billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,228
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 20, 2013 14:29:49 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity I was wondering where all the naysayers against voter ID laws are? You know, the laws that unfairly targeted the poor and minorities because it was to difficult for these people to travel and get legal ID. I was wondering why these same people are quiet about people who have to travel to get a health care navigator or borrow a computer because they can't afford one. Where is the outrage? Great point! Hypocritical bastards!! Now back to our show
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 12:22:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2013 14:34:00 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity I was wondering where all the naysayers against voter ID laws are? You know, the laws that unfairly targeted the poor and minorities because it was to difficult for these people to travel and get legal ID. I was wondering why these same people are quiet about people who have to travel to get a health care navigator or borrow a computer because they can't afford one. Where is the outrage? Great point! Hypocritical bastards!! Now back to our show
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 20, 2013 14:47:30 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 20, 2013 15:17:35 GMT -5
this position is definitely a straddle. the mandate may have to be scrapped for the first year.
|
|
flow5
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:18:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,778
|
Post by flow5 on Dec 21, 2013 13:44:43 GMT -5
Both my parents taught, practiced, & are published. They are both recognized either internationally or nationally.
You can already check the number of physicians bailing, & if you understood their costs structures, you could easily project their demise.
You can't replace quality care with technicians. They aren't trained to diagnose medical problems. The system is set up to get repeat visits as the upcoming incompetence proliferates.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 22, 2013 22:57:52 GMT -5
Both my parents taught, practiced, & are published. They are both recognized either internationally or nationally.
You can already check the number of physicians bailing, & if you understood their costs structures, you could easily project their demise.
You can't replace quality care with technicians. They aren't trained to diagnose medical problems. The system is set up to get repeat visits as the upcoming incompetence proliferates. I don't doubt you- there's no reason to. However, there is plenty of reason to doubt the defenders of ObamaCare and government run anything. The fact of the matter is that there's no longer any rational defense of ObamaCare. I think from here on out, since the promoters of ObamaCare are proven liars, and if not outright liars like the President, then dead wrong we ought to look to those who have been critical, and opposed this from the start. We ought to listen to the opposition which has been proven correct. In the real world- that's what you do. You weigh both sides of an argument and the credibility of the participants- and it's all the better when you have the real world results. We know now- we know Obama and the Democrats were wrong and/or outright lying about the supposed benefits of ObamaCare. We know they have destabilized health insurance coverage for millions- their own projections are 100 million cancellations, a doubling of premiums, and a tripling of deductibles on average for those that retain coverage after being canceled. This is a nightmare- and the regime is now basically repealing the law on their own- exempting some people for 'hardship'. This law is a hardship on the whole country, and the only acceptable response to it is #FullRepeal and FIRE everyone who had anything to do with it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 23, 2013 8:37:19 GMT -5
I don't doubt you- there's no reason to. However, there is plenty of reason to doubt the defenders of ObamaCare and government run anything. The fact of the matter is that there's no longer any rational defense of ObamaCare. I think from here on out, since the promoters of ObamaCare are proven liars, and if not outright liars like the President, then dead wrong we ought to look to those who have been critical, and opposed this from the start. We ought to listen to the opposition which has been proven correct. The opposition has proven nothing. The opposition has trash talked this legislation since it was first proposed. The opposition has jumped on every inevitable glitch and snafu like a hungry lion on fresh prey. The opposition is still terrified that as the system comes on line people will- like it.In the real world- that's what you do. You weigh both sides of an argument and the credibility of the participants- and it's all the better when you have the real world results. We know now- we know Obama and the Democrats were wrong and/or outright lying about the supposed benefits of ObamaCare. We know they have destabilized health insurance coverage for millions- their own projections are 100 million cancellations, a doubling of premiums, and a tripling of deductibles on average for those that retain coverage after being canceled. The estimate is actually six million substandard policies will be cancelled- policies that don't protect you when you really need them for such debilitating illnesses as cancer and heart disease because they have low limitations on costs for these financially ruinous afflictions. Not only are they worthless, people are often lied to or misled as to what they cover.
As to costs, premiums are in some cases less, some cases about the same, and in some cases a little bit more. Deductibles are typically much lower. (I know mine would be).This is a nightmare- and the regime is now basically repealing the law on their own- exempting some people for 'hardship'. This law is a hardship on the whole country, and the only acceptable response to it is #FullRepeal and FIRE everyone who had anything to do with it. There are too many people who want it to repeal it. Lets improve it! Repealing it would vastly improve it.
|
|
AGB
Familiar Member
Joined: Jun 9, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
Posts: 745
|
Post by AGB on Dec 23, 2013 10:20:02 GMT -5
If this doesn't help enrollment, nothing will... NSFW...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 12:22:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2013 10:56:03 GMT -5
LOL. As soon as the Republicans come up with a viable alternative (rather than crocodile tears) we may be able to consider it.... The route of government controlled health care doesn't have to be taken so a viable alternative isn't a requirement. I'm for repeal and using tax dollars to reign in insurance, medicare, and medicaid fraud to help lower medical costs.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 23, 2013 14:32:49 GMT -5
As I've said, the alternative to central planning and government control is: No. No! IS the alternative.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 23, 2013 16:21:16 GMT -5
This is what the GOP system looks like in action: www.ramusa.org/Such a freaking disgrace that this country is taking these resources away from truly needy people because they can't fix the damn system. The middle of an American city is not a remote area. I see they are headed to Houston- where I am sure they will be treating plenty of those that would have qualified for Medicaid if not for the whole 'spite Obama' plan.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Dec 23, 2013 16:47:46 GMT -5
The middle of an American city is not a remote area. no but many are "no man's lands"
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 24, 2013 4:08:25 GMT -5
If anything Obamacare's fatal flaw should be obvious- he made a deal with the devil. Insurance companies sunk half the boat at the start and are now in a position to derail it- though I think they will take themselves out at the same time.
Every piece of this legislation realized relies on what insurance companies do- or really what they can get away with. And all of the while these private enterprises run health care in this country their allies on the right scream about eugenics and death panels. Insurance companies choose networks, choose providers- not government. Insurance companies choose who lives and dies- subject to the government controls that are at least limiting the deaths they normally support. Take the government out- and you will see real death panels- not even panels really- just a denial letter in the mail. They already exist, have existed for a long time, and will continue to exist as long as the spineless left panders to these bloodsuckers instead of putting them out of business.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 24, 2013 9:20:13 GMT -5
"The estimate is actually six million substandard policies will be cancelled- policies that don't protect you when you really need them for such debilitating illnesses as cancer and heart disease because they have low limitations on costs for these financially ruinous afflictions. Not only are they worthless, people are often lied to or misled as to what they cover.
As to costs, premiums are in some cases less, some cases about the same, and in some cases a little bit more. Deductibles are typically much lower. (I know mine would be)."
I would have to see your supporting link to these claims. Many people I know, have talked to and work with including the plan with BCBS that our family has used for over 20 years has been eliminated as a result of this law. These were high deductible plans, were also very affordable and had good catostrophic coverage. Ours worked and suited our risk category very well. The new plans we have looked at have much higher premiums and the deductibles are even higher. I would at least like you to recognize that there is another category that should be added to your comment. "in some cases the cost is a lot more." I'm not even here to say the law is completely bad. There are some things about it I could actually support but defending it as a whole, believing their obvious lies about it or thinking that the federal government should be controlling our health care system? Not so much.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 24, 2013 9:40:11 GMT -5
"As I've said, the alternative to central planning and government control is: No. No! IS the alternative." Then you never lived the alternative and you probably never will unless you move out of America. Insurance is the most highly regulated product that exists. Government control of healthcare existed before you were born and God willing will be there until you die. We have more deaths due to medical device failure than some first world countries as our regulations are much more lax. Here you can have a pacemaker that fails roughly every 7 years. Elsewhere you might only need to surgery to replace it every 20.(this stat made up, above remembered per patient conversation on their third pacemaker.) Or you can have your government free utopia where the sucker fails at unexplained times and some people die from complications of the failure mode ... especially those infant mortality cases which would no longer require watching.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Dec 24, 2013 13:34:14 GMT -5
Juan's in far left field with that opinion piece. He doesn't even mention who's estimates he is using or who determined that my coverage was not adequate. It was obvious from day one that the "if I liked my insurance I could keep it" comment was not true. I remember telling my DW the day Obama first said it that it was impossible since his regulations made our insurance illegal. This is not the insurance companies fault it is the law. My previous insurance worked well and was affordable. It is not now and that is the case for many working americans. If they think 5% of the population is non consequential than why not just exempt us from the law like they did themselves and others? We really would have no effect right?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 24, 2013 21:04:22 GMT -5
From the link in #1362:
Not to say that Paul would ever post anything untrue (or from sources who are, shall we say, less than unbiased) , but....
I'm trying to see where this qualifies as, "ludicrously embarrassing" and how it could have been "extensively discussed" without even approaching the barest relationship to truth. Or should I assume that is just par-for-the-course with his sources?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 24, 2013 23:59:25 GMT -5
From the link in #1362: Not to say that Paul would ever post anything untrue (or from sources who are, shall we say, less than unbiased) , but.... I'm trying to see where this qualifies as, "ludicrously embarrassing" and how it could have been "extensively discussed" without even approaching the barest relationship to truth. Or should I assume that is just par-for-the-course with his sources? it is bad enough not getting the enrollment right- but not getting the goal right is....well, i am thinking of something stronger than embarrassing.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 25, 2013 0:11:33 GMT -5
In fairness, the stated goal of 340,000 was likely for the entire period. The 130,000 goal was by January 1. But still, with 65,000 completed and another 69,000 awaiting only final payment (now due I believe on Jan. 15) to be classified as enrolled, that would be just about right on target. And that does not include the Medicaid enrollees.
Would it be in poor taste to give a hearty thank-you to the red states for subsidizing our Medicaid for us? Actually, I guess it doesn't matter. They are almost all takers anyway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 25, 2013 11:31:32 GMT -5
In fairness, the stated goal of 340,000 was likely for the entire period. The 130,000 goal was by January 1. But still, with 65,000 completed and another 69,000 awaiting only final payment (now due I believe on Jan. 15) to be classified as enrolled, that would be just about right on target. And that does not include the Medicaid enrollees. Would it be in poor taste to give a hearty thank-you to the red states for subsidizing our Medicaid for us? Actually, I guess it doesn't matter. They are almost all takers anyway. it's pretty clear that the machine that runs politics in the US is going to run non-stop hating on the ACA to see if they can roll it back. facts be damned.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Dec 26, 2013 10:22:05 GMT -5
69,000 awaiting only final payment.
It's not a done deal until the money is in hand. looks like 65000 have signed up.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 26, 2013 11:17:12 GMT -5
69,000 awaiting only final payment. It's not a done deal until the money is in hand. looks like 65000 have signed up. which is, i believe, 8x as much as the OP claims.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 4, 2014 18:50:09 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 4, 2014 18:51:29 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 4, 2014 18:53:17 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 4, 2014 19:12:30 GMT -5
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jan 5, 2014 8:18:08 GMT -5
Some of us who "support" the ACA actually support the concept that healthcare should be something that all citizens have access to, and see the ACA, AKA Obamacare, as an imperfect but very real first step toward that goal.
The core debate to me isn't about deficits, socialism, taxes or Rep vs. Dem. It is- Should all Americans have access to quality healthcare?
My own answer to that question is unequivocally- YES!
If so- and most of us have weighed in on how we answer that question at one time or another- then the next question becomes How do we achieve that in a sustainable way? Maybe the ACA will need tweaking, you think? But it is the first politically achievable move forward for the solid majority of Americans who do answer yes to the above question.
As to the reason for this thread, which is dedicated to wishfully predicting the failure of the ACA, it stands as such. Perhaps it's author will address the hope that it does fail before it starts, because once it does start it will be next to impossible to roll back? That may be the reason for the stridency of the thread and most of the sources quoted therein. First and foremost you have to define exactly what you mean by "access" Deminmaine. There is nothing that bars entry (Definition 2b) freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something. Cost may be prohibitive, but the ability to get is not denied. What we need here is less access (Definition 1b) a fit of intense feeling. Changing the rules so the usual 2 year wait penalty of a pre-existing condition is removed Great change, forcing someone who has had a vasectomy to purchase Maternity coverage and pediatrics, Dumb as hell! All Definitions taken from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/access
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 5, 2014 8:41:55 GMT -5
deminmaine - the problem is that government cannot change the fundamentals of supply and demand. You cannot force someone to provide a product or service more cheaply 'just because', and you can't force people to buy a product or service they do not want. Oh, you can do it for a time- but sooner or later you discover why the Berlin Wall was built to keep people IN, not out of their wonderful Utopia. Access to 'coverage' is not the same as access to care. The reason the ACA is in a death spiral is that it has made a promise that can NEVER be delivered upon.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jan 5, 2014 9:54:18 GMT -5
First and foremost you have to define exactly what you mean by "access" Deminmaine. There is nothing that bars entry (Definition 2b) freedom or ability to obtain or make use of something. Cost may be prohibitive, but the ability to get is not denied. What we need here is less access (Definition 1b) a fit of intense feeling. Changing the rules so the usual 2 year wait penalty of a pre-existing condition is removed Great change, forcing someone who has had a vasectomy to purchase Maternity coverage and pediatrics, Dumb as hell! All Definitions taken from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accessOK, access was a poor choice of words. Of course what was meant was practical ability for all to utilize our health care system. Cost is often prohibitive, as is the proclivity to purchase coverage until needed. We have a system meant for access for all which is not used for all, and not paid for by all.
My basic question stands- Should all Americans have access to health care?
Not all Americans do. Over 30 million don't. Many million more have access to limited care. Others have access to care that disappears soon after they really need it. It is beyond dysfunctional- it is stupid.
I also disagree that it is stupid to not limit care. That is the basis of the unethical standard of insurance care we have- parsing and limiting care by condition and group. That is one way in which they avoid paying for much basic care. We've been over this before. All should pay so all will benefit.
Then my answer would have to be, All American's have access to healthcare, all American's do not have access to quality Health Insurance.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,488
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2014 13:00:03 GMT -5
deminmaine - the problem is that government cannot change the fundamentals of supply and demand. You cannot force someone to provide a product or service more cheaply 'just because', and you can't force people to buy a product or service they do not want. Oh, you can do it for a time- but sooner or later you discover why the Berlin Wall was built to keep people IN, not out of their wonderful Utopia. Access to 'coverage' is not the same as access to care. The reason the ACA is in a death spiral is that it has made a promise that can NEVER be delivered upon. the ACA is not about increasing supply or reducing demand. it is about providing a mechanism whereby all citizens have access, not to healthcare (they already have that, in the trivial sense), but to INSURANCE. since insurance is a funding mechanism, to pay for it is to have it. whether it works or not is another matter entirely- but there is literally exactly the supply of insurance that the market demands. now, if you are saying that the ACA "manufactures" (i would use the word mandates here, but your choice) demand for INSURANCE, that is true. but since this is purely a financial mechanism, supply and demand will be in balance, even in a 100% socialized system. what you are positing is that the presence of insurance alters the supply/demand landscape for SERVICES which are paid for by that insurance. i would agree with that. it moves the ball from emergency and critical care services toward preventive care services. if that is, in fact, what happens, this would be a very good trend for the US. if that does, in fact, happen, then the cost of INSURANCE should drop, as the cost of preventative services is far lower than critical care. my problem with your caterwauling is that you offer nothing other than the absolutely wretched INSURANCE we had before. that is not going to work. if you have no alternative, then the ACA, no matter how wretched, will stand.
|
|