Google: "u.s. health care comparison to other countries." (https://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=u.s.+health+care+comparison%5C&safe=active#q=u.s.+health+care+comparison+to+other+countries&safe=active)
Quote from: Exterminator on November 27, 2013, 02:35:47 PM
. . .and your continuing to argue otherwise only highlights your ignorance on the subject.
Amazing isn't it? :rolleyes:
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/bypass-surgery-800x568_zps3da4cd4f.jpg) (http://s475.photobucket.com/user/hlovett_2008/media/bypass-surgery-800x568_zps3da4cd4f.jpg.html)
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/office-visit-800x576_zps3a62b1d8.jpg) (http://s475.photobucket.com/user/hlovett_2008/media/office-visit-800x576_zps3a62b1d8.jpg.html)
(http://i475.photobucket.com/albums/rr111/hlovett_2008/angiogram-800x553_zpsa2c8d8dc.jpg) (http://s475.photobucket.com/user/hlovett_2008/media/angiogram-800x553_zpsa2c8d8dc.jpg.html)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/)
Now do the research on why all these charts read as they do. A blog????? Really?????? A blog????? I thought links with the word blog in them were to be disregarded. Guess it depends on who posts it huh?
On a side note, if he thinks all those advertisements telling people to discuss the HCRA tomorrow at their meal are gonna work he's hit his head. That is the last thing people are gonna be talking about tomorrow so that's more money wasted by the government to try to control us and run our lives. :rolleyes:
Quote from: me on November 27, 2013, 05:09:32 PM
Now do the research on why all these charts read as they do. A blog????? Really?????? A blog????? I thought links with the word blog in them were to be disregarded. Guess it depends on who posts it huh?
On a side note, if he thinks all those advertisements telling people to discuss the HCRA tomorrow at their meal are gonna work he's hit his head. That is the last thing people are gonna be talking about tomorrow so that's more money wasted by the government to try to control us and run our lives. :rolleyes:
You didn't even click the link did you? Had you done so you would have seen a lot more information linked to within the "blog" that substantiates and explains the charts and variances. . . that
are not blogs. :rolleyes:
See. You just don't get it, err. . . no. . . you just don't
want to get it.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 27, 2013, 07:28:12 PM
You didn't even click the link did you? Had you done so you would have seen a lot more information linked to within the "blog" that substantiates and explains the charts and variances. . . that are not blogs. :rolleyes:
See. You just don't get it, err. . . no. . . you just don't want to get it.
Gee, isn't that what I tried to tell some people about the link I posted to a video that had the word "blog" in it? Seems like there was a network newscast included which was the reason I posted the link I did. As a matter of fact I'm not sure the video was paid any attention to even after I posted the video direct from Youtube of the newscast. I would imagine the info is written by a far left blogger anyway so why bother?
Quote from: me on November 27, 2013, 08:02:36 PM
Gee, isn't that what I tried to tell some people about the link I posted to a video that had the word "blog" in it? Seems like there was a network newscast included which was the reason I posted the link I did. As a matter of fact I'm not sure the video was paid any attention to even after I posted the video direct from Youtube of the newscast. I would imagine the info is written by a far left blogger anyway so why bother?
Nope. I read and viewed everything you posted over that argument. You lost. Get over it and stop trying to drag others into the mud with you.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 27, 2013, 08:08:29 PM
Nope. I read and viewed everything you posted over that argument. You lost. Get over it and stop trying to drag others into the mud with you.
The whole point here is that I was told the info the link lead to was considered to be BS and invalid because it had the word blog in it, Now those may not be the exact words used but that's what it meant, and you did nothing to defend the link regardless of what the content was and then turn around and use one yourself, Ex has done the same. I have as much right to give you shit about it as you do to give me shit about it.
Quote from: me on November 27, 2013, 08:40:26 PM
The whole point here is that I was told the info the link lead to was considered to be BS and invalid because it had the word blog in it, Now those may not be the exact words used but that's what it meant, and you did nothing to defend the link regardless of what the content was and then turn around and use one yourself, Ex has done the same. I have as much right to give you shit about it as you do to give me shit about it.
What was true for one case is not true for all. . . Sheesh. . . Are you so hellbent for revenge that you will do and say anything to achieve it??? :spooked: :rolleyes:
You are quickly attaining a status identical to someone else I know. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 27, 2013, 10:24:58 PM
What was true for one case is not true for all. . . Sheesh. . . Are you so hellbent for revenge that you will do and say anything to achieve it??? :spooked: :rolleyes:
You are quickly attaining a status identical to someone else I know. . . :rolleyes:
Good, I've been workin' on it for sometime now..... :razz:
Quote from: me on November 27, 2013, 10:40:59 PM
Good, I've been workin' on it for sometime now..... :razz:
You're there. Congratulations. . . :rolleyes:
:food4: :me: :hat: :party: :dance:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 27, 2013, 11:25:34 PM
You're there. Congratulations. . . :rolleyes:
Quote from: Palehorse on November 27, 2013, 08:08:29 PM
Nope. I read and viewed everything you posted over that argument. You lost. Get over it and stop trying to drag others into the mud with you.
She still doesn't get it and never will. Note that when I asked her to post a link to that conversation so that we could reiterate the difference between the video linked to in the blog and the inference made about that video, she declined. She fucking knows she's wrong and just wants to argue. I pity any man that has ever had to live with that.
Quote from: Palehorse on November 27, 2013, 07:28:12 PM
You didn't even click the link did you? Had you done so you would have seen a lot more information linked to within the "blog" that substantiates and explains the charts and variances. . . that are not blogs. :rolleyes:
See. You just don't get it, err. . . no. . . you just don't want to get it.
Same thing here. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the inefficiency of our health care system...she doesn't care because she just wants to fucking argue. Doesn't matter if she's right or wrong, just wants to argue and clearly doesn't care how ignorant it makes her look.
http://www.youtube.com/v/AePE-Z_aYZ8
HCRA = Health Care Reform Awesomeness! :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on December 11, 2013, 12:44:55 PM
HCRA = Health Care Reform Awesomeness! :biggrin:
Only 34 percent believe the health law is a good idea (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/10/21852127-nbcwsj-poll-obama-ends-year-on-low-note?lite)
In case anyone gives a rats ass that friend of mine who had that medicine jerked from her finally got the ok for it thanks to her doctors persistence. I do so hope she's lucky enough to win the battle she's fighting to be able to keep him as her doctor too.
I may surprise you, but I am quite happy with Paul Ryan and his proposal for a new budget deal. I think HE is showing a great deal of leadership that is badly needed right now. He is going to take a lot of heat by GOP'ers, but I think he sealed a decent deal that allows ALL politicians to focus on more important issues and allows our economy a "chance" to move forward. As of now, he will be MY hopeful candidate for 2016. Of course a lot can change before now and then....
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 11, 2013, 04:40:31 PM
Only 34 percent believe the health law is a good idea.
Who cares? It's the law!
Quote from: Exterminator on December 12, 2013, 09:31:09 AM
Who cares? It's the law!
I care.....it is a BAD one. It needs to be changed.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 12, 2013, 10:07:03 AM
I care.....it is a BAD one. It needs to be changed.
It will continue to evolve and in 10 years everyone will be asking why we didn't put something like it in place long ago. And of course, those of you who've criticized it so vehemently will be looked at in the same light as the fools who predicted social security or any number of other social programs would be the end of the world.
Quote from: Exterminator on December 12, 2013, 10:58:47 AM
It will continue to evolve and in 10 years everyone will be asking why we didn't put something like it in place long ago. And of course, those of you who've criticized it so vehemently will be looked at in the same light as the fools who predicted social security or any number of other social programs would be the end of the world.
Yeah, that Social Security thing is doing GREAT isn't it.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 12, 2013, 11:30:34 AM
Yeah, that Social Security thing is doing GREAT isn't it.
I'm sure you would prefer lots of homeless old people but you'll be the first one with your hand in that cookie jar when you're eligible. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Exterminator on December 12, 2013, 11:39:36 AM
I'm sure you would prefer lots of homeless old people but you'll be the first one with your hand in that cookie jar when you're eligible. :rolleyes:
whatever, the fact is it is a mess. NO, I do NOT perfer LOTS of homeless old people...I prefer that our government quit spending money they don't have. They robbed peter to pay paul.
You lost; get over it, cry-baby! :razz:
Quote from: Exterminator on December 12, 2013, 01:37:00 PM
You lost; get over it, cry-baby! :razz:
WE ALL DID...:razz:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 12, 2013, 01:43:55 PM
WE ALL DID...:razz:
You got that right. Unfortunately there are some who don't realize it yet.
Quote from: me on December 12, 2013, 01:46:01 PM
You got that right. Unfortunately there are some who don't realize it yet.
No,
you lost;
we won! :yes:
Quote from: Exterminator on December 12, 2013, 01:57:28 PM
No, you lost; we won! :yes:
Whatever Skippy, you may be in for a big surprise next year then we'll see. I truly hope not but your being so self assured and cocky about it means if you're wrong you'd better not be bitchin' about it on here 'cause HH and I are damn sure gonna rub it in.
Quote from: me on December 12, 2013, 05:05:47 PM
Whatever Skippy, you may be in for a big surprise next year then we'll see. I truly hope not but your being so self assured and cocky about it means if you're wrong you'd better not be bitchin' about it on here 'cause HH and I are damn sure gonna rub it in.
Nope, not in for any surprises next year or the year after that.
Quote from: Exterminator on December 13, 2013, 09:46:31 AM
Nope, not in for any surprises next year or the year after that.
That's what a lot of people thought. :wink:
Quote from: me on December 13, 2013, 11:55:29 AM
That's what a lot of people thought. :wink:
I know this.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on December 12, 2013, 01:43:55 PM
WE ALL DID...:razz:
"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."
~Barack Obama~
I surmise you're as willfully ignorant as the other intellectually dishonest clods from the RW Noize Machine.
Obama's point always carried with it the implicit disclaimer "as long as the plan complies with the law".
You're welcome for my explaining that to y'all...and Merry Christmas! :wink:
Quote from: Y on December 24, 2013, 05:33:30 PM
I surmise you're as willfully ignorant as the other intellectually dishonest clods from the RW Noize Machine.
Obama's point always carried with it the implicit disclaimer "as long as the plan complies with the law".
You're welcome for my explaining that to y'all...and Merry Christmas! :wink:
"As long as it complies with the law" was a revision after the fact as was changing the law without going through the proper channels.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/deerladie/Pelosipoormemory_zps22dd95dc.jpg)
Why don't you give it Sweet Pea, HCRA is the law. :doh: :trustme: :biggrin:
I have two first hand experiences with the new law. One is very good friend of mine who owns his own business, just found out that Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield will no longer provide the insurance plan he was on, due to the new law on obamacare, and will cancel them in April. His cost now thru Obamacare has doubled and costs him $600 per month.
Same thing with my sister and brother-in-law.....he is losing his employ insurance where he works and his personal out of pocket will cost him an additional $200 a month above what he was paying.
This thing is a disaster.
So, far it has not affected me, but I am waiting for the rug to be pulled out and any given time.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 28, 2014, 01:19:58 PM
I have two first hand experiences with the new law. One is very good friend of mine who owns his own business, just found out that Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield will no longer provide the insurance plan he was on, due to the new law on obamacare, and will cancel them in April. His cost now thru Obamacare has doubled and costs him $600 per month.
Same thing with my sister and brother-in-law.....he is losing his employ insurance where he works and his personal out of pocket will cost him an additional $200 a month above what he was paying.
This thing is a disaster.
So, far it has not affected me, but I am waiting for the rug to be pulled out and any given time.
For some reason I just don't believe you. :yes: I have heard so many stories like that, when the truth came out the story was false. :yes:
Quote from: The Troll on January 29, 2014, 12:42:42 PM
For some reason I just don't believe you. :yes: I have heard so many stories like that, when the truth came out the story was false. :yes:
Troll, there has been many time I haven't believed in a word that you have said, so I can identify with you. But, I am telling you the 100%, honest, factual truth. These two cases are by people I know who are simply telling the facts that has happened to them. I have heard several stories similar and wondered my self, but NOW, it has hit close to home. I think we are only going to hear more and more about such horrible stories.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 29, 2014, 12:47:00 PM
Troll, there has been many time I haven't believed in a word that you have said, so I can identify with you. But, I am telling you the 100%, honest, factual truth. These two cases are by people I know who are simply telling the facts that has happened to them. I have heard several stories similar and wondered my self, but NOW, it has hit close to home. I think we are only going to hear more and more about such horrible stories.
Yes I have heard of the terrible, terrible, terrible stories of were it cost a little more, but when the truth came out the new insurance was so much better, covered so many more things that their old insurance didn't have and was a con game and almost worthless when the people really need it. Quit watching Fox News and all of those Republicans bloggs. They are lying to you Henry. :yes: :smile:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 28, 2014, 01:19:58 PM
I have two first hand experiences with the new law. One is very good friend of mine who owns his own business, just found out that Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield will no longer provide the insurance plan he was on, due to the new law on obamacare, and will cancel them in April. His cost now thru Obamacare has doubled and costs him $600 per month.
Same thing with my sister and brother-in-law.....he is losing his employ insurance where he works and his personal out of pocket will cost him an additional $200 a month above what he was paying.
This thing is a disaster.
So, far it has not affected me, but I am waiting for the rug to be pulled out and any given time.
What kind of insurance can you get for $300/month? Seriously?
I pay $846/month for Blue Cross/Blue Shield through our company plan.
I, too, have a hard time believing that story.
Quote from: The Troll on January 29, 2014, 01:01:00 PM
Yes I have heard of the terrible, terrible, terrible stories of were it cost a little more, but when the truth came out the new insurance was so much better, covered so many more things that their old insurance didn't have and was a con game and almost worthless when the people really need it. Quit watching Fox News and all of those Republicans bloggs. They are lying to you Henry. :yes: :smile:
This news I told you about did not come from FoxNews. It came directly from a friend and my sister. Both cases, the cost is going up over $200 a month than what they were paying. Both still have a high deductible to meet. They didn't say if it was better, but the fact is, they are FORCED to belly up more money a month on something they was content with before. THAT is WRONG.
Quote from: Bo D on January 29, 2014, 01:03:38 PM
What kind of insurance can you get for $300/month? Seriously?
I pay $846/month for Blue Cross/Blue Shield through our company plan.
I, too, have a hard time believing that story.
It was for him and his son, with a high deductible. He says he got the cheapest available because they both are healthy and have never had to use it. He was willing to take that risk.
This really isn't that hard to believe, just google it and drop in on about a thousand forums with people bitchin about this very topic. IT IS INDEED HAPPENING.
Quote from: Henry Hawk on January 29, 2014, 01:13:12 PM
It was for him and his son, with a high deductible. He says he got the cheapest available because they both are healthy and have never had to use it. He was willing to take that risk.
This really isn't that hard to believe, just google it and drop in on about a thousand forums with people bitchin about this very topic. IT IS INDEED HAPPENING.
"cheapest available"
That says it all right there.
I googled it before I even posted and I saw that Anthem is in trouble in several states for selling no-good policies.
My daughter paid $400 a month for her company insurance and it was much better than my medicare and BC/BS combined. It covered her family, husband, and 5 children. She just changed jobs so I don't know what her premium is now. My cousin who has stage 4 breast cancer checked out the health care exchanges and couldn't find anything cheaper and none that let her keep all her doctors. She kept her old insurance because she said it paid almost all her medical bills.
Quote from: Bo D on January 29, 2014, 01:16:10 PM
"cheapest available"
That says it all right there.
I googled it before I even posted and I saw that Anthem is in trouble in several states for selling no-good policies.
You know, that's strange since Anthem has always been one of the better insurers and, as a matter of fact, is who I have as well as several other people I know. Of course that's not employee ins but that is also who carried my ex's employee ins and they were quite good.
Quote from: Anne on January 29, 2014, 03:28:43 PM
My daughter paid $400 a month for her company insurance and it was much better than my medicare and BC/BS combined. It covered her family, husband, and 5 children. She just changed jobs so I don't know what her premium is now. My cousin who has stage 4 breast cancer checked out the health care exchanges and couldn't find anything cheaper and none that let her keep all her doctors. She kept her old insurance because she said it paid almost all her medical bills.
Annie, how much are you now paying for your insurance? Huh? Give us a break. :sa:
Same as you.
I have Anthem Blue Cross. It is decent. My employer pays the bulk of it. I have a $500 deductible per each member of my family. It pays 80% of most everything, but 20% of an MRI can STILL be expensive. THAT is what needs fixed. The high cost of proceedures.
Anthem tried to raise rates by as much as 39% after turning a profit $4.75 Billion. After massive outrage, they scaled back the increase to 14%. They sold substandard, cut-rate policies and then were sued for forcing policy holders to take coverage with fewer benefits and higher deductibles. They cancelled policies without giving policy holders the required notice and were forced by California to delay the cancellations.
Typical sleazy insurance company tactics.
Quote from: Bo D on January 30, 2014, 01:16:43 PM
Anthem tried to raise rates by as much as 39% after turning a profit $4.75 Billion. After massive outrage, they scaled back the increase to 14%. They sold substandard, cut-rate policies and then were sued for forcing policy holders to take coverage with fewer benefits and higher deductibles. They cancelled policies without giving policy holders the required notice and were forced by California to delay the cancellations.
Typical sleazy insurance company tactics.
Got proof?
Quote from: me on January 30, 2014, 06:16:21 PM
Got proof?
Spooky, you doubt that an insurance company would try to raise their rates. :rolleyes: Get a life Spook Baby. :lol:
Quote from: me on January 30, 2014, 06:16:21 PM
Got proof?
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/taxonomy/term/467/all (http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/taxonomy/term/467/all)
This could happen here too ya know. Ya, the UK is soooo lucky to have government healthcare and we need to be like them. This is what is going on with it there. Could be this type of thing is the reason most of them think we are nuts for going this route. ;)
http://action.sumofus.org/a/nhs-patient-corporations/2/3/?sub=fb
According to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, that 10 years from now there will still be 30 million people without health insurance, which is the same number of people that have not got insurance now, today.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf)
Wasn't that the point in the first place?
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 18, 2014, 03:08:05 PM
According to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, that 10 years from now there will still be 30 million people without health insurance, which is the same number of people that have not got insurance now, today.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf)
Wasn't that the point in the first place?
What is your point Bunky? There will always be uninsured people, always be people unemployed. Always be poor people and always be rich people and dumbass people who will vote Republican. :choo: :choo: :choo: :haha:
Quote from: Henry Hawk on February 18, 2014, 03:08:05 PM
According to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, that 10 years from now there will still be 30 million people without health insurance, which is the same number of people that have not got insurance now, today.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf)
Wasn't that the point in the first place?
Check your link.
Page not found
The requested page could not be found.
What we have to look forward with the HCRA. One of my fb friends who live in the UK posted this.
Quote
Dave Stephens
8 hrs · Reading, United Kingdom ·
Just goes to show what TWATS we have for Doctors, we was sitting with the Doc, whilst he tried to work out how to print off a prescription, then Adam started to choke on a biscuit, I immediately stuck my fingers down his throat and managed after a very short while to dislodge the blockage, The twat took no notice at all and carried on messing about on the fucking Computer. Luckily Pia and I kept calm and did not rip him a new asshole, although we would have liked too.
LikeLike · · Share
Samantha Quincy Pinder WTF?
7 hrs · Like · 1
Pia Stephens Yeah a "brilliant" new Gp who has just started at the practise and who I hope we never have to see again x
7 hrs · Like · 1
Mickytwoscoops Johnson was he English ?
7 hrs · Like · 1
Pia Stephens No, he had relatively lousy language skills so I doubt he has been here for very long, probably just enough to get his permit to practise here
7 hrs · Like · 1
Mickytwoscoops Johnson decidedly dodgy then ,so sorry the little fella had such an experience ,just hope it has not scared him for life .
7 hrs · Like · 1
Petri Nyfors I was going to ask about the origin of the doc...fuck with these "doctors" who can't even speak the language!
5 hrs · Like · 1
Dave Pratt Should have reported him
3 hrs · Like · 1
Dave Stephens We could have reported him, but as like always if we go for one certain member of the family they won't discuss any other problem that someone else of the family has, as their excuse is "they are not the patient I am here to see" so to this twat Adam choking was not his problem
1 hr · Like
Vikki Montague Poor little dude hope he's okay... Kick the doctors arse! I agree on them not being good tho my hospital managed to completely lose my brain scan results... Kinda scary that we put our trust in these people x
56 mins · Like · 1
Dave Stephens He is fine, luckily he is made of hard stuff and not alot of things phase him, FFS how the hell can they lose something that is so bloody important? xxx
44 mins · Like
Vikki Montague Ha this is a question I asked them to which the doctor just shouted at someone else to fix it.... Who knows lol x
42 mins · Like
Pia Stephens That is absolutely appalling service, hopefully they found them and gave you the results before you left the hospital xxx
38 mins · Like
What does that exchange even remotely have to do with the HCRA?
Selective Health Care??
Quote from: Exterminator on July 24, 2014, 09:07:50 AM
What does that exchange even remotely have to do with the HCRA?
The kind of care the average person can expect after this is fully implemented.
Quote from: me on July 24, 2014, 04:01:47 PM
The kind of care the average person can expect after this is fully implemented.
Yeah, yeah ... like we can expect you to use critical thinking to figure that out .... :rolleyes:
And they STILL can grow grapes in England.
Quote from: Bo D on July 24, 2014, 04:09:17 PM
Yeah, yeah ... like we can expect you to use critical thinking to figure that out .... :rolleyes:
And they STILL can grow grapes in England.
You know damn well they can't grow grapes and make wine in England. :haha: :haha:
Another example of what to expect when the HCRA fully kicks in.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/deerladie/Obama%20political%20for%20forum/ForforumaboutHRA_zpse4bc6a4e.jpg)
Quote from: me on August 16, 2014, 10:08:51 PM
Another example of what to expect when the HCRA fully kicks in.
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y286/deerladie/Obama%20political%20for%20forum/ForforumaboutHRA_zpse4bc6a4e.jpg)
Can't you find something that isn't plain bullshit, Clarabell. :jester:
What does that have to do with the HCRA?
Quote from: Exterminator on August 17, 2014, 08:05:02 PM
What does that have to do with the HCRA?
Really.
I never knew South Africa was a State in the Union!
They have health care and only the rich can go to the good doctors. You think it won't get like that here you're sadly mistaken.
Posting such hyperbole serves only as a reminder of your aversion to critical thought. :rolleyes:
You just don't get it do you? That is reality, your critical thinking is theory. It may work perfect on paper or in thought but your critical thinking is like the engineer who says, "well, it worked on paper", as the building crumbles because his design didn't work in reality.
Actually, it's you who doesn't get it. Structural engineers rely on well established rules of physics in their designs; their buildings don't crumble.
Anyone who has been to an emergency room knows being seen by the docs is always set up by level of emergency. If you're not in dire medical straits, you'll be waiting until after those who are have been seen to.
Anyone who has been to an emergency room knows that far too many people use them as their primary physician which means emergency rooms are overcrowded with non-emergency patients which leads to long wait times.
It's not rocket science, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the AHCA...and that's not to mention other countries aren't examples of results, implementations, or the future of the AHCA.
Quote from: Exterminator on August 18, 2014, 08:55:13 AM
Actually, it's you who doesn't get it. Structural engineers rely on well established rules of physics in their designs; their buildings don't crumble.
You forget my ex was an Ironworker for over 30 years and, no, the engineers designs didn't always work out like they were supposed to.
Quote from: Y on August 18, 2014, 09:34:21 AM
Anyone who has been to an emergency room knows being seen by the docs is always set up by level of emergency. If you're not in dire medical straits, you'll be waiting until after those who are have been seen to.
Anyone who has been to an emergency room knows that far too many people use them as their primary physician which means emergency rooms are overcrowded with non-emergency patients which leads to long wait times.
It's not rocket science, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the AHCA...and that's not to mention other countries aren't examples of results, implementations, or the future of the AHCA.
You keep right on thinking that if you wish but don't be surprised when this thing kicks in to the full extent. See you in the clinic line for who knows what overworked doctor. :wink:
Quote from: me on August 18, 2014, 01:17:50 PM
You forget my ex was an Ironworker for over 30 years and, no, the engineers designs didn't always work out like they were supposed to.
You keep right on thinking that if you wish but don't be surprised when this thing kicks in to the full extent. See you in the clinic line for who knows what overworked doctor. :wink:
Clara Bell :jester: Nothing is perfect in this world and man and you god isn't perfect. You're just blowing more :bs: :bs: :bs: :bs:
Aw, poor babies. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/04/papa-johns-applebees-and-others-pay-huge-price-for-anti-obamacare-politicking/)
Quote from: Exterminator on February 12, 2015, 10:47:38 AM
Aw, poor babies. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/04/papa-johns-applebees-and-others-pay-huge-price-for-anti-obamacare-politicking/)
That's the best story I've read all morning.
As an aside, I never knew why Papa John's became so popular. I think their pizza sucks.
Quote from: Locutus on February 12, 2015, 11:54:39 AM
That's the best story I've read all morning.
As an aside, I never knew why Papa John's became so popular. I think their pizza sucks.
I agree...no spices in the sauce whatsoever!
Not sure if you clicked on the link in the story but Forbes' prior criticism (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/11/15/the-corporate-blackmailing-of-america-is-now-all-the-rage/) of their ridiculous stance was an interesting read as well and reveals the truth about the ACA's costs to business.
Another example of government interferrence into business. Oh, and I don't patronize most of those places anyway so they could go out of business tomorrow and I wouldn't miss them in the least. Of course there are those places where they aren't saying they're cutting back hours even further since that little rule on the 30 hr work week took effect but it is happening so the only people it hurt were the workers who will see their hours cut from 39 to 29 pr wk.
Quote from: me on February 12, 2015, 01:25:21 PM
Another example of government interferrence into business.
If people could be counted on to do what's right, the government wouldn't have to interfere. If you don't want government interference into you business and/or life, go buy yourself a private island, build your own infrastructure, move there and do whatever you want.
QuoteOh, and I don't patronize most of those places anyway so they could go out of business tomorrow and I wouldn't miss them in the least. Of course there are those places where they aren't saying they're cutting back hours even further since that little rule on the 30 hr work week took effect but it is happening so the only people it hurt were the workers who will see their hours cut from 39 to 29 pr wk.
As these businesses could have done but they decided to use this as a platform for their political ideologies and it came back to bite them in the ass.
Quote from: Exterminator on February 12, 2015, 01:37:22 PM
If people could be counted on to do what's right, the government wouldn't have to interfere. If you don't want government interference into you business and/or life, go buy yourself a private island, build your own infrastructure, move there and do whatever you want.
As these businesses could have done but they decided to use this as a platform for their political ideologies and it came back to bite them in the ass.
But, as usual, the interferrence made things worse for the average worker.
Quote from: me on February 12, 2015, 02:20:42 PM
But, as usual, the interferrence made things worse for the average worker.
Because now they have access to health care?
Quote from: Exterminator on February 12, 2015, 03:01:08 PM
Because now they have access to health care?
Not if they end up with no job.
Quote from: me on February 12, 2015, 03:48:50 PM
Not if they end up with no job.
And if an asteroid impacts the earth, none of this will matter. :rolleyes:
:nocomment: