djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 11:35:21 GMT -5
you know what is so lame about this? if the states had just set up their own exchanges, there would probably be no complaints. their refusal to do that has overburdened the federal website, and caused the complaints. this is a typical tactic: sabotage the government then point at it and say "it doesn't work". edit: the reason i posted this is that the federal site worked well enough for me this morning that it directed me to the CA site, which works perfectly, according to everyone i have spoken to. edit2: if someone has the time, could they please run a total of the population of the 16 states that have their own exchanges, and the 7 that have partnership exchanges? Just like the feds wanted states to accept the expansion of medicaid.....they CANT AFFORD ITA number of governors, particularly in red states, have stood their ideological ground and chosen not to expand, citing concerns about the additional financial burden. The federal government will pay for 100% of the expansion for the first three years, then gradually reduce its subsidy to 90% by 2020. (lets add a shitload more people to the ever expanding number already on medicaid, and then slowly cut how much the state gets reimbursed by the feds.....yeah.....sounds like a wonderful program for the state.....NOT!edit: i see. so, they can't afford a free medicaid expansion for the first 10 years, and paying 10 cents on the dollar thereafter? wow. those are some really poorly run states.Some governors have said that expansion would involve additional costs that they couldn't afford and enlarge a program that they consider broken. In many states, however, various analyses show that states would stand to gain millions of dollars by expanding the program, at least initially. money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/medicaid-expansion-states/same thing for the websites....if the feds WANT the program, let them freaking pay for it.....not a dime should come out of the states coffers for this program the states are already broke and going bankrupt before any of this crap came into view again with the going broke silliness? que lastima.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 0:38:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 11:40:21 GMT -5
The stock market rally in the first half of 2013 has helped many of these cities as they invest pension contributions and get higher returns. But another market downturn could send these teetering cities back into the red. And the states can't bail them out because Illinois, California, New York, and Pennsylvania face their own money challenges. Republicans in Congress have been insistent that Washington, D.C., won't be tossing a life-preserver to troubled cities, either. The view among conservatives in Washington is that a federal bailout would only reward cities for their own bad behavior. But that won't stop the unions from trying. What do most of these ailing cities all have in common? Well, consider that the vast majority are located in states with forced unions, non-right-to-work states. "Right-to-work laws attract people and businesses," says labor economist Richard Vedder of Ohio University. "Non-right-to-work states repel them." His statistics show that cities in states with right-to-work laws have sturdier tax bases and higher employment levels. www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cities-bankruptcy-after-detroit/2013/08/06/id/519081yeah....i guess it is all my overactive imagination the states are doing fine....no budgetary issues at all, right? ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yeahright.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 11:45:18 GMT -5
The stock market rally in the first half of 2013 has helped many of these cities as they invest pension contributions and get higher returns. But another market downturn could send these teetering cities back into the red. And the states can't bail them out because Illinois, California, New York, and Pennsylvania face their own money challenges. Republicans in Congress have been insistent that Washington, D.C., won't be tossing a life-preserver to troubled cities, either. Illinois is predicting a 5.5% deficit this year. pretty manageable. New York is at 3.4%. even more manageable. PA is predicting 2.0%. not significant. CA is predicting 16.4% for this year, and a surplus for next year. we'll see how that goes. in any case, this hue and cry about bankruptcy is well overblown, imo. the feds have worse problems than any of the states mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 0:38:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 11:47:29 GMT -5
edit: i see. so, they can't afford a free medicaid expansion for the first 10 years, and paying 10 cents on the dollar thereafter? wow. those are some really poorly run states.
It is NOT free for 10 years......you know that, right?
and you might want to actually READ the statute....
the 90% isnt even set in stone.....they can reduce that after 2020.....
and JUST for shits and grins, how MUCH is your medicaid expense in California right now?
Now add additional people for the new program......and then look down the road and see how MUCH 10% of that cost really will be
sounds like a lot of other federal programs....
lets move the responsibility of the program to the state over time......they can pay for it
if your state is stupid enough to fall for it....by all means
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 11:47:53 GMT -5
i would suggest reading something outside of the newsmax, ibd, washington times continuum on this. it might help you calm down a bit. or you can remain convinced that defunding ObamaCare is a real possibility, and that PA is going bankrupt. your choice.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 11:50:35 GMT -5
edit: i see. so, they can't afford a free medicaid expansion for the first 10 years, and paying 10 cents on the dollar thereafter? wow. those are some really poorly run states.It is NOT free for 10 years......you know that, right? i meant to say 7. let's not pick nits.and you might want to actually READ the statute.... i have read it, bro.the 90% isnt even set in stone.....they can reduce that after 2020..... and you think the odds of that passing congress are....what?and JUST for shits and grins, how MUCH is your medicaid expense in California right now? i am not much into shits and grins. but whatever winds your clock, gd.Now add additional people for the new program......and then look down the road and see how MUCH 10% of that cost really will be not sure. why don't you just tell me, so i can reel in horror in solidarity with you?sounds like a lot of other federal programs.... lets move the responsibility of the program to the state over time......they can pay for it if your state is stupid enough to fall for it....by all means yes, we are stupid enough to get a SEVEN year free ride, and a 90% subsidy thereafter.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 12:13:34 GMT -5
OK, what would you replace it with? You had a whole thread on the issue and never gave an answer? What solves the same issues as the ACA, but is your preferred solution? I've never been against a better solution. I have just never seen one offered. I've offered the only solution there really, realistically is: deregulation. 1. Make insurance- insurance. It won't cover maintenance and the sniffles- it is there to cover catastrophic losses that could not possibly or reasonably be expected to be borne by an individual- like totaling a car, or a house fire. 2. Shift from third party payer to a market-based, consumer-driven delivery of health services.
3. Allow consumers to form buyers co-ops, and buy across state lines for insurance and health services. 4. Make healthcare and health insurance tax deductible. 5. Make health insurance, and the delivery of health services the responsibility of the individual. 6. Allow charitable organizations, doctors, and hospitals to fill in the gaps and begin to phase out Medicare and Medicaid as well- because they've both failed and can no longer be sustained. Ok, so help me out: How does your plan help say a 53 yr old with MS who under the previous system could not purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions? I know how Obamacare helps this person, so explain how your system makes it so this person can both find isnurance and afford it. How does your plan help a single mom with 2 kids that makes 30K/yr? I understand that your plan would make insurance somewhat cheaper, but now you aren't covering well visits, vaccines, flu shots, ear infections. So insurance is slightly cheaper, although likely still not affordable to someone of that income level and it has tons more out-of-pocket costs. Suppose one of the kids has asthma. Does your plan cover the $400/month needed in asthma meds? Or does your plan only cover when the kid needs to be rushed to the ER and hospitalized for several days after the mom couldn't afford the maintenance medication that would work best and had to settle for cheap rescue inhalers? I want details on how these people get insurance. I understand the details of the ACA. If we are going to repeal and replace it, then I want to understand how the new plan ensures that these folks can get insurance and can afford it. Broad ideas that in theory will lower the costs aren't good enough for me. Lower costs only help some and without regulations protecting the sick, those with pre-existing conditions are still screwed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 12:18:55 GMT -5
I've offered the only solution there really, realistically is: deregulation. 1. Make insurance- insurance. It won't cover maintenance and the sniffles- it is there to cover catastrophic losses that could not possibly or reasonably be expected to be borne by an individual- like totaling a car, or a house fire. 2. Shift from third party payer to a market-based, consumer-driven delivery of health services.
3. Allow consumers to form buyers co-ops, and buy across state lines for insurance and health services. 4. Make healthcare and health insurance tax deductible. 5. Make health insurance, and the delivery of health services the responsibility of the individual. 6. Allow charitable organizations, doctors, and hospitals to fill in the gaps and begin to phase out Medicare and Medicaid as well- because they've both failed and can no longer be sustained. Ok, so help me out: How does your plan help say a 53 yr old with MS who under the previous system could not purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions? I know how Obamacare helps this person, so explain how your system makes it so this person can both find isnurance and afford it. How does your plan help a single mom with 2 kids that makes 30K/yr? I understand that your plan would make insurance somewhat cheaper, but now you aren't covering well visits, vaccines, flu shots, ear infections. So insurance is slightly cheaper, although likely still not affordable to someone of that income level and it has tons more out-of-pocket costs. Suppose one of the kids has asthma. Does your plan cover the $400/month needed in asthma meds? Or does your plan only cover when the kid needs to be rushed to the ER and hospitalized for several days after the mom couldn't afford the maintenance medication that would work best and had to settle for cheap rescue inhalers? I want details on how these people get insurance. I understand the details of the ACA. If we are going to repeal and replace it, then I want to understand how the new plan ensures that these folks can get insurance and can afford it. Broad ideas that in theory will lower the costs aren't good enough for me. Lower costs only help some and without regulations protecting the sick, those with pre-existing conditions are still screwed. if every voter were like you, most of the "issues" people are having would evaporate.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 12:19:38 GMT -5
OK, what would you replace it with? You had a whole thread on the issue and never gave an answer? What solves the same issues as the ACA, but is your preferred solution? I've never been against a better solution. I have just never seen one offered. Well, in terms of actually making Obamacare work, they could simply take down the website, fix it, and then reintroduce it. Instead, they want people to continue wasting their time. They seem to think this will "save face", but in reality, they're just making it worse. Also, the website supposedly worked correctly until the gov't decided to change it at the last minute to force people to apply and give all their info before seeing prices. If this is true, they could simply switch back to the previous version. But again, in an attempt to "save face", they are instead making themselves look like fools. By the way, it's ironic given that this administration claims to love transparency so much, that they are making it so difficult to just find out prices. I mean, this is akin to you having to sign a contract to buy a house, show up at closing, and find out the price at the last minute. This is something I'd expect from people that have no freaking idea how the world works and due to overconfidence in themselves, think that nobody will notice what they are doing. Even so, I am still blown away at the total incompetence with which the marketplace has been produced and rolled out. It far exceeds any of my expectations. They've now changed the website so you can see prices without registering. I'm not sure if they just added back in what was removed, but if so I can see why they removed it. When you look up prices now you just give an age range vs. your actual age, so the pricing is coming back all screwy. Really stupid programing. In my state exchange you can provide all your info and look up the actual price without registering, not an estimated price. The only reason I can see to do otherwise is because they can count the number of people signing up and would be able to boast that number even if the number of enrollees is low. I would expect enrollees to be initially low because when you have a couple dozen options you probably need some time to figure out which plan you actually want. And if you know you have 2 more months, then there is no rush to pick a plan immediately.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 0:38:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 12:24:17 GMT -5
i would suggest reading something outside of the newsmax, ibd, washington times continuum on this. it might help you calm down a bit. or you can remain convinced that defunding ObamaCare is a real possibility, and that PA is going bankrupt. your choice. it was a really simple question looking at the states as a whole, would you say they are having budgetary issues, or not? my reading material has nothing to do with the answer.....or your opinion i mean you can keep you head buried in the sand, but that isnt going to make the issues go away, will it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 0:38:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 12:33:27 GMT -5
Beginning in 2014 coverage for the newly eligible adults will be fully funded by the federal government for three years. It will phase down to 90% by 2020.
www.medicaid.gov/affordablecareact/affordable-care-act.htmli guess if you want to count the 4 years that the ACA wasnt active, it is 7 TOTAL years but the way i read it is..... feds pay 100% for 3 years, and then reduce what they pay to 90% by 2020 (6 total years) The federal government will pay the full cost of expanding the low-income health program, which is called Medi-Cal in California, for the first three years. It will gradually reduce payments to 90 percent starting in 2020, putting the rest of the cost on the states that adopt the expansion. Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor has estimated that by taking on new enrollees, the state could be responsible for between $300 million and $1.3 billion a year starting in 2020.www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_23469639/california-lawmakers-expand-medicaid-final-budget-votingyeah...sounds like it is going to be a WONDERFUL program for your state have fun.....
|
|
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 Oct 24, 2013 12:50:03 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 12:52:29 GMT -5
i would suggest reading something outside of the newsmax, ibd, washington times continuum on this. it might help you calm down a bit. or you can remain convinced that defunding ObamaCare is a real possibility, and that PA is going bankrupt. your choice. it was a really simple question looking at the states as a whole, would you say they are having budgetary issues, or not? 20 states are either running surpluses or have balanced budgets. only (15) states have a bigger problem than the Federal government, and at least one of them is going to be running a surplus next year. so, if you are asking me whether the states, on the whole, have a serious issue, the answer is NO.my reading material has nothing to do with the answer.....or your opinion i mean you can keep you head buried in the sand, but that isnt going to make the issues go away, will it? you know, as much as i love discussing things with you, i don't think we can continue if there is an environment of mutual disrespect. so rather than answering this last question, let me ask you one: have i EVER suggested that you were ignorant of the facts, gd? EVER? i will rely on your generally civil sensibilities, and your sense of fair play, if you have any, to suggest how we go forward.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 12:58:48 GMT -5
Beginning in 2014 coverage for the newly eligible adults will be fully funded by the federal government for three years. It will phase down to 90% by 2020.
www.medicaid.gov/affordablecareact/affordable-care-act.htmli guess if you want to count the 4 years that the ACA wasnt active, it is 7 TOTAL years but the way i read it is..... feds pay 100% for 3 years, and then reduce what they pay to 90% by 2020 (6 total years) first of all, i am not sure whether this is calendar or fiscal. so it might only be 6 years, or it might be 6 3/4. second, i forgot about the "gradually" part. so thanks for reminding me. you win. i was wrong about that.
The federal government will pay the full cost of expanding the low-income health program, which is called Medi-Cal in California, for the first three years. It will gradually reduce payments to 90 percent starting in 2020, putting the rest of the cost on the states that adopt the expansion. Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor has estimated that by taking on new enrollees, the state could be responsible for between $300 million and $1.3 billion a year starting in 2020.www.insidebayarea.com/breaking-news/ci_23469639/california-lawmakers-expand-medicaid-final-budget-votingyeah...sounds like it is going to be a WONDERFUL program for your state have fun..... $1.3B? yeah- that is really chickenfeed. our budget is almost $100B. thanks for looking it up. you almost had me worried.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 0:38:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 13:10:29 GMT -5
you know, as much as i love discussing things with you, i don't think we can continue if there is an environment of mutual disrespect. so rather than answering this last question, let me ask you one:
have i EVER suggested that you were ignorant of the facts, gd? EVER?
post 186
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 13:14:08 GMT -5
you know, as much as i love discussing things with you, i don't think we can continue if there is an environment of mutual disrespect. so rather than answering this last question, let me ask you one:
have i EVER suggested that you were ignorant of the facts, gd? EVER?
post 186 i am sorry you took it that way. please allow me to try again: newsmax, WT, and IBD have a certain unhelpful slant in the way that they cover things. i can't really accept anything that they posit as accurate. i think it is unwise to use those sources as legitimate here. furthermore, i think that it is unhealthy for you to get worked into a frenzy over what you read there. that having been said i have absolute confidence that you have a firm grip on the facts, independent of those sites. however, i don't think there is any evidence based on those facts that any municipality larger than a county is going bankrupt, and i am confident that ObamaCare won't change that arithmetic. was that clearer?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,864
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 24, 2013 13:20:18 GMT -5
|
|
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 Oct 24, 2013 13:28:20 GMT -5
New York addressed initial website problems by quadrupling capacity on the marketplace that includes low-cost plans and possible government subsidies. Health officials said Wednesday that 37,030 New Yorkers have completed the process and fully enrolled with individual insurers.
as of yesterday it has changed. If that one statement that is in several articles is accurate, you are right I am wrong, I apologize. up until yesterday the number was zero.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,864
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 24, 2013 13:38:43 GMT -5
New York addressed initial website problems by quadrupling capacity on the marketplace that includes low-cost plans and possible government subsidies. Health officials said Wednesday that 37,030 New Yorkers have completed the process and fully enrolled with individual insurers. as of yesterday it has changed. If that one statement that is in several articles is accurate, you are right I am wrong, I apologize. up until yesterday the number was zero. The October 9 article/link I posted stated 40,000 had registered but not all completed the process having not selected a health plan. Was that not true and can you verify that?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 0:38:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 13:49:09 GMT -5
you know, as much as i love discussing things with you, i don't think we can continue if there is an environment of mutual disrespect. so rather than answering this last question, let me ask you one:
have i EVER suggested that you were ignorant of the facts, gd? EVER?
post 186 i am sorry you took it that way. please allow me to try again: newsmax, WT, and IBD have a certain unhelpful slant in the way that they cover things. i can't really accept anything that they posit as accurate. i think it is unwise to use those sources as legitimate here. furthermore, i think that it is unhealthy for you to get worked into a frenzy over what you read there. that having been said i have absolute confidence that you have a firm grip on the facts, independent of those sites. however, i don't think there is any evidence based on those facts that any municipality larger than a county is going bankrupt, and i am confident that ObamaCare won't change that arithmetic. was that clearer? much better and i think we both have a fair understanding of what the facts are the difference is.....you dont see the deficits as a problem....whereas i do the 4-5 states quoted in the article are already having issues funding education, pensions, road projects, etc now we are adding additional expenses to every state that accepted the medicaid money sure....they are shouting for joy now....as they have the funds but what happens as those funds dissipate? will they still be shouting for joy in 2020? my guess is no.....but it is only a guess time will tell
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 13:59:16 GMT -5
i am sorry you took it that way. please allow me to try again: newsmax, WT, and IBD have a certain unhelpful slant in the way that they cover things. i can't really accept anything that they posit as accurate. i think it is unwise to use those sources as legitimate here. furthermore, i think that it is unhealthy for you to get worked into a frenzy over what you read there. that having been said i have absolute confidence that you have a firm grip on the facts, independent of those sites. however, i don't think there is any evidence based on those facts that any municipality larger than a county is going bankrupt, and i am confident that ObamaCare won't change that arithmetic. was that clearer? much better and i think we both have a fair understanding of what the facts are the difference is.....you dont see the deficits as a problem....whereas i do no, i see them as a problem. i just don't see them as either unfixable, OR an emergency.the 4-5 states quoted in the article are already having issues funding education, pensions, road projects, etc i am sure that as many as (15) states are having problems. but none of those four states should be among them, based on their budget numbers. so i am not sure what is going on there.now we are adding additional expenses to every state that accepted the medicaid money no, we are not, right? the cost is zero over the next three years. can we at least agree on THAT?sure....they are shouting for joy now....as they have the funds but what happens as those funds dissipate? will they still be shouting for joy in 2020? i think so. do you want me to explain why- or do you simply want to continue insisting that it is a problem?my guess is no.....but it is only a guess time will tell indeed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 14:10:03 GMT -5
gd- quick aside:
for the (20) years prior to 2010, there was almost NO new road construction done locally (where i am in California). since that time, the main corridor has been improved steadily (hwy 101), and the rail bed has been upgraded for SmartTrain. i really see serious improvement there, over the preceeding period. if we are struggling for funds, it might have to do with the fact that we are actually, finally, DOING SOMETHING.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 24, 2013 15:09:16 GMT -5
...the greatest healthcare system in the history of humanity ... ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/rofl.gif) Unfortunately it isn't really that funny- it's a disgrace. *** That's a PBP quote- not IBOB- wonderful editing software at work
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 15:23:23 GMT -5
the difference is.....you dont see the deficits as a problem....whereas i do BS. You are using the deficits as an excuse for why you hate the ACA. I say this for two reasons: - There are other ways to fix deficits besides dumping the whole program, but you aren't interested in other fixes. You only want the thing gone. - If you really hated deficits you would show an interest in fixing social security, but when that conversation comes up you can't support change because it "punishes" savers.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 15:26:16 GMT -5
Ok, so help me out: How does your plan help say a 53 yr old with MS who under the previous system could not purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions? I know how Obamacare helps this person, so explain how your system makes it so this person can both find isnurance and afford it. How does your plan help a single mom with 2 kids that makes 30K/yr? I understand that your plan would make insurance somewhat cheaper, but now you aren't covering well visits, vaccines, flu shots, ear infections. So insurance is slightly cheaper, although likely still not affordable to someone of that income level and it has tons more out-of-pocket costs. Suppose one of the kids has asthma. Does your plan cover the $400/month needed in asthma meds? Or does your plan only cover when the kid needs to be rushed to the ER and hospitalized for several days after the mom couldn't afford the maintenance medication that would work best and had to settle for cheap rescue inhalers? I want details on how these people get insurance. I understand the details of the ACA. If we are going to repeal and replace it, then I want to understand how the new plan ensures that these folks can get insurance and can afford it. Broad ideas that in theory will lower the costs aren't good enough for me. Lower costs only help some and without regulations protecting the sick, those with pre-existing conditions are still screwed. if every voter were like you, most of the "issues" people are having would evaporate. What do you want to bet PBP doesn't actually answer my question? Unfortunately as much as republicans hate the ACA, they can't find a better solution to many of the problems with healthcare that are addressed by the ACA.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 15:27:54 GMT -5
if every voter were like you, most of the "issues" people are having would evaporate. What do you want to bet PBP doesn't actually answer my question? Unfortunately as much as republicans hate the ACA, they can't find a better solution to many of the problems with healthcare that are addressed by the ACA. they don't see anything wrong with the old system. that is the fundamental problem.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 15:33:27 GMT -5
What do you want to bet PBP doesn't actually answer my question? Unfortunately as much as republicans hate the ACA, they can't find a better solution to many of the problems with healthcare that are addressed by the ACA. they don't see anything wrong with the old system. that is the fundamental problem. Ah yes, because everyone can get healthcare at their local ER. People who believe that have obviously never had to deal with chronic conditions and needing ongoing care and medications.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,531
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 15:36:25 GMT -5
they don't see anything wrong with the old system. that is the fundamental problem. Ah yes, because everyone can get healthcare at their local ER. People who believe that have obviously never had to deal with chronic conditions and needing ongoing care and medications. they don't see that we are already subsidizing the cost of "free healthcare" at an OUTRAGEOUS price. they would rather socialize outrageous pricing than negotiated pricing, apparently.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 3, 2024 0:38:37 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 15:47:52 GMT -5
the difference is.....you dont see the deficits as a problem....whereas i do BS. You are using the deficits as an excuse for why you hate the ACA. I say this for two reasons: - There are other ways to fix deficits besides dumping the whole program, but you aren't interested in other fixes. You only want the thing gone. - If you really hated deficits you would show an interest in fixing social security, but when that conversation comes up you can't support change because it "punishes" savers. wow so because i dont believe a couple that has saved for 40-45 years should be penalized over a couple that has the same income but spent it frivolously, i am just a "hater" of the ACA you think it is okay to "punish" the savers, and the people who have done things the "right" way and i gotta wonder, what makes you believe that is okay to do...... instead of boats, cars, vacations, and a nicer house.....my example couple lived frugally, spent wisely, and built a nice nest egg over a long period of time of say a million bucks the other couple lived it up.... they BOTH s/b entitled to the same ss payments.....both based on what they paid into the system to penalize the first couple is the worst decision i could ever foresee they SHOULD be able to live a better life in their golden years..... as the old saying goes....."THEY HAVE EARNED IT"
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 16:08:10 GMT -5
BS. You are using the deficits as an excuse for why you hate the ACA. I say this for two reasons: - There are other ways to fix deficits besides dumping the whole program, but you aren't interested in other fixes. You only want the thing gone. - If you really hated deficits you would show an interest in fixing social security, but when that conversation comes up you can't support change because it "punishes" savers. wow so because i dont believe a couple that has saved for 40-45 years should be penalized over a couple that has the same income but spent it frivolously, i am just a "hater" of the ACA you think it is okay to "punish" the savers, and the people who have done things the "right" way and i gotta wonder, what makes you believe that is okay to do...... instead of boats, cars, vacations, and a nicer house.....my example couple lived frugally, spent wisely, and built a nice nest egg over a long period of time of say a million bucks the other couple lived it up.... they BOTH s/b entitled to the same ss payments.....both based on what they paid into the system to penalize the first couple is the worst decision i could ever foresee they SHOULD be able to live a better life in their golden years..... as the old saying goes....."THEY HAVE EARNED IT" I am just pointing out an inconsistency in your opinions. You claim you want to the ACA over the deficit. Which will leave millions lacking insurance and affordable healthcare. But, you aren't willing to contemplate any changes to SS because all those middle & upper class savers "earned it and deserve it". Both increase the deficit and both changes will leave a large group screwed. How is one change necessary "because of the deficit", yet the other is unthinkable when it affects the deficit as well? Seems a very inconsistent logic, IMO.
|
|