jclalor 12
rushmc 23
To date, this president had made 27 (illegal) changes to a this law. (He does not have the power to do this but congress is letting him get away with it for now. But this is another thread)
But to your point. The right does not have to do anything to show this law to be the failutre that is it and will be. It is imploding under its own failed design. (Remember, lower family coverage by $2500/year, cover 30 million more americans, lower individual costs?)
So you going to one story and then swiping a wide brush is disingenuous at best. Anyway, this FL election is something to consider when you think this way
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140312/DACFR78G0.html
http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/the-race-democrats-cant-afford-to-lose/
But to your point. The right does not have to do anything to show this law to be the failutre that is it and will be. It is imploding under its own failed design. (Remember, lower family coverage by $2500/year, cover 30 million more americans, lower individual costs?)
So you going to one story and then swiping a wide brush is disingenuous at best. Anyway, this FL election is something to consider when you think this way
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140312/DACFR78G0.html
http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/the-race-democrats-cant-afford-to-lose/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
winsor 236
jclalorWhy is it that every ACA horror story is always debunked? Why can't the Right present a single story that can stand up to just a little fact checking?
http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/8675/deceit_michigan_woman_s_claim_in_anti-obamacare_commercial_are_false#.Ux_aE7K9KSM
Overall, the ACA is a disaster coming and going. Getting bogged down in the particulars of one case or another is an exercise in distraction.
The health care system in this country is broken, and, in the case of the ACA, the cure is worse than the disease. The ACA does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the administration and regulation of health care, but, rather, adds another layer or two of administration and regulation to address perceived problems.
90% of the problems with health care could be addressed in 10 pages or less. Anything coming out of congress that takes thousands of pages to get the job done is guaranteed to be an abortion, and the ACA is a case in point.
You may return to picking flyshit out of pepper.
DanG 1
Quote90% of the problems with health care could be addressed in 10 pages or less.
Really? Give us the Executive Summary.
- Dan G
winsor 236
DanGQuote90% of the problems with health care could be addressed in 10 pages or less.
Really? Give us the Executive Summary.
Get rid of overhead, which is well over 90% of the cost of health care as it now exists. This would be staunchly opposed by the legion of parasites who have attached themselves to the health care industry, but fuck them, they bring nothing to the party.
The problem with most recommendations regarding health care is that they presume at the outset that hospitals and medical providers should be free to charge whatever they please, and that we must somehow distribute the burden to cover the cost. Unfortunately, when everyone is required to own a Yugo and pay Rolls Royce prices for the privilege, there is no way to distribute the costs so that the mass majority of people aren't stuck with the full tab (plus shipping and handling, of course).
You can get competent personnel all day long who could run a hospital system for a salary of $200,000 or less; when the salaries at the top are well into the seven figures, there's something very wrong. When a brilliant 5 star hotel can be had for less than $500 a night, there is no reason that a room in a hospital should cost $10,000.
An example of how the rules can be changed significantly is tort reform, to forbid suits against physicians. If a physician is guilty of gross negligence, they can have criminal charges filed against them and/or have their credentials yanked, but the responsibility for compensation for malpractice falls on the patient.
Before undergoing a procedure, you can take out a policy so that if, say, the wrong leg is removed, you get X number of dollars. There could be a kiosk at hospitals like you used to have at airports, selling malpractice insurance instead of trip insurance.
The verbiage necessary to implement such a structural change is simple, but the effect would be massive.
Half a dozen rules with similar scope would put most of the drones in the health care industry out of work, and would sharply reduce the incomes of the most excessively overpaid, without reducing the availability or quality of health care in the slightest.
BSBD,
Winsor
[Reply] when in fact it is better?
"Better" is not "fact."
Once you and every other political hack understands that, the world will be a better place because people will stop putting their subjective beliefs as objective truths and then we can actually get along and compromise.
No. It's not "better." It doesn't take a Republican to tell a person who is now spending three times as much for health care coverage that he doesn't want. Nor does it take a liberal to tell a person with cancer that the coverage that he had sucked because the new coverage will mean he spends less on copays.
It's why I really don't like Democrats. Democrats try to convince me that I'm just too stupid to understand how good for me they are and I should quit having my mind controlled by Fox news.
Quit telling me what's best for me. I say what's best for me. Not you. And tell the Democrats that. Republicans, too.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
rushmc 23
Yet another delay of the individual mandate
Hmmm
Just have to CLAIM any hardship?
Ya, It is working huh........
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/13/administration-adds-major-new-exemption-for-obamacare-individual-mandate/
BTW, wasn't the indidual mandate the funding mechanism for the the ACA?
Hmmm
Just have to CLAIM any hardship?
Ya, It is working huh........
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/13/administration-adds-major-new-exemption-for-obamacare-individual-mandate/
BTW, wasn't the indidual mandate the funding mechanism for the the ACA?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
airdvr 210
Amazon***Why is it that every ACA horror story is always debunked? Why can't the Right present a single story that can stand up to just a little fact checking?
http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/8675/deceit_michigan_woman_s_claim_in_anti-obamacare_commercial_are_false#.Ux_aE7K9KSM
The numbers are starting to look bad for the anti-ACA .
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/03/10/the-real-numbers-on-the-obamacare-effect-are-in-now-let-the-crow-eating-begin/
Republicans win first election showdown of the year
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/politics/republicans-florida-election-year-2014/index.html?hpt=po_t1
QuoteWith national Republicans framing the race as a referendum on Obamacare and a massive infusion of outside ad money to try to influence the outcome, pundits have looked to the Florida race as a bellwether for November's midterm elections.
Hmmm...not so fast.
Please don't dent the planet.
Destinations by Roxanne
Destinations by Roxanne
turtlespeed 226
When do you think they might use the lawmakers to change the law as opposed to just writing changes as they see fit?
When do you think they might make use of that whole "law" idea that government used to have to adhere to to change laws?
When do you think they might make use of that whole "law" idea that government used to have to adhere to to change laws?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Amazon 7
airdvr******Why is it that every ACA horror story is always debunked? Why can't the Right present a single story that can stand up to just a little fact checking?
http://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/8675/deceit_michigan_woman_s_claim_in_anti-obamacare_commercial_are_false#.Ux_aE7K9KSM
The numbers are starting to look bad for the anti-ACA .
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/03/10/the-real-numbers-on-the-obamacare-effect-are-in-now-let-the-crow-eating-begin/
Republicans win first election showdown of the year
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/12/politics/republicans-florida-election-year-2014/index.html?hpt=po_t1
QuoteWith national Republicans framing the race as a referendum on Obamacare and a massive infusion of outside ad money to try to influence the outcome, pundits have looked to the Florida race as a bellwether for November's midterm elections.
Hmmm...not so fast.
It seems it was a close election in Florida.. in a district that usually is overwhelmingly GOP... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_13th_congressional_district
muff528 3
Amazon...
It seems it was a close election in Florida.. in a district that usually is overwhelmingly GOP... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida%27s_13th_congressional_district
Well, it was before 2012. The District now covers only St. Pete and much of the rest of coastal and urban Pinellas County. Definitely Democrat politics there. I think the Republican influence in the District prior to 2012 was mostly from the Sarasota area and the inland counties. Sink carried Pinellas (and Hillsborough) county in the 2010 Gubernatorial race and really is well-liked in the west central Florida area. But Bill Young was, too, and I think that his coattails had a lot to do with the success of Jolly in that election in addition to the supposed "referendum" on the ACA.
rushmc 23
How about debunking this one?
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/18/report-premiums-rising-faster-than-eight-years-before-obamacare-combined/
QuoteReport: Premiums rising faster than eight years before Obamacare COMBINED
QuoteHealth insurance premiums have risen more after Obamacare than the average premium increases over the eight years before it became law, according to the private health exchange eHealthInsurance.
The individual market for health insurance has seen premiums rise by 39 percent since February 2013, eHealth reports. Without a subsidy, the average individual premium is now $274 a month. Families have been hit even harder with an average increase of 56 percent over the same period — average premiums are now $663 per family, over $426 last year.
Between 2005 and 2013, average premiums for individual plans increased 37 percent and average family premiums were upped 31 percent. So they have risen faster under Obamacare than in the previous eight years.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/18/report-premiums-rising-faster-than-eight-years-before-obamacare-combined/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
wmw999 2,584
From the article, with me adding the bolding:
Wendy P.
So, in other words, you're paying more because you're getting more. The discussion as to whether this is necessary (although even the article says that emergency and lab services improvements are uncontroversial) is a valid discussion, but the article itself indicates why). Why don't non-smokers object to paying for a plan that includes coverage for smoking-related illness, or women object to a plan that pays for Viagra, or teetotalers object to a plan that pays for alcohol-induced injuries?QuotePremiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide.
Some benefits, such as emergency and laboratory services, are uncontroversial. But others, like maternity, newborn and pediatric services, are causing headaches for huge swaths of the population that don’t need them. Anyone past childbearing age, single men, the infertile, even nuns — their premiums are rising as well, because their plans must, by law, provide more services.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
rushmc 23
wmw999From the article, with me adding the bolding:
So, in other words, you're paying more because you're getting more. The discussion as to whether this is necessary (although even the article says that emergency and lab services improvements are uncontroversial) is a valid discussion, but the article itself indicates why). Why don't non-smokers object to paying for a plan that includes coverage for smoking-related illness, or women object to a plan that pays for Viagra, or teetotalers object to a plan that pays for alcohol-induced injuries?QuotePremiums are being hiked across the board for several reasons, but the biggest contributor is the Obama administration’s highly touted “essential health benefits,” services that insurers on and off exchanges must provide.
Some benefits, such as emergency and laboratory services, are uncontroversial. But others, like maternity, newborn and pediatric services, are causing headaches for huge swaths of the population that don’t need them. Anyone past childbearing age, single men, the infertile, even nuns — their premiums are rising as well, because their plans must, by law, provide more services.
Wendy P.
Getting more?
I cant wait to see those stories Wendy
I will wait for your links
As to the other stuff?
Different debate
80% of people were happy with their plans before the ACA
This was a bill looking for a problem
Again
The ACA is not about health care
Never was
It is about control
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
turtlespeed 226
wmw999So, in other words, you're paying more because you're getting more.
It would be more honest to say that I am paying more because someone else is getting more, correct?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
wmw999 2,584
The "more" that people are getting are what I bolded in the story you quoted. No need for additional supporting stories, when your story covers it. That some people don't want to pay for those additional services is a valid story.
One thing to consider is that while 80% of people were happy with their plans before Obamacare (is there a source for that?), medical bills were the biggest cause of bankruptcies in the US ( source). So maybe their comfort with their plans was misplaced, and based only on the fact that if it was cheap, they hadn't used it yet.
Wendy P.
One thing to consider is that while 80% of people were happy with their plans before Obamacare (is there a source for that?), medical bills were the biggest cause of bankruptcies in the US ( source). So maybe their comfort with their plans was misplaced, and based only on the fact that if it was cheap, they hadn't used it yet.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
wmw999 2,584
Well, some of the more, someone else is getting. Some of it, like no lifetime limits, the lack of its being tied to your job, and more integrated coverage of lab costs, you're getting.
Unless, of course, you don't get sick. I'll be honest, I haven't had an illness-related doctor visit in several years. But I don't begrudge (or cancel) my insurance.
Wendy P.
Unless, of course, you don't get sick. I'll be honest, I haven't had an illness-related doctor visit in several years. But I don't begrudge (or cancel) my insurance.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
rushmc 23
wmw999The "more" that people are getting are what I bolded in the story you quoted. No need for additional supporting stories, when your story covers it. That some people don't want to pay for those additional services is a valid story.
One thing to consider is that while 80% of people were happy with their plans before Obamacare, medical bills were the biggest cause of bankruptcies in the US ( source). So maybe their comfort with their plans was misplaced, and based only on the fact that if it was cheap, they hadn't used it yet.
Wendy P.
A 53% increase is outragous
And you follow the story line that there was some kind of great emergency to be fixed
That was and is not the case
Very few of the promises to stuff this thing on us are true today
More are insured? False (most likley fewer are)
Low costs to families and individuals? Patently false
You can keep you Dr? Not anymore
You can keep your plan? Millions have found this to be untrue
Sorry you bought into this bill Wendy
It is failing and nothing can stop this now
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Hmmm. Could it be because the President keeps granting extensions? So, for example, the Treasury Department just granted extensions to companies with between 50-100 to comply - extensions until 2016!
So, yeah. The horror stories that are said to be coming from the ACA aren't just stories. The Admin thinks they are legitimate. Which is why it keeps delaying them.
The administration is only conceding that the Right has been sucsessful in convincing many people that the ACA is evil. The delay is only being done to help the Dems in 2014 elections. Slowing down the rollout will also give it time to gain more traction, and that is already happening.
Do you not see the issue with the story I cited? Do you really think it's ethical to take someone, who very well may have a terminal condition, and put them through the stress of thinking their medical insurance has worse coverage, when in fact it is better?
I think that's some evil shit.