Hello:

Do I NEED to ask a question??

excon

HHS lied...again. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/politics/health-website-anonymous-shopper/index.html)

Older Hill aides shocked by Obamacare prices - Jonathan Allen and Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/older-capitol-hill-aides-obamacare-affordable-care-act-prices-health-insurance-100226.html?hp=l1)

Mayfield Heights-based PSC Metals may dump company-paid health insurance, push workers to Obamacare (http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_cuyahoga/Mayfield-Heights-based-PSC-Metals-may-dump-company-paid-heath-insurance-push-employees-to-Obamacare)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZl_3VuIQAAfM3e.jpg

Take your pick.

I said no one is refused care. It may not be ideal Hello again, Steve:

Given your daughters situation, I'd think you'd WANT it to be ideal. When you say, it's not ideal, what do you mean? Do they reuse bandages, or do they REFUSE treatment for some stuff??

In fact, your daughters situation is an EXAMPLE of shoddy health care that YOU seem to think is FINE for everybody else, BUT your daughter.. Look, Steve. I don't wanna get personal. All I know is your daughter is on Medicaid, and you think it sucks.

Is it NOT true, that under Obamacare, your daughter would be eligible for a great policy at a reasonable cost where she'll actually GET top notch health care???

excon

Hello again,

To the powers that be. How come THIS thread can go WAYYYYY past 1,500 posts, but the one about healthcare can't?

Just askin..
It's good to be king, if just for a while
To be there in velvet, yeah, to give 'em a smile
It's good to get high and never come down
It's good to be king of your own little town

Yeah, the world would swing if I were king
Can I help it if I still dream time to time
(Tom Petty)


back to topic

California exchange rejects extension of Obamacare-canceled plans - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/21/21568067-california-exchange-rejects-extension-of-obamacare-canceled-plans?lite)

Hello again, Steve:

Given your daughters situation, I'd think you'd WANT it to be ideal. When you say, it's not ideal, what do you mean? Do they reuse bandages, or do they REFUSE treatment for some stuff??

In fact, your daughters situation is an EXAMPLE of shoddy health care that YOU seem to think is FINE for everybody else, BUT your daughter.. Look, Steve. I don't wanna get personal. All I know is your daughter is on Medicaid, and you think it sucks.

Is it NOT true, that under Obamacare, your daughter would be eligible for a great policy at a reasonable cost where she'll actually GET top notch health care???

excon

Look, I have always been an advocate for improving the safety net so we can dispense AGAIN with that meme. I think the evidence is clear enough already that the "Affordable" Care Act is nothing more than a redistribution scheme that puts even more people in a bind and will concentrate wealth more. If you want to FIX something you don't make it WORSE.

And no, my daughter will likely always be on Medicaid unless somehow I become fabulously wealthy. Seriously ex, you argue for Medicaid expansion in one breath and think those on Medicaid will be able to get a wonderful policy the next? No, that expansion will come at a cost to the disabled such as my daughter by expanding it to cover able-bodied adults of prime working age at the expense of the most vulnerable.

Hello again, Steve:

Look, I have always been an advocate for improving the safety net so we can dispense AGAIN with that meme.To be clear, you DISAGREE with Rick Perry and ALL the other Republican governors who are refusing to accept federal $$'s to improve the safety net.

Just checking...

excon

latest nonsense from the Slimes .... Defrauding consumers out of health insurance is analogous to ending slavery. Actually I've heard simular arguments here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/egan-the-souths-new-lost-cause.html?_r=0

Hello again, Steve:
To be clear, you DISAGREE with Rick Perry and ALL the other Republican governors who are refusing to accept federal $$'s to improve the safety net.

Just checking...

excon

I didn't stutter.


And no, my daughter will likely always be on Medicaid unless somehow I become fabulously wealthy. Seriously ex, you argue for Medicaid expansion in one breath and think those on Medicaid will be able to get a wonderful policy the next? No, that expansion will come at a cost to the disabled such as my daughter by expanding it to cover able-bodied adults of prime working age at the expense of the most vulnerable.

Simply expanding Medicaid is NOT a solution to improving the safety net. I am an advocate of caring for the poor and needy, not creating more of them.

P.S. Expanding Medicaid is just making it worse for Obamacare.

Medicaid enrollment spike a threat to Obamacare structure? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicaid-enrollment-spike-a-threat-to-obamacare-structure/)

And in yet another shameless, transparently self-serving regulatory maneuver, HHS has pushed back the 2015 enrollment a month...to just past the midterm election. It ain't gonna help.

HHS to delay 2015 Obamacare enrollment by a month - Susan Levine - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/health-and-human-services-delay-2015-obamacare-affordable-care-act-enrollment-by-a-month-100247.html?hp=l1)

P.S. Expanding Medicaid is just making it worse for Obamacare.

Medicaid enrollment spike a threat to Obamacare structure? (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicaid-enrollment-spike-a-threat-to-obamacare-structure/)


So the whole house of cards will come tumbling down because a few low income people get medicaid? The insurance company ploy to insure and gouge the healthy has failed because this option is available? get real!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZrdMOuCIAAmO-X.jpg:large

Damned clever those insurance companies

Today, my private-pay son got a BC/BS notice about his health insurance premium. It's being REDUCED by $14 a month.

That would have to be a first

Yet another federal court sided with our first amendment rights on the HHS mandate and the regime's (along with the ACLU) effort to redefine religious freedom.

Catholic dioceses of Pittsburgh, Erie win injunction against Affordable Care Act - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2013/11/21/Catholic-dioceses-of-Pittsburgh-Erie-win-preliminary-injunction-against-Affordable-Care-Act/stories/201311210349)


At an evidentiary hearing earlier this month, the dioceses' pro bono attorneys from Jones Day argued that the act forced the organizations to facilitate evil. A Department of Justice attorney argued that the act didn't force church-related organizations to do anything they wouldn't have otherwise done.

"It just can't be that there's a substantial burden on religious beliefs in filling out a form," Ms. Amiri said.

The Department of Justice attorney also reminded the judge that not all of the organizations' employees are Catholic, nor are all of the people they serve.

Judge Schwab, though, adopted the diocesan argument that no distinction could be drawn between the charitable arms of the church and its houses of worship.

The judge wrote in his 65-page opinion that he was ruling on whether "the Government will be permitted to sever the Catholic Church into two parts (i.e., worship and faith, and 'good works') -- in other words, whether the Government will be successful in restricting the Right to the Free Exercise of Religion as set forth in the First Amendment to a Right to Worship only."

The judge wrote that he "is constrained to understand why religious employers such as Catholic Charities and Prince of Peace Center -- which were born from the same religious faith, and premised upon the same religious tenets and principles, and operate as extensions and embodiments of the Church, but are not subsidiaries of a parent corporation -- would not be treated the same as the Church itself with respect to the free exercise of that religion."

"What the judge essentially said in his decision was that faith without works is dead," Bishop Zubik said.

Judge Schwab, who noted at the hearing that he is not Catholic, wrote that the "sanctity of human life from conception to natural death and the dignity of all persons are central tenets of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"This belief necessarily prohibits providing, subsidizing, initiating or facilitating insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization services, contraceptives and related educational and counseling services."

The provision of the coverage, he wrote, could result in "decreased donations, loss of employees to other employers, loss of services" and fines that could force the closure of community assets.

and the point is, things change. I agree no church should be forced to act against its faith. The logic therefore dictates that the church not offer health coverage, and allow the employees to seek coverage themselves

the logic dicatates that the state stay out of the church's business. The logic dicatates that if the employee doesn't like the terms of the insurance they are offered by their employer ,that they are free to seek it elsewhere.

That's way too logical, tom.

Way to go Tom

Tom, "...latest nonsense from the Slimes" isn't actually the latest nonsense. Did you read the article before you posted it? The author is saying the comparison between slavery and health care ISN"T apt.

he's saying resisting Obamacare is the South's new 'lost cause' . The lost cause was the fight to keep slavery. The author clearly made the link .

I'll go further... the author suggests that expanding Medicaid is a job creator ;and the southern states should get on board lest they be left behind. I will remind him that for decades there has been a flight of jobs from these big blue nanny states to the south ,specifically because the government interferences that are unfavorable to job creation . It is typical lib logic to think that a government program is the job creator .
What the author isn't saying is that the federal assistance to the states is temporary ,and once that source of funding ends ,the states will be left with the burden of fundng this expanded Medicaid program. I would also remind him that unlike the Federal Government ,the states don't have the luxury of running up unsustainable dept ;paid for by the Treasury's printing presses.

But, he is not saying anything about causes, lost or new.

I think what you are trying to say is the author is trying out a synecodoche on his readers

the implication is clear . When studying the American Civil War ,the concept of the South's Lost Cause has specific meaning . Let me explain. When historians began penning the history of the war ,there was a systematic attempt to recast the cause of the war as not an attempt to preserve slavery ,but other 'noble 'causes worth defending ie. the chivalrous antebellum Southern aristocracy ,and the one you still hear today ;defenders of "states rights" . They heroically defended it even though they were fighting a 'Lost Cause'. The idea that they in reality was defending the right to own slaves was dismissed ,even though that is the real underlying cause of the conflict .
So for the author to compare the Lost Cause to southern states resistance to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion is to link them in the readers mind . He goes further in his comparison of a divided nation .In the past it was slavery .... now it's Obamacare .....and clearly those who oppose Obamacare are the ones who in the past would've supported slavery .

You have got it right in this post. The author is not making a clear link as you suggested earlier. It is up to the reader to make the link. This is evident when you suggest that a understanding of your history is needed to make the link.

it is a clear ink to his intended audience. glad you agree with me that it's his intent to link them.

I agree that it is his intent. But it isn't a clear link otherwise no historical background would be necessary.

Meanwhile the real point is that Medicaid is a safety net program intended to aid the poorest in the country to get medical care . The expansion increases eligibility to families earning up to $30,000 a year. That takes it out of the safety net category and into a nanny state program . The net effect will be that the poor who really require the assistance will be competing for their care with others who had other means to get their health care. These are limited resources we are talking about ;with funding already breaking state budgets ,and fewer health care providers /doctors willing to take Medicaid patients.
Rep. Joe Pitts, R-PA, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, said during a hearing on March 18, 2013.
“Medicaid was designed as a safety net for our nation's poorest and sickest people,” “States are already struggling to serve this core population.
'“Increasingly, doctors simply can't afford to treat Medicaid patients. Is it fair that the president's health care law will force millions of disabled and sick Americans to compete with able-bodied 25-year-olds for appointments with those doctors who will still see them?”

He said that expanding Medicaid compromises states' “ability to care for our country's poorest and sickest citizens.”
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/Hearings/Health/20130318/HHRG-113-IF14-MState-P000373-20130318.pdf
And that will be doubly so when the temporary funding inducement by the Federal Government ends.

Meanwhile the real point is that Medicaid is a safety net program intended to aid the poorest in the country to get medical care . The expansion increases eligibility to families earning up to $30,000 a year. That takes it out of the safety net category and into a nanny state program . The net effect will be that the poor who really require the assistance will be competing for their care with others who had other means to get their health care. These are limited resources we are talking about ;with funding already breaking state budgets ,and fewer health care providers /doctors willing to take Medicaid patients.

Yep, glad you concur with the point I was making about my daughter. She already has to get in line to see her PCP and in this city with 2 or 3 cancer centers there is one specialist she can see and he is reluctant.

I've seen the cars at the clinic where her PCP is, no way people needing assistance should be able to afford them, along with their iphones and $100 sneakers. And these guys want my daughter and others who truly need that safety net to have to compete further for healthcare instead of demanding able bodied adults get off their a$$es and make an effort at contributing instead of taking. But that would require them to actually want people off of the government teat and I don't see that happening. Their preferred method of lifting others up is by bringing someone else down. Unless of course it's one of their wealthy elite in whom they can find no fault.

I would like to know how a family making $30,000 has other means to meet their health care needs than those that have NONE. Prices for other needs makes their options very few. I would also point out Speech the cars in the lot or $100 dollars sneakers doesn't make them poor people on Medicaid getting free stuff.

Hello tal:

I would also point out Speech the cars in the lot or $100 dollars sneakers doesn't make them poor people Just like my driving an 1986 yellow Volvo station wagon doesn't make me poor either.

I LOVE my old, VERY old car. I'm going for record of 450,000 miles on ONE engine.

excon

I would like to know how a family making $30,000 has other means to meet their health care needs than those that have NONE. Prices for other needs makes their options very few. I would also point out Speech the cars in the lot or $100 dollars sneakers doesn't make them poor people on Medicaid getting free stuff.

To the first ask me after employers throw employees into the exchanges thanks to obamacare. But I do believe at that income they get some nice subsidies which we never had, and we took care of ourselves without sucking off of the taxpayers.

To the second, being in line with my daughter does make them "poor" people on government assistance.

Hello tal:
Just like my driving an 1986 yellow Volvo station wagon doesn't make me poor either.

I LOVE my old, VERY old car. I'm going for record of 450,000 miles on ONE engine.

excon

If they were driving 86 Volvos I wouldn't have mentioned it.

B--- O--- R--- I---N----G

"Valerie Jarrett, perhaps Obama’s closest and longest-serving adviser, on her hero’s amazingness:

“He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.”

"Leave aside the question of whether someone so smitten can be in any meaningful sense an adviser. About what can such a paragon as Obama need advice?"

George Will: Obama’s presidency unravels through chaos and crisis - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-obamas-presidency-unravels-through-chaos-and-crisis/2013/11/22/57132e74-52de-11e3-a7f0-b790929232e1_story.html?hpid=z2)

Hello again, Steve:
If they were driving 86 Volvos I wouldn't have mentioned it.Why am I getting flashes of Reagan's welfare queen??

Here's what you DON'T understand... ALL of those brand new pick ups and caddies you saw in the parking lot, BELONG to OTHER right wingers who find themselves in NEED of help too.

While YOU'RE being amazed at their cars, THEY'RE being amazed at yours.

excon

Hello tal:
Just like my driving an 1986 yellow Volvo station wagon doesn't make me poor either.

I LOVE my old, VERY old car. I'm going for record of 450,000 miles on ONE engine.

excon

yes I believe a Volvo is capable of turning the clock a number of times.

Valerie Jarrett, perhaps Obama's closest and longest-serving adviser, on her hero's amazingness:

“He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . He's been bored to death his whole life. He's just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.”

"Leave aside the question of whether someone so smitten can be in any meaningful sense an adviser. About what can such a paragon as Obama need advice?"
Don't know what input she had on Obamacare. I've been watching her act closely with the Iran negotiations because she was born in Iran ,and her childhood buddy is Ali Akbar Velayati,a key foreign policy advisor to Khamenei. I've seen reports of her being involved in secret meetings before the latest diplomatic effort.
But this is probably the topic for another OP.

Hello again, Steve:Why am I getting flashes of Reagan's welfare queen??

Here's what you DON'T understand... ALL of those brand new pick ups and caddies you saw in the parking lot, BELONG to OTHER right wingers who find themselves in NEED of help too.

While YOU'RE being amazed at their cars, THEY'RE being amazed at yours.

excon

Lol, yes I'm sure they're impressed by my beat up 86 4Runner. Point being, for some all this government "assistance" is a decent career. For others it's life and death and you want to make them compete even more for the available resources.

So this is about you deciding who gets dwindling resources? Now I get it.

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/p320x320/1463059_10151851186803752_897486775_n.jpg
WH officials announced that they would consider the Obamacare web site successful if 80 % of visitors are able to buy insurance plans online. I'm gonna tell my boss I'm doing a good job if I screw up 1 in 5 times.

If a baseball player singles once in 4 tries he is average, twice in 4 times he is a millionaire. 80% of 20% of the population is a great number to start with for the first 2 months.

Nice try!!

It's just a restatement of the Praeto Priniciple but used out of context

Right now the part that lets you pay is one of the parts that don't work . The ACA is impractical, doesn't cut costs, forces Americans to buy something they don't want, and currently can't be used. Delaying the launch won't fix the fundamental flaws. This aint baseball.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
CS Lewis

So this is about you deciding who gets dwindling resources? Now I get it

As opposed to you deciding what to do with my resources? I'm not the guy trying to redistribute other people's money, rationing their care and limiting their choices.

The website has alternatives if you go directly to your own state. And costs ARE going down, to the government any way, but cost shifting is but a part of it.

Daily Kos: ACA holding down costs by cutting back on coverage (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/23/1240738/-ACA-holding-down-costs-by-cutting-back-on-coverage#)


“Doing so enables health plans to offer lower premiums,” the study said. “But the use of narrow networks may also lead to higher out-of-pocket expenses, especially if a patient has a complex medical problem that's being treated at a hospital that has been excluded from their health plan.”

. . . .

Outsiders might expect insurance companies to expand their networks to treat additional patients next year. But many insurers see advantages in narrow networks, saying they can steer patients to less expensive doctors and hospitals that provide high-quality care.

Even though insurers will be forbidden to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, they could subtly discourage the enrollment of sicker patients by limiting the size of their provider networks.

“If a health plan has a narrow network that excludes many doctors, that may shoo away patients with expensive pre-existing conditions who have established relationships with doctors,” said Mark E. Rust, the chairman of the national health care practice at Barnes & Thornburg, a law firm. “Some insurers do not want those patients who, for medical reasons, require a broad network of providers.”

Blaming government for business practice is a distractions to the nature of for profit business policies, and practices. They are going to get theirs no matter what.

As opposed to you deciding what to do with my resources? I'm not the guy trying to redistribute other people's money, rationing their care and limiting their choices.

How about WE decide? That my friend is done at the ballot box.

'we' don't decide to confiscate other people's property . Property rights is one of the reasons the revolution was fought in the 1st place. When a person's body and property are controlled by the whim of the masses ,at the consent of the state ,then they are living in a tyranny .

When a person's body and property are controlled by the whim of the masses ,at the consent of the state ,then they are living in a tyranny .

ironic isn't it, you have fought tyranny all over the world, and yet you have found it right in your own nation. which is the greater tyranny, that the needs of the poor should be ignored in the interests of individual, or that the state should set a minimum standard because the individual will do nothing without coersion

'we' don't decide to confiscate other people's property . Property rights is one of the reasons the revolution was fought in the 1st place. When a person's body and property are controlled by the whim of the masses ,at the consent of the state ,then they are living in a tyranny .

Tell that to the farmers and ranchers who don't want to sell their property for the keystone pipeline.

the taking clause reads "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. ”
Where is the just compensation in taking someone's wealth and giving it to someone else ? That's just plain plunder . And yes ,the courts have distorted the intent of the taking clause beyond all reasonable recognition .

or that the state should set a minimum standard because the individual will do nothing without coersion I'll deny your phony charge every time you make it . We do not oppose a safety net. That is not the same as redistribute other people's money, rationing their care and limiting their choices.

You appoint a government to levy taxes and determine how they might be expended for the greater good, part of that greater good is dealing with disadvantage and poverty. The redistribution of wealth is a function of government by reason of their power to levy taxation, it is implicit in the very concept of taxation. Your choices are limited by the concentration of wealth and sometimes the choice of the wealthy to accumulate wealth must be limited

The redistribution of wealth is a function of government by reason of their power to levy taxation
If there is taxation for the purpose of redistribution ,then the government is abusing it's power. The power to levy taxes is limited and defined and the general welfare clause in no way suggests that Congress has the power to redistribute wealth. Had something like that been suggested ,the Constitution would never 've been ratified .

Meanwhile?? Do you mean mean while lets focus on how limited health resources can be redistributed? Or ,as you are suggesting, not redistributed so as to keep the status quo. After all with a limited resource we wouldn't want to reshuffle the winners and losers.

You need to forget about safety nets when you are talking health care. Health care is not of the same type as other welfare benefits. The safety net should be a 'floor'. A floor whereby nobody slips through the gaps and requires a safety net.

Geez poor people are already poor, and the rich are getting richer, so somebody has already redistributed the wealth.

That was well said Tutty.

Geez poor people are already poor, and the rich are getting richer, so somebody has already redistributed the wealth.

You never complain about your own greedy, wealthy guys. You defend redistributing OUR money to your own preferred industries and I have yet to see you complain about union bosses fattening their own wallets on the backs of workers so spare us the faux outrage.

I never said right, or left greedy rich guys. I said greedy rich guys.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/21/news/economy/obamacare-california/index.html


Younger Californians age 18 to 34 account for about 22.5% of the sign ups in October, just about the share they represent in the state population. Luring in younger and healthier consumers, who use fewer medical services and would offset older, costlier policyholders, are vital to the health of the state exchange. If young people don't enroll, then rates could soar for 2015

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/young-people-obamacare-problem-_n_4280469.html


In California, the state with the largest uninsured population, most of those who applied were older people with health problems. In Kentucky, nearly 3 of 4 enrollees were over 35. In Washington state, about 23 percent of enrollees were between 18 and 34. And in Ohio, groups helping with enrollment described many of those coming to them as older residents who lost their jobs and health coverage during the recession.

"They have been putting off treatment for a long time, just praying they live until they turn 65 and qualify for Medicare," said Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks, which received federal grant money to help people establish coverage.

That people with serious health conditions would be the first to take advantage of the Affordable Care Act was expected. But that direction must shift.

In general, someone in his 60s uses $6 in health care services for every $1 tallied by someone in his 20s, said Nicole Kasabian Evans of the California Association of Health Plans. That makes younger adults a coveted group on industry balance sheets.

pehaps this explains the situation

44727

that chart is absolute BS !!! It doesn't take into account what will happen when the employer mandate kicks in (ie all those people in the blue part of the pie graph)... and the other 20 % is at best an unrealistic optimistic projection not based on any facts I know of . According to the CBO ,the law will add insurance coverage by about 26 million people through 2016, or 8% of the population ,not 14% . The 3 % who have compliant plans are already seeing their premiums rise because the uninsured ,especially with pre existing conditions must be underwritten . Finally this chart is based on estimates from Jon Gruber ,professor at MIT and widely recognized as the father of Obamacare individual mandate . He persuaded the emperor that everyone should be required to get health insurance.
He's a nut job . He recently told Chuck Todd of NBC that there are genetic "lottery winners " who have been paying an artificially low premium for health insurance .In this interview he let the cat out of the bag about the real purpose of Obamacare . It's not to provide affordable health care for everyone ...it's about a “discriminatory” old system, and the government “fix”.


We currently have a highly discriminatory system where if you're sick, if you've been sick or [if] you're going to get sick, you cannot get health insurance. The only way to end that discriminatory system is to bring everyone into the system and pay one fair price.

That means that the genetic winners, the lottery winners who've been paying an artificially low price because of this discrimination now will have to pay more in return. And that, by my estimate, is about four million people. In return, we'll have a fixed system where over 30 million people will now for the first time be able to access fairly price and guaranteed health insurance”.
Obamacare Architect: Genetic "Lottery Winners" Have Been Paying An "Artificially Low Price" | Video | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/13/obamacare_architect_genetic_lottery_winners_have_b een_paying_an_artificially_low_price.html)
Typical lefty nonsense . It's not fair for one person to be healthier than others.They should pay a price for that inequity .

So I guess we either go back to the old system, where the markets excluded millions, and the rest of us pay, or we have Medicare for all. It's the for profit middle men that have more control over costs than either the government, or the consumers.

If all those employers dump their employees into the exchanges, would employees be compensated for the loss in benefits?

Typical lefty nonsense . It's not fair for one person to be healthier than others.They should pay a price for that inequity


What is nonsense, Tom, is your inability to see that the problem of people being uninsurable and uninsured had to be solved because the market mechanism had failed. Obviously safety nets hadn't solved the problem of the behaviour of the insurers and the very real problem in hard economic times of what happens when you lose employer based health care. It is in the public interest and the public good to solve this problem. Health care is not a problem only your nation faces, it is a problem all nations face. What makes your case unique is the redicuously high cost base and the unwillingness of the government to deal effectively with the market

Oh come on Tom, between companies that want to make money, and insurance companies that want to make money, real people are just a mean to an end. A necessary business expense. If he can cut your hours, cut your wages, or cut your benefits to swell his profit he will, and has done it. And that goes for that pension if you have one.

So think hard before you keep denying other what you yourself have worked and sacrificed for because as surely as they impoverish your fellows and shred the safety net, what the hell makes you think it won't be you next? Or us?

Tal Tom is the perfect ostrich, he has his head in the republican sand box, a place where no one ever gets sick, everyone has a job provided by the job creators and money grows on trees

Thus he believes he needs to make no contribution from his coffers towards the general upkeep of this constitutional republican utopia. In Tom's world the poor live somewhere offshore and can be ignored or exploited

Sometimes better known as, "I'm all right Jack so why aren't you?"

"typical lefty nonsense. It's not fair for one person to be healthier than others. They should be made to pay for the inequality."

Tom, this is pathetic. Of course they should.

You just can't get over this idea that equity of health care is somehow about treating people who are unequal differently. In this respect unequal in terms of the likelihood of suffering a chronic illness.

Yes Tutt Tom doesn't understand the all men are equal clause he thinks they were all created equal in health and opportunity and it is their fault if they are sick or in disadvantaged circumstance

The truth is that with the exception of the very few who are born with serious health conditions,very few people have preexisting conditions prior to age 22-26 that would disqualify them from an individual health policy. What you mean is that poor is a medical condition and being self sufficient and healthy is the result of "luck " instead of hard work . Even the 1st Lady doesn't buy into your pablum .She believes that lifestyle is a much bigger factor ;and she's right .But in Gruber's world ,those who take the steps to stay healthy and takes personal responsibility seriously, as the 1st Lady suggests ,get penalized for their efforts in paying for those who don't .Sorta a reverse social darwinism . What this is ,is the progressives shoving their idea of fairness down everyone's throat .

There is nothing fair in redistribution of "wealth." Dems are just pirates plundering the high seas of hard earned success.

Interesting Tom. And what type of Social Darwinism do you buy into? Obviously not the reverse type.

There is nothing fair in redistribution of "wealth." Dems are just pirates plundering the high seas of hard earned success.

But its okay to redistribute the wealth to the rich guys and let them plunder the high seas and call it EARNED? I call it corporate welfare.

You say that as if I'm a fan of corporate welfare.

Hint: this is where you channel Emily Litella.

V3FnpaWQJO0

So, about all those healthy, young adults needed to prop up Obamacare...


CNN analysis: No Obamacare subsidy for some low-income Americans (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/politics/obamacare-subsidies)

Washington (CNN) -- One of the basic tenets of Obamacare is that the government will help lower-income Americans -- anyone making less than about $45,900 a year -- pay for the health insurance everyone is now mandated to have.

But a CNN analysis shows that in the largest city in nearly every state, many low-income younger Americans won't get any subsidy at all. Administration officials said the reason so many Americans won't receive a subsidy is that the cost of insurance is lower than the government initially expected. Subsidies are calculated using a complicated formula based on the cost of insurance premiums, which can vary drastically from state to state, and even county to county.

That doesn't change the fact that in Chicago, a 27-year old will receive no subsidy to help offset premiums of more than $165 a month if he makes more than $27,400 a year.

In Portland, Oregon, subsidies for individuals making just $28,725 a year phase out for those younger than 35 years old.

The subsidies situation is adding another layer of complications and calculations to the already-complex picture of Obamacare.

At least the media is finally getting around to fact checking the regime. So how many do you suppose will opt to pay for both the premiums and their out-of-pockets and deductibles and how many will pay the fine and not worry about it until they need insurance?

Those figures are based on filings of people who have no other deductions, primarily short form filers/earners.

For example, a mortgage deduction greatly lowers earnings that are taxable. As does child support, or anything that makes filing a long form possible, no matter the age. Older people tend to have more deductions, but working youngsters may not know what they can deduct.

I got that from the website. Anecdotes don't give the whole individual story. Factual data in individual cases is more important than just the emotional reaction. Most 27 year old I know have dependents and student payments, but some don't.

I see. Alrighty then.

Sounds like young folks need to get into some serious debt so they can afford to buy health insurance. Believe it or not, I want healthcare for every citizen to work, but this ACA is so full of holes mainly because no one reviewed it adequately before it was passed. Fail to plan, plan to fail.
Is the real reason the computer programmers are having so much difficulty the fact that there are too many 2+2 =5 flaws in the logic of the law? Maybe more than even Michelle's college friend can handle.

Is the real reason the computer programmers are having so much difficulty the fact that there are too many 2+2 =5 flaws in the logic of the law? Maybe more than even Michelle's college friend can handle.


No it's because they decided to built it from scratch, the database needed is enormous, they have to link to other data and transfer data to insurers, the government and so forth, as well as process payments, bill participants. Complexity creates problems in software

Complexity creates problems in software

But it creates multimillion dollar no-bid contracts for your friends.

P.S. Complexity in bills no one read also creates far more losers (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-obamacare-crashes-edit-20131125,0,1180816.story) than they want you to believe. Another slam from Zero's hometown paper...


If President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders think the outcry against Obamacare is fierce now, watch if millions more Americans get blindsided with the news that they'll be forced into these dysfunctional government online marketplaces. Some will face higher premiums or higher deductibles, and they'll be required to share private medical and financial information on a website with a questionable security firewall, opening them to fraudsters, hackers and cyberchaos.

The full brunt of Obamacare's impact on Americans is still gathering. Every law creates winners and losers, but with this law so far, the losers are piling up:

• Millions of Americans have seen their individual coverage canceled and are scrambling to find new policies. Many are learning that their new coverage will probably cost more via higher premiums and deductibles … if they can break through the error messages to the HealthCare.gov website. The president's tepid "fix" last week would allow (but not require) insurers to renew old individual policies for a year, if state regulators are on board with that. On Friday, Illinois officials announced they would allow this temporary remedy. Now we'll see how Illinois insurers respond. Whatever happens, this move is only a delay. A complete overhaul of the federal law is still urgently needed.

• People who gain coverage through smaller employers are at risk of getting cancellation notices next year. Here's why: Many businesses with fewer than 50 employees buy coverage in the small-group market. These plans can temporarily keep offering coverage that didn't meet expensive Obamacare requirements. When that ends next year, though, many employers may cancel policies because Obamacare coverage will likely boost costs.

• Hospitals are bracing for financial turbulence as out-of-pocket deductibles climb and people find themselves liable for more of their medical bills before insurance kicks in, The Tribune's Peter Frost reports.

In the past, hospitals could count on insurers to pay 80 to 90 percent of the cost of services, leaving the rest to patients. For patients with high-deductible plans, however, the insurer's share drops to as low as 60 percent, with consumers on the hook for the balance. And if patients can't pay? Hospitals can write it off as bad debt or, in some cases, charity care. But many hospitals are already operating on thin margins. Add them to the list of potential Obamacare losers in waiting.

Tens of millions of people who have coverage through large American companies aren't losers … yet. The administration granted those businesses a one-year reprieve from the Obamacare mandate to provide coverage or pay penalties. That ends for 2015, and employers are already calculating what to do. Some may cut jobs, or employees' hours, to avoid offering costly insurance coverage. Other companies may dump everyone into the federal exchanges and pay penalties that are almost certain to be less than what coverage would cost.

"For example, a mortgage deduction greatly lowers earnings that are taxable. As does child support, or anything that makes filing a long form possible, no matter the age. Older people tend to have more deductions, but working youngsters may not know what they can deduct."


Tal. You are wrong. Child support IS NOT deductable. Those paying it stand to suffer the most under obamacare. They will have their income at the highest levels while in fact thier income may be at the lowest levels even below poverty. No help in site. Please get the facts straight.

The day is coming that to fix the mess the government will need to assume the central role

If your talking about head of household. That is exactly what they are trying to accomplish.

Yes, it takes a village, your children are not your children, etc. etc.

This a comment/analogy that one of the reader's of that Chicago Tribune article (from speech's post) submitted. He made an error in that he should have referred to being "taxed" instead of "fined", to satisfy the supremes.

His comment:
(Quote) The U.S. government has just passed a new law called: "The affordable boat act" declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat, by April 2014. These "affordable" boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.

This law has been passed, because until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new laws ensures that every American can now have an "affordable" boat of their own, because everyone is "entitled" to a new boat. If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive 4 "free" life jackets; not including monthly usage fees.

In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don't want or can't afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who can’t afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parent’s boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase their own boat.

If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can't). If you don't want or don't need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one or face imprisonment.

Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert; ghettos; inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge nor lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat.

A government review board (that doesn't know the difference between the port, starboard or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including; when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your boat along with how many people can ride your boat and determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their boat. They will also decide if your boat has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories, (like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.

Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so...it’s only fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.

Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of tax payers. Unions, bankers and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.

If the government can force you to buy health care, they can force you to buy a boat....or ANYTHING else...

Yea...it's that stupid... (End Quote)

The only answer is for the government to simply give every citizen a boat whether they want one or not = Medicare for All, aka Single Payer. I know I'll be called a conspiracy theory nut but I can't get off the theory that the plan (after they knew they couldn't get single payer passed) was to accept whatever they could get out of the ACA bill, knowing it would create chaos. When half the citizens are deluging their reps phone lines, a few months before 2014 elections, will they cave and pass single payer at lightning speed?

Very droll smearcase, the ACA, like much of legislation, is a camel and you can have one hump or two but you must own a camel and give up breeding horses, Failure to feed your camel will result in fines and every member of your family may ride on your camel. A word of warning, camels are cantankerous beasts and have been known to bite and spit

Ah the holidays, time to enjoy fun, food, family, fellowship and if you're so inclined, football. And prepared talking points from your crazy liberal uncle courtesy of Obama's Organizing For America (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/364823/load-holidays-and-watch-out-those-uncles-jonah-goldberg).

Just like the creepy cult they are they want you to "Pledge to have the talk." Apparently we should all stop being thankful for trivial things like heat, food, family and friends, we should be thankful for mandates, higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher copays, fewer provider choices, our new formerly full time job and being pushed onto the exchanges where we can shop on a non-functional website that may or not allow you to compare prices, give a subsidy you may lose and if you get that far, send un-garbled info to the insurance company.

Instead of bringing your green bean casserole be sure and bring your packing list (http://www.barackobama.com/health-care-holidays/):




Are your family members traveling home for the holidays? There are a few things they’ll need to sign up for health coverage. Make sure they bring the following items with them before they head home.

PACKING LIST

In order to shop on the new health insurance marketplace, you’ll need to have a few basic pieces of information with you:

1. Your Social Security Number

2. Information about your employer and income— either a pay stub or a copy of your most recent W-2 tax form

3. If you currently have health insurance, you’ll need your health insurance card or paperwork that includes a health policy number

Of course, I would never think of going to a family gathering without my SS number, a check stub and my last W-2.

Furthermore, forget the pumpkin pie, be ready for the discount double check:


DOUBLE CHECK

Here are some common things to think about before getting started:

1. Your budget: What is your budget? How much can you afford to pay each month for health coverage?

2. Existing insurance: Is health insurance currently offered through your job?

3.Current costs: If you do currently have coverage, what are your costs?

4.Coverage Goals: What kind of coverage are you looking for? There are lots of options based on what you want and how much you want to pay.

And before you get started be prepared to catch a turkey leg across your jaw, because if anyone takes this regime's advice to spoil my Thanksgiving I'm going to make certain they won't be able to open their mouth again until after Christmas.

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno what you're saying, but it sounds like you don't think people should examine their health insurance options.

Really?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno what you're saying, but it sounds like you don't think people should examine their health insurance options.

Really?

excon

I'm saying what you would have said before Obama, leave us the hell alone. Can we not enjoy a Thanksgiving dinner without you trying to insert your creepy propaganda? I mean really ex, this is beyond the pale, I don't need any freaking government nanny and I am appalled by the arrogance it takes to put something like this out. I am fed up with Obama and his minions trying to invade every aspect of my life. In short, if it comes up at my house I have 3 words, go screw yourself. But I won't be that nice about it. Just say Happy Thanksgiving instead and shut the hell up.

Hello again, Steve:

In short, if it comes up at my house I have 3 words, go screw yourself. But I won't be that nice about it. Just say Happy Thanksgiving instead and shut the hell up. So, your family has to walk on eggshells over the holiday??? That ain't good. Stop being so grumpy. In MY house, we talk about EVERYTHING.

Happy Thanksgiving.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
So, your family has to walk on eggshells over the holiday??? That ain't good. Stop being so grumpy. In MY house, we talk about EVERYTHING.

Happy Thanksgiving.

excon

If you want to have the talk be my guest. If you try and push your creepy spoon-fed talking points in MY house on Thanksgiving be prepared to have a turkey leg crammed down your throat, with love.

Happy Thanksgiving.

P.S. With the current popularity of Obamacare I personally would never have asked people to push it at Thanksgiving, but not you lefties, you really want to push people's buttons about it.


Here's Every Argument You'll Need To Win Your Obamacare Debate This Thanksgiving (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/obamacare-facts_n_4303837.html?utm_hp_ref=tw)

How To Pick a Fight With Your Relatives This Thanksgiving (]http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/11/21/thanksgiving_tips_how_to_pick_a_fight_with_your_re latives_and_walk_away.html)

How about health care for Thanksgiving? (http://newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2013/11/24/how-about-health-care-for-thanksgiving/#.UpOwxLUvgzA.twitter)

Hello again, Steve:

If you try and push your creepy spoon-fed talking points in MY house You should know that I don't carry water for anybody... You should ALSO know that MY talking points, ALL ALONG, have been, let's wait to see how it shakes out. Certainly, it's MUCH too early to assess it. It's not even been fully implemented yet... Maybe it'll fail. Maybe it won't. But, the front door isn't even open yet.

Therefore, at THIS time, it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to tell if it's gonna work or not. Nobody knows. That includes right and/or left wingers on the radio, internet, or TV. You certainly aren't a good source of accurate information.. You still think there are death panels.

excon

You certainly aren't a good source of accurate information.. You still think there are death panels.

excon

As if arguing on things I haven't said makes you a good source? I'll put my accuracy up against this lying regime's any day, so I'd be careful while talking about good sources of information on a scheme that was sold on a belly full of lies. I'm willing to let it fall flat, but I'll be damned if I ever ask people to push this kind of bullsh*t at the Thanksgiving table. That's the problem with Obama and the Obots, they think it's all about them and to have the audacity to exploit such a special time to have us do their bidding is breathtaking.

Hello again, Steve:

I'll be damned if I ever ask people to push this kind of bullsh*t at the Thanksgiving table.If you had a relative who needed coverage because he was SICK, helping him GET insurance, so he can GET treated, is a GOOD thing. Even if your relative ISN'T sick, but STILL needs health insurance, HELPING him get it IS a good thing.

I dunno WHY you wouldn't have the audacity to do that.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
If you had a relative who needed coverage because he was SICK, helping him GET insurance, so he can GET treated, is a GOOD thing. Even if your relative ISN'T sick, but STILL needs health insurance, HELPING him get it IS a good thing.

I dunno WHY you wouldn't have the audacity to do that.

excon

Obviously you can't tell the difference between pushing propaganda, being prepared to "win Your Obamacare Debate This Thanksgiving", learning "How To Pick a Fight With Your Relatives" - and being genuinely helpful.

This is not about helping your uncle so you can stop pretending it is.

This is not about helping your uncle so you can stop pretending it is




Have we concluded that the ACA isn't about helping people but about gaining political advantage

It was never about helping people.

Have we concluded that the ACA isn't about helping people but about gaining political advantage

No we haven't. The numbers of those being helped is growing. There are many that have already been helped. Political advantage will be gained by success. maybe one person at a time.

And how many losers did you create to help those few? The whole thing was based on a throwaway campaign line, sold on lies, built on lies, executed on lies and incompetence and now they want us to pick a fight with our family at Thanksgiving because they're worried it might hurt their election chances. What part of that is about helping people?

I think this sums it up rather well from the Huffpost.

Talking point: The president broke his promise and now millions have lost their insurance plans. Cite a friend or somebody you know who got a cancellation notice. If you don't know anybody, pretend you do or use Edie Sundby.


The whole thing is pretend. Lets pass it and Pretend we have insurance. Lets Pretend we can keep our doctors. Lets Pretend our premiums arent going up.

This has to end or everyone will be on Pretend unemployment.

Absolutely cdad, greenie. I think all the good Obots should take the talking points hint and offer to walk them through picking a plan. Together they can pretend the website works and pretend they bought insurance.

next year 80 million more people will lose the insurance they were assured they can keep. This will happen when the employer mandate goes into effect.

I'm glad we have someone who can predict the future Tom saves us thinking about it

If that 80 million is correct (assuming that includes their spouses and 1.8 children), and they enroll in the ACA plans and you add in 62 million (probably way low estimate now) Medicaid folks, 49 million Medicare recipients, 8 million government workers most of whom have govt. sponsored healthcare, plus government retirees not yet in Medicare, etc- a total of at least 200 million on government care.
The savings government can then realize by dumping insurance companies and their 20% overhead (yes the additional govt employees needed will reduce the savings), by going to single payer will be a no brainer.

just reporting the administrations own estimates .....

The Departments' mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34,552 of the Register. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and become illegal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.
Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/)

Avik Roy of Forbes writes that he got these estimates right out of the Federal Register .

Robert Samuelson of the Washington Compost goes conservative in his estimate and says the people who will lose their insurance who get theirs from their employer will be 25-50 million people ...mostly from small firms.
Obama's Lie About Letting People Keep Insurance Was Worse Than Expected - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-left/112613-680731-millions-of-americans-face-losing-their-insurance.htm)

If that 80 million is correct (assuming that includes their spouses and 1.8 children), and they enroll in the ACA plans and you add in 62 million (probably way low estimate now) Medicaid folks, 49 million Medicare recipients, 8 million government workers most of whom have govt. sponsored healthcare, plus government retirees not yet in Medicare, etc- a total of at least 200 million on government care.
The savings government can then realize by dumping insurance companies and their 20% overhead (yes the additional govt employees needed will reduce the savings), by going to single payer will be a no brainer.


at last, some common sense, and won't premiums come down for the rest once insurance companies realise they are under threat? It is flawed logic to think the private sector can provide public health initiatives

No premiums wont come down. They are going to go sky high. And if you dont pay the government can take it from you directly. Not sure how insurance works in your country but here there is a pool of money that is set by the government to offset any liability incurred. That pool varies in size depending on risk. By the government forcing insurance to take on high risk that pool of money has to increase to meet the mandate. So its not going to get any cheaper soon.

No premiums wont come down. They are going to go sky high. And if you dont pay the government can take it from you directly. Not sure how insurance works in your country but here there is a pool of money that is set by the government to offset any liability incurred. That pool varies in size depending on risk. By the government forcing insurance to take on high risk that pool of money has to increase to meet the mandate. So its not going to get any cheaper soon.


There is full seperation of public and private provision of services. Government does subsidise some health insurance but maintains control over premiums. We have a system where every individual can obtain basic health care and receive a benefit from the government to pay for or offset at least in part the costs. Doctors can opt to accept payment directly from the government or charge the patient and allow the patient to recoup the benefit from the government or a hybrid arrangement of a co-payment. Beyond that individuals may have health insurance which is mainly directed at hospital costs and ancilliary services. The government regulates the cost of pharmeuticals. The health insurers offer various policies which have various exclusions and benefits. I have noted that there are wide discrepancies in the costs of cover

No sir, premiums will not go up and people with employer based insurance won't lose it.

Good Grief… Woman From WH Obamacare Ad Forced to Drop Health Insurance for Employees (Video) | The Gateway Pundit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/woman-from-obamacare-ad-forced-to-drop-insurance-for-her-employees-video/)

But hey, she still believes in obamacare. Not so sure her employees do.

When Anthem told Clark premiums for her eight employees would go up 39 percent in 2014, she checked out the plans available through the Small Business Health Options Program, where companies with fewer than 50 employees can shop for group coverage. Those plans were less expensive, but would still increase Clark’s premiums by 14 percent.

Clark then compared the price of individual policies available at Healthcare.gov to what she currently offers. She figured she could save 13 percent, or about $15,000, by discontinuing her group plan. She told her employees to pick a policy offered on the marketplace, and she’ll increase their pay to cover half the cost of the premiums.

As a small business she wasn't affected by Obama Care, but she has options under the ACA against rising costs which she was having before the ACA.


She’s always offered health insurance to employees and their families, even as premiums increased by double digits every year.
“We’ve turned down the heat, the lights,” she says. “But we never, ever took health care off the table.

Until now.

When Anthem told Clark premiums for her eight employees would go up 39 percent in 2014, she checked out the plans available through the Small Business Health Options Program, where companies with fewer than 50 employees can shop for group coverage. Those plans were less expensive, but would still increase Clark’s premiums by 14 percent.

39% to 14%, but she solved the problem by letting the employees get their own insurance and paying half with a raise. People before profits. I don't know the salary ranges, but maybe an additional subsidy is also in the mix.

We don't know right now but by her doing her homework and keeping her employees in mind she found a way to mitigate the increases by the insurance companies.

You keep forgetting the for profit insurance company's set prices, not government, and its whatever the market will bear, and like everything else the costs go up. Funny how that's been happening for decades but now you are pissed.


Not so sure her employees do.

Nobody bothered to get that side of the story, so in fact we don't have the whole story, just the part you want to spin the negatives. That makes your spin inconclusive.

Tal, get your head out of the sand.

Sorry Speech that's a non reply. All I want to hear is the rest of the story. If you can't deliver that, you got nothing.

Tal, the story is the lady in the Obamacare ad being priced out of providing insurance for her employees. The rest is me wondering if her employees still support obamacare as she does. I made no conclusion one way or another on that, but I'm guessing they would rather not be tossed into the exchange like so many more will be thanks to this ill conceived law.

Don't assume, and the changes are inevitable in many cases but a raise and covering half the costs whatever they are can't make workers mad. I have been asking that question and been ignored so far, but if your boss cuts your benefits, does he have to compensate you for the loss?

Glad we both agree single payer is the way to go because then if you get laid off or fired you don't lose your health insurance too.

Glad we both agree single payer is the way to go because then if you get laid off or fired you don't lose your health insurance too.


It is so obvious I can't think why it hasn't occured to anyone until now and best of all it cuts out the profit taking middle man

blah blah blah. The Dems talk a good game about single payer ;but they never put that proposal on the floor .

What's the point in it, when we know we don't have the votes we compromise a solution. Yes dems did compromise with repubs and I have documented the amendments with a link.

blah blah blah. The Dems talk a good game about single payer ;but they never put that proposal on the floor .

What you don't admit or even realise Tom is that it is a solution that works. Everyone plays by the same rules, the costs are known and uniform

in your dream .Almost half the people here pay no effective income tax . So you over tax half the population to give freebees. So much for your 'Everyone plays by the same rules' lie.

I will never agree your ideas of single payer is the way.

in your dream .Almost half the people here pay no effective income tax . So you over tax half the population to give freebees. So much for your 'Everyone plays by the same rules' lie.

Half the large companies and the rich don't pay taxes either. At least the poor have an excuse, they ain't got enough money to tax. But I know, righties think rich guys shouldn't pay taxes, but the poor should. That's pretty screwed up but understandable for those that worship the dollar and value profits over people.


I will never agree your ideas of single payer is the way.

This is America, we don't have to agree.

Let's divorce the income tax questions from the health care questions since the level of income tax is not a valid argument against it.

The people pay the amount of tax appropriate to their circumstance according to existing laws. Some part of that tax might be used to finance health care. It is apparent that it is also financed by impositions made on employers as well as personal contributions.

the provision of health care through insurance is neither a reason for increased taxation or a reason for exclusion of parts of the population by reason of income or circumstance.

according to your theorm, only taxpayers are entitled to participate in government benefits, so therefore citizenship means nothing

We have made some progress Clete since the days only white guys who owned land could vote.

We have a long way to go.

Tal, you would think so, but that mentality remains. I get the distinct idea that only white guys who own land are entitled to any consideration and everyone else either doesn't exist or is to be exploited.

I'm wondering if you still have overseers with whips to keep the peons moving

Yeah but they replaced the whips and chains with money. Just as painful, but leaves no physical marks. Has nothing to do with race anymore, its all about class defined by one class, as in the 1%.

1% is that the bikers or the creators. A funny thing just occurred to me, the founders and the creators appear to have interchangeable ideas

It's become a pattern . On July 2 ,right before a long Holiday break ,the emperor announced his decision to delay the employer mandate for a year .
Yesterday ,before a 4 day Thanksgiving weekend , the adm announced that they will delay for a year ,the small business Obamacare on line enrollment web site . So now all the small businesses will have to deal directly with an insurance company .This is the 2nd delay . It was due to go on line next week.
And of course the delay extends beyond the 2014 mid terms . What a surprise !
Expect a lot of last minute shopping and cancellation notices since HHS has already estimated that 49 to 80 percent of small employer (under 100 workers) plans, which cover 43 million people, would lose their grandfathered status. This is unless the emperor again unilaterally orders the temporary suspension of the requirements .

Tom you are never happy, you wanted it to be delayed, when it is you complain it is an abuse of power.

I want to see it repealed .

You can't have everything you want, the other half want it to stay, you know the easy way out is to remove the health insurance alltogether, then you can all save to meet your medical expenses, it works for your college expense, it should work for your health expenses

We already have that. it is called a health savings account.

Health savings account - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account)

If it works why wasn't it the solution

It doesnt work for everyone because of the contribution you have to make. But it was a choice to you didnt have high expenses when you did get sick or required an operation.

Medicaid for years has struggled with a shortage of doctors willing to accept its low reimbursement rates and red tape, forcing many patients to wait for care, particularly from specialists like Dr. Mazer.

Yet in just five weeks, millions of additional Americans will be covered by the program, many of them older people with an array of health problems. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that nine million people will gain coverage through Medicaid next year alone. In many of the 26 states expanding the program, the newly eligible have been flocking to sign up.

Community clinics, which typically provide primary but not specialty care, have expanded and hired more medical staff members to meet the anticipated wave of new patients. And managed-care companies are recruiting doctors, nurse practitioners and other professionals into their networks, sometimes offering higher pay if they improve care while keeping costs down. But it is far from clear that the demand can be met, experts say.

In California, with the nation's largest Medicaid population, many doctors say they are already overwhelmed and are unable to take on more low-income patients.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/us/lack-of-doctors-may-worsen-as-millions-join-medicaid-rolls.html

so train more doctors or inport them from India and Pakistan tell you what, we'll let you have some you gave us, one is J Patel, he's headed your way

won't work . The problem is not a lack of doctors . The problem is that doctors don't choose to be slaves of the state .

doctors don't choose to be slaves of the stateWhat about the millions of other civil servants? Are they all idiot slaves to the state?
You realize that you are the only industrialized nation that doesn't have universal healthcare, right? So they are all wrong and you are the only one who is right?

Doctors are still free to work as free people in this country and to accept and reject patients if the government is going to screw the doctors of their just compensation .

Hello again, tom:

screw the doctors of their just compensation .Medical school IS expensive... But, they shouldn't make it all back in two weeks.

excon

would you do a job if your compensation is less than your overhead or what you consider a reasonable return for your service ? You must know that being a doctor often means more than practicing medicine. You have to be a business manager and employer ,with all that entails .

Hello again,tom:

would you do a job if your compensation is less than your overhead or what you consider a reasonable return for your service ?Obamacare did NOTHING to control rising prices. Personally, I wouldn't buy a policy that didn't pay the doctors bills. Who would? Therefore, doctors will CONTINUE to make jillions and a few jillion more. So will big pharma and so will medical manufacturers.

Oh, that's right. You think Obama is running ALL of it. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

I thought Obamacare was all about bending the cost curve. He meant downward, but good to see you confirming the liar-in-chief's lies.

Hello again,tom:
Obamacare did NOTHING to control rising prices. Personally, I wouldn't buy a policy that didn't pay the doctors bills. Who would? Therefore, doctors will CONTINUE to make jillions and a few jillion more. So will big pharma and so will medical manufacturers.

Oh, that's right. You think Obama is running ALL of it. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Try to keep up . I'm talking about doctors who refuse to take on more Medicaid patients ,the shortage of doctors who will accept new Medicaid patients ,and how expanding the numbers of Medicaid eligible will make that situation worse. You say you wouldn't buy a policy that did not pay doctors bills and I tell you that Medicaid frequently shorts the doctors who treat Medicaid patients.

Hello again, tom:

Try to keep up . I'm talking about doctors who refuse to take on more Medicaid patients ,Couple things.

Your wealthy doctor can move his practice to Beverly Hills. They don't have many Medicaid patients there. But, when the cost curve is bending DOWNWARD (that's for you, Steve), he either accepts what the market is paying, or he goes broke.

You make it sound like there isn't going to be MILLIONS of doctors treating WELL insured people, and making LOTS of bread. Oh, that's right. You think Obamacare has TAKEN OVER healthcare..

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

So you and doctors are mad because the government doesn't pay enough, fast enough, Tom, and Speech is mad because they charge him too much.

Lets start with you can't afford a doctor without insurance, and you can't afford insurance without a job. A decent job that makes you self sufficient.

Rising costs and fewer decent jobs are but a symptom of a greater problem. I have always said for years that a lack of money circulated on a broader scale is the root cause of our economic failures. I mean when they turned off the trickle and jacked up the prices what did you think would happen? NO MO Money.

No doubt the emperor's solution will be a executive order or some Federal or blue state legislative and bureaucratic fix like forcing doctors to accept Medicaid patients or lose their license . It's a progressive dream come true ......create a shortage, then regulate it.

Wow Tom, that was your best conspiracy theory yet. Or is that a scandal? Or are you just throwing rocks again this fine morning? Or just hollering about the sky is falling? I just can't tell with you guys any more.

then you tell me how you plan on getting around the fact that doctors have been dropping Medicaid eligible patients for a long time now ;and now Obamacare is making Medicaid eligible to millions more people ? It don't add up .And don't tell me your side aint above such a tactic. They already force state licensed pharmacists to sell abortion pills against their will.

So less doctors for the poor people is a reason NOT to give them a chance to find a doctor? If your religion stops you from serving customers, then why do the pharmacies hire them? Why do they carry products that can't be served to customers?

Maybe we should change the law for licensing pharmacist. If you can't sell the products a company sells to customers, you shouldn't work there. I think that's what you tell to people who don't like what the benefits a boss offers, go somewhere else.

Obviously Tal believes the only right that's sacred is the right to abortion. Meanwhile the NY Times recognizes the problem with expanding the Medicaid roles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/us/lack-of-doctors-may-worsen-as-millions-join-medicaid-rolls.html?_r=1&

Tomorrow the fix is in . Question..... will the number of newly insured relative to the number of previously insured losing coverage could be ...ahem .... "disproportionate" ?
http://www.capalphadc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/aca-deadline-11-29-13.pdf

all I see is someone saying there is no contingency plan except maybe extending existing coverage

The Supreme Court says woman have the right to an abortion, not me. Roe v Wade.

So Tal do you think women should have rights to abortion, the one question that those who want abortions should be asked, should you have been aborted?

Should a man tell a woman what to do with her body? Only if she ASKS for his opinion. The law is the law. Get enough votes, it can be changed, modified, or repealed.

So you do agree you shouldn't be forcing your choices on us.

The law is the law. Get enough votes, it can be changed, modified, or repealed.

That's the way it's done here, don't like it... go to China. Show me where you have a right to be above the law, no matter how many guns you buy.

Its amazing how you hate Obama Care, but love not having to worry about being kicked off your insurance policy, or for family people everybody is covered to age 26. You love not having lifetime caps on coverage when you or your family need it the most, when you are sick.

You would give that up for you and your kids? And show me a TParty person who hates Social Security, and Medicare? (socialist programs) Tell your mom to take a voucher instead of have Medicare, and get her own insurance and supplements on the private markets.

She will kick your tail, and ground you for life.

Interesting how any time we mention you forcing your choices on us you pivot another direction replete with red herrings. And please, stop grandstanding about the law. This regime has set the example that the law is whatever he deems it to be at the moment. In fact, reality is whatever the emperor deems it to be, Obama spoke it and thus it was so. He's preparing to declare the website goal had been met, just because.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthcaregov-will-meet-deadline-for-fixes-white-house-officials-say/2013/11/29/caf6a236-5792-11e3-835d-e7173847c7cc_story.html

Obama isn'tthe government,congress can act,but they haven't,and being outvoted is NOT forcing anything down your throat.

Trust me, if dems can survive the republican presidents, you repubs can survive dem presidents. Contrary to your fear, America will thrive and survive too.

Obviously your respect for the law depends on the circumstances, too

Hello again, Steve:

Obviously your respect for the law depends on the circumstances, tooNot me. I have NO respect for the law, across the board, PERIOD!!

Fool me once, it's on you. Fool me twice, it's on whatever Bush said it was. But, he was RIGHT. Once you start locking people up and throwing away the key for NOTHING, you lost me. Until you FIX it, I'll STAY lost.

excon

Obamacare May Be Dangerous to Your Health (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/30/obamacare-may-be-dangerous-to-your-health.html)

Hello again, Steve:

Obamacare May Be Dangerous to Your HealthHaving NO insurance may be dangerouser.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Having NO insurance may be dangerouser.

excon

Then why force people off their plans? Don't tell me, I already know the well rehearsed, but oblivious to the realities, answer.

How To Spot A Fake Obamacare Horror Story | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/31/2868631/essential-guide-debunking-obamacare-cost-myth/)

How The United States' Growing Income Inequality Is Hurting Women's Mental Health | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/31/2868811/income-inequality-women-depression/)

This Halloween, Obamacare Critics Are Trying Their Best To Scare You About Health Reform | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/10/31/2867251/obamacare-critics-scare-halloween/)

Hello again, Steve:

Then why force people off their plans? Don't tell me, I already know the well rehearsed, but oblivious to the realities, answer.Nahhh... You didn't know THIS answer.

Lemme ask you this... IF the government BANNED lead painted toys, would you be sniveling about what the government is FORCING you to do???

Proly, huh?

excon

So the insurance we could afford and has served our needs well is bad for your health, and horror stories from obamacare supporters, including those used in obamacare ads and via Obama friendly media outlets are fakes.

I call that not only aversion to reality but desperation.

Hello again, Steve:

So the insurance we could afford and has served our needs well is bad for your health,If they can cancel you when you get sick, YES. If they have HIGH, almost unreachable co-pays, YES. If they have HIGH, almost unreachable deductibles, YES. If they have LIMITED coverage, YES. If they have death panels, YES.

The fact of the matter is, that crap insurance NEVER served YOUR needs well.. It served the needs of the insurance company.

Here's what I don't understand. Why you WANT your children to play with lead painted toys, I mean why you want to be insured with CRAP, when you can actually get a GOOD policy???

Hep me out here.

excon

You say that as if we haven't already shown higher copays, higher deductibles, higher premiums, more limited coverage, fewer choices of providers and a government death panel has been trying to convince my dad behind our backs all week to stop his medical care and sign hospice papers while my brother-in-law was being sent home because Medicare wouldn't pay for him to be treated in the hospital where he should be right now. Really, stop talking to me like I'm stupid.

wow even the compliant Obamamedia has been jumping ship and reporting these "fake " horror stories . But evidently there are some real believers here in the Church of the emperor.

Hello again, Steve:

You say that as if we haven't already shown higher copays, higher deductibles, higher premiums, more limited coverage, fewer choices of providers In the main, if the tradeoff are policies that have NO caps, that can't refuse you because of a pre-existing condition, that won't bankrupt you if you get sick, that'll allow children to stay on their parents policy til they're 26, that pay for PRE-EMPTIVE care, and that'll cover 35 MILLION people that have NEVER been covered before, I'd say Obamacare is BETTER.

You, not so much.

excon

We are all shocked to see what the high cost of medical care is, healthy, or not. We all are looking closer at what we have been paying for, and what we will pay for in the future. Eventually you get over the sticker shock and realize you have been wasting your money, while you got nothing for it. And while the price seems higher now, it won't go up as fast. That's the goal.

Now you can trot out all the stories you want about those sticker shocked people, and moan about their inconvenience, but you cannot ignore the already sick people who were kicked off their insurance before, but can get insurance now and have been since the ACA took effect in 2010.

Keep thinking complaints and sob stories are a sign of people jumping ship to your side. Think mid terms elections before you panic.

The "better" healthcare you want to steer us to told my dad that hospice "was where they just keep giving you morphine until one day you don't wake up."

Hello again, Steve:

The "better" healthcare you want to steer us to told my dad I dunno what "better" healthcare you're talking about, but the ACA ISN'T in force yet.

But, whatever he has, I'm absolutely POSITIVE he was REFUSED care, and told to go to a place where they'll keep him high until he dies...

Yes, I'm absolutely POSITIVE he was told that.

Look.. I WISH you'd keep your family OUT of these discussions. I'm SORRY about your dad, but I know NOTHING about who insures him or what his condition is. Consequently, whatever I say about him is GOING to sound callous. Same thing with your daughter.. You ALREADY don't like what I said about her.

excon

So you'd rather I stick to the fake stories and not real life around me. Got it.

Hello again, Steve:

So you'd rather I stick to the fake stories and not real life around me. Got it.So, you want me to ask you if your father is terminal. You want me to ask you if he's in the last days of his life... You want me to ask if he's competent...

Well, I ain't gonna.

excon

Don't you think everybody has a compelling experience, be it good or bad, for or against the ACA? I mean we shouldn't do something because it has problems for a few, granted millions, against the tens of millions it will benefit?

Does moving backward instead of forward benefit MORE people? What about the millions who lose what they NEEDED, and not just liked?

Come on. You choose sticker shock, or more money, over sick people already??

Here we go again with the false "wingers are cold hearted b@stards" aka "Republicans want you to die quickly" argument again, while thinking screwing up healthcare for the vast majority of us and exacerbating the doctor shortage is progress. Have you guys never learned you don't fix something by making it worse?

I question your VAST MAJORITY! Back up your numbers.

Use Obama own inflated numbers of uninsured and subtract that from the population and you tell me.

You know as well as I do there are more sick/poor/old people in need than there are inconvenienced temporarily.

Doesn't matter whose numbers you use.

No I don't. I know the vast majority of Americans were insured by your own numbers. I know nearly every one of them will lose the plans they had, and quite a few will have to pay significantly more for lesser plans and fewer provider choices.

CNN: ObamaCare Website Crashes During Signup Process - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59VTIDjKDZ4&feature=youtu.be)
CNN crashed the Obamacare web site today .

Under that video, tomder, it says --

"Published on Dec 1, 2013
CNN: ObamaCare Website Crashes During Signup Process (November 1, 2013)"

Then there is this from CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/01/politics/obamacare-website/
"By Martina Stewart, CNN
updated 4:01 PM EST, Sun December 1, 2013"

CNN/ORC Poll: Are Obamacare's flaws fixable? – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/27/cnnorc-poll-are-obamacares-flaws-fixable/)

Washington (CNN) – Despite the flawed rollout of HealthCare.gov, a majority of Americans still seem to have an open mind about whether Obamacare will work, and more than half of those surveyed in a new national poll believe the current problems can be solved.


A CNN/ORC International poll also indicates nearly six in 10 Americans oppose the national health care law, but some give the Affordable Care Act a thumbs down because it isn't liberal enough.

Just to rebutt that vast majority stuff.

A website crashes happens everyday, mine is down right now

trust me WG that was this morning .

Hello clete:

A website crashes happens everyday, mine is down right nowThen you should do the responsible thing, and close your doors forever.

excon

Hello clete:
Then you should do the responsible thing, and close your doors forever.

excon

No ex I will do the responsible thing and restore the website. A website crashes, it isn't the end of the world

Not whens it's the centerpiece of your landmark legislation by the most tech savvy administration ever.

Especially when it's the centerpiece of your landmark legislation by the most tech savvy administration ever.

Right.

Not whens it's the centerpiece of your landmark legislation by the most tech savvy administration ever.

Who made that claim?

Hello again,

I'm a SMALL government liberal... You????

Is that before or after Obamacare?

Hello again,

I'm a SMALL government liberal... You????

Yes the cost curve went up as government requirements increased . The system before Obamacare could hardly be called 'free market' .
Curious to know how you reconcile being a 'small government'type of guy with a national single payer system that administers to 315 million Americans (and God knows how many illegals ) .

The system before was run entirely by business for many decades, so the model they used must have been broken yet they made no fixes to it. WHY?

What could they have done to fix it?

Obviously government is the solution. Maybe one day they'll even be able to build a website.

P.S. Via Chuck Todd from the WH relaunch report, why government is not the solution:


CHUCK TODD: David, the most interesting thing in this report, right, page one– it's page three of the report, it says here that, “The team is operating with private sector velocity and effectiveness.”

DAVID GREGORY: Yeah.

CHUCK TODD: Okay, that is an acknowledgement that, “You know what? If this was a government operation for a long time and it failed, now we're bringing in the private sector folks.” I mean, that is an indictment on the whole idea of government as a solution, frankly, when you look at [unintelligible].

Even the regime admits the private sector does it better.

Try to keep up. It's a collaboration between public and PRIVATE sectors. The website has gone from 43% to 90% efficient in 60 days. That's progress. Therewill be more progress, on many fronts.

The system before was run entirely by business for many decades,
No it wasn't . It was run as 50 state government approved cartels .It's more cable tv. Only a few providers are allowed in ,at the local politicians discretion .You can't as a consumer make choices in programming. You must purchase tiers of service that pads your dial with cr@p you'll never watch . In the end you are over paying for services that you don't want .
The only difference is that Obamacare takes the whole concept national .

Hello again, tom:

Curious to know how you reconcile being a 'small government 'type of guy with a national single payer system that administers to 315 million AmericansFor the same reason you call yourself a small government conservative, all the while supporting a military that is 10 times larger than the next 10 largest nations COMBINED.

By the way, single payer is NOT large government.. It's government writing checks.. You don't need a HUGE, HUMONGOUS bureaucracy to do that.. You need a FEW computer geeks. It could be done out of the basement in the White House.

Your HUGE military, on the other hand, really IS that big..

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Is that before or after Obamacare?It's now. That's another reason why single payer would have been much better.. Obamacare pushes down the cost curve every so slightly.. But, it really wasn't meant to DO that.. It was MEANT to be a free market system, and it IS. You know, with PRIVATE insurance companies, and stuff..

Oh, it's an OUT OF CONTROL market, and NEEDS to be curbed... But, Obamacare ain't gonna do that, cause it's NOT universal healthcare..

excon

Try to keep up. It's a collaboration between public and PRIVATE sectors. The website has gone from 43% to 90% efficient in 60 days. That's progress. Therewill be more progress, on many fronts.

It only improved because the private sector came to the rescue, and the claim that it's operating at private sector efficiency is not flattering to you government solution types. Try and keep up.

Dem Keith Ellison in his attempted defense of Obama's lies played the "Americans are to blame for misunderstanding what he said" card, aka, the "we're too stupid for our own good so we need a government nanny" card.


KEITH ELLISON: You know, I just want to say I think that everything that the president said and did was in pursuit to get all Americans health care, so, I think, even though he may have said, if you like your decent insurance, your insurance that works, then you can keep it, I think that people really get that. When -- he owned it. He said, look, if you misunderstood what I was trying to say, I'm sorry about that. I think that shows integrity.

Read more: Dem Keith Ellison Interprets Obama: 'If You Misunderstood What I Was Trying to Say, I'm Sorry' | NewsBusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/12/01/dem-keith-ellison-interprets-obama-if-you-misunderstood-what-i-was#ixzz2mKj7HzCM)

I agree with you Tom, it is a state run operation. One of the over riding concerns about crossing state lines is the 50 different set of rules. But don't states have a right to set those rules? Of course they do and selling a product from state to state means taxes, tariffs or duties.

That's why the ACA is so complex because it sets a standard for ALL 50 states to follow. The law specifically tells states they have to make state rules that meet those standards but SCOTUS said one part, Medicaid, was voluntary to each state.

Fact is the fixes to poor people getting health care by the states left a whole lot of people uninsured, and uninsurable. Lack of funding being the chief cause. One in four in my state for example, and guess who bears those costs... us Texans, and it's a similar situation in every state.

So what's your fix to this dilemma, since cable companies and insurance companies set the rates and policies of their own businesses, with regulations set and administered by the state run cartels, and before you blame it on the left, keep in mind that Texas and many others have been run by right winger cartels for decades.

What's your fix?We have seen the private sector fix, make mo' money. What's yours?

Okay Speech, what's YOUR fix my fellow Texan?

Hello again, tom:
For the same reason you call yourself a small government conservative, all the while supporting a military that is 10 times larger than the next 10 largest nations COMBINED.

By the way, single payer is NOT large government.. It's government writing checks.. You don't need a HUGE, HUMONGOUS bureaucracy to do that.. You need a FEW computer geeks. It could be done out of the basement in the White House.

Your HUGE military, on the other hand, really IS that big..

excon

I can hear the doctors now using the old soviet worker's slogan ... 'they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work' .

Hello again, tom:

I can hear the doctors now using the old soviet worker's slogan ... 'they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work' .And, if my Social Security check stopped, or they stopped paying Medicare, I'd be saying the same thing.

But, THIS isn't that.. Maybe THAT'S the problem.. You think it IS.

excon

Tal my solution starts with giving consumers More choices ,not less. I also think part of the cost problem that Ex showed is because the true costs of medical care gets hidden from the consumer. All these elaborate tests that doctors give to cover their a$$ from lawsuits is an expensive way to do business.

Some doctors may be used to prescribing these seemingly "routine tests," but the "Choosing Wisely" initiative from the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation says these procedures are often unnecessary and besides driving up the country's skyrocketing health care costs, can put patients at risk.

According to The New York Times, up to one-third of the $2 trillion of annual U.S. health care costs is spent on unnecessary hospitalizations and tests, ineffective new drugs and medical devices, unproven treatments, and unnecessary end of life care.

Doctors unveil "Choosing Wisely" campaign to cut unnecessary medical tests - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-unveil-choosing-wisely-campaign-to-cut-unnecessary-medical-tests/)

Hello again, tom:

All these elaborate tests that doctors give to cover their a$$ from lawsuits is an expensive way to do business. This is just ONE example of the market gone awry.

There's a couple ways to deal with it.. Instead of taking away both MINE and YOUR right to SUE, why don't we simply PAY for the stuff that IS medically necessary?? If the government is writing the checks, the government can decide which procedures to pay for...

But, HOLD ON!!! If the government STOPPED all the elaborate tests you speak of, I can hear you yelling DEATH PANELS all the way over here.

excon

Must be a good idea, Tom, it's in the bill. And the prez has talked about paying for outcomes and not just treatments or CYOA tests many times. That was part of doctors changing over to electronic records so extra tests by one is unnecessary, and they could share the results between them.

Hello again,

I'm a SMALL government liberal... You????

No wonder they save money in the UK, besides the extreme pressure to cut costs and meet efficiency standards (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3363766-post45.html) they just neglect the patients.


More than a thousand care home residents die thirsty
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10487305/More-than-a-thousand-care-home-residents-die-thirsty.html)
More than 1,000 care home residents have died of thirst or while suffering severe dehydration over the past decade, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Elderly and vulnerable patients were left without enough water despite being under the supervision of trained staff in homes in England and Wales.

The Coalition has failed to improve the situation, with more people dying while dehydrated last year than when David Cameron took office, although the total was lower than the 2006 peak.

Charities called for an urgent overhaul in social care, saying that the general public would be outraged if animals were treated in the same way.

“How can we call ourselves civilised when people are left to starve or die of thirst? … It is an utter disgrace that they are ever left without the most basic care,” said Dr Alison Cook, a director at the Alzheimer’s Society

Send those b@stards to jail for abuse!! That's the wrong way to cut cost don't you agree? We can be better and still be more efficient than this example can't we? Even though we didn't show it with no child left behind testing.

Winterborne was a private nursing home. Apparently private nursing homes run for profit rate poorly compared to non-profit nursing homes in England.The problem is not just with the public sector. The article forgot to mention this.

I'll take you on tour of the publicly run nursing homes here . Conditions are horrible . Be sure to bring a mask so you won't have to experience the smell of urine unwashed ...and make sure you carry extra Purell in case you happen to need to touch an elevator button . Maybe grab some ear plugs so you don't have to listen to the moans of the patients left unattended .

Well Tom seems we have certain problems in common, not that we have publicly run nursing homes but conditions in some privately run nursing homes are remarkedly similar to those you describe for your publicly run homes and worse, kerosene baths, starvation, even murder. Seems the management of the elderly is a universal problem; out of sight, out of mind. me, I think I'll die with dignity

Tom, you don't have to take me on a tour of public nursing homes. In exactly the same way you don't have to take me on a tour of private nursing homes. Why?

Because the reality is that there are very good private nursing homes. In exactly the same way as there are very good public nursing homes. As surprising as it might seem there are actually very bad public nursing homes and very bad private nursing homes.

In my post I was actually trying to point out the problem with the usual false dichotomy.

the usual false dichotomy.


a ploy Tom is very familiar with

All regulated by the government.

Medicare.gov - About Nursing Home Inspections (http://www.medicare.gov/Nursing/AboutInspections.asp)

Two Deaths, Wildly Different Penalties: The Big Disparities in Nursing Home Oversight - ProPublica (http://www.propublica.org/article/two-deaths-different-penalties-disparities-in-nursing-homes-oversight)

Nursing Home Inspect (http://projects.propublica.org/nursing-homes/)

Seems states do there own inspecting and regulating.

Still the government.

Can you elaborate on your point?

I would weep for your seniors if the nursing homes were a totally unregulated free market industry.

Hello again, tal:

Can you elaborate on your point?The point he's making is that the PATIENTS and their family's need to be the ones paying the nursing home bill...

Oh, that's right. If that were the case, the nursing homes would go broke, and granny is gonna die in your spare bedroom, or on the street.. Are YOU gonna be the one cleaning up after granny?

excon

No, the point I'm making is it is you guys who keep trying to convince us of the wonderful benefits of a government nanny. What was it you wanted me to be thankful for, the government protecting me from lead based paint? Tal is always wanting me to be thankful for, the government protecting us from all manner of bad stuff.

Yet, neither of you want to acknowledge the government isn't protecting our dads and grandmas?

I don't believe I have ever told you to be grateful, but having been responsible for many elderly relatives I can tell you the government only does so much, and you have to do the rest. Its an overwhelming every day endeavor be it a nursing home, or in their home.

I have been through the process many times. Still going through it. It is what it is.

Hello again, Steve:

Yet, neither of you want to acknowledge the government isn't protecting our dads and grandmas?Compared to who??? It's YOUR side who wants to give 'em vouchers and cut 'em loose...

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Compared to who??? It's YOUR side who wants to give 'em vouchers and cut 'em loose...

excon

How did we get from protecting seniors in nursing homes to education? Obviously the government isn't doing such a great job at that either, and prefers to force children to stay in failing schools.

Hello again, Steve:

The right wing FIX for Medicare, written by Paul Ryan, was, and still IS, a VOUCHER system.

excon

Your state and local governments are responsible for both issues. The feds write checks. Your blame is a bit misplaced, that's what I was pointing out in previous links that you totally ignore. Who made the schools fail?

Your state and local governments are responsible for both issues. The feds write checks. Your blame is a bit misplaced, that's what I was pointing out in previous links that you totally ignore. Who made the schools fail?

I said either way it was a government failure, but you know damn the role the feds plays. From your own link I allegedly ignored.:


State governments oversee the licensing of nursing homes. In addition, States have a contract with CMS to monitor those nursing homes that want to be eligible to provide care to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Congress established minimum requirements for nursing homes that want to provide services under Medicare and Medicaid. These requirements are broadly outlined in the Social Security Act (the Act). The Act also entrusts the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS) with the responsibility of monitoring and enforcing these requirements. CMS, a DHHS Agency, is also charged with the responsibility of working out the details of the law and how it will be implemented, which it does by writing regulations and manuals.

Now what part of that absolves the feds?

I absolve no one but the responsibility is a shared one. You would be the first to holler if the feds came and closed those funk a$$ nursing homes down, but you sure support the state closing abortion clinics right now.

In other words they are all government regulated just as I said, and not only that but the feds are 100 percent responsible for enforcing their requirements for any facility that accepts Medicaid/Medicare.

But think about it Tal, why would I holler about anyone shutting down "those funk a$$ nursing homes?" Did I somehow leave the impression I'm pro-elderly abuse?

the feds are 100 percent responsible for enforcing their requirements for any facility that accepts Medicaid/Medicare.

No they are NOT, the state has sole responsibility for licensing and that means the feds just go by what the state says. That's what the links say. Now if you want the feds to get in your state business just say so. But don't selectively blame the feds for what the state is supposed to do.

I mean you can close abortion clinics for safety, but not elderly care homes for the same reason? WHY is that?

No they are NOT, the state has sole responsibility for licensing and that means the feds just go by what the state says. That's what the links say. Now if you want the feds to get in your state business just say so. But don't selectively blame the feds for what the state is supposed to do.

Um, this is surreal. Yes the state licenses nursing homes, the state is still GOVERNMENT which is what I said. Are you denying the state is GOVERNMENT?

Additionally, what I said was IF they want to accept Medicaid or Medicare they also have to adhere to federal standards, based on regulations and manuals written by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and monitored and enforced by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, under contract with CMS. Are you denying this from your own source (http://www.medicare.gov/Nursing/AboutInspections.asp)? Either way they are still government regulated so I can only assume you want to shift all blame to the states, which matters not to my point.


I mean you can close abortion clinics for safety, but not elderly care homes for the same reason? WHY is that?

This is even more surreal. Where in the hell are you getting the idea I wouldn't come down like a ton of bricks on deficient nursing homes? You certainly did not get it from me so why are you repeating this drivel? You think I want them to abuse my dad or what???????

I mean seriously, read my words - don't put them in my mouth. Painting me as a defender of "funk a$$ nursing homes" is below the belt nasty.

Speech, your original article was about nursing homes both private and public failing to do their job properly. All these nursing homes are overseen by government regulators with the idea that they meet a standard that is acceptable.

Clearly the regulators failed to conduct proper inspections and half the blame lies with them. The other half of the blame lies with the private and public nursing homes. Why?

Because in the first instance it is up the nursing home to set up a practice that attempts to meet the regulations that exist. There is no excuse for setting up a practice that doesn't, or can't meet the standards and then blame the regulators for not doing their job. It is a shared responsibility.

Ok, it is a shared responsibility. I'm not the one trying to excuse some of those responsible.

the people who are responsible are those who are derelect in their duty of care, you are trying to make the government responsible, but all they can do is enforcement which is an after the event activity

the people who are responsible are those who are derelect in their duty of care, you are trying to make the government responsible, but all they can do is enforcement which is an after the event activity

Clete, I agree that ultimately it is the provider that is responsible but you're missing the point. These lefties here have been arguing about government protecting us from those greedy corporations that would do us harm, but when it's demonstrated that this same government is not protecting us they shift the blame. They can't have it both ways.

no speech you're right., but let's stop knocking the government for a while and start knocking the true offenders, the selfseeking capitalists who put profit before care, who prey on the unfortunate and infirm

I won't stop knocking the government, they have not demonstrated at all they have my best interest at heart. This regime has made it clear that politics and power come before the people. At least with the greedy capitalists I have a choice.

Hello again, Steve:

I won't stop knocking the government, they have not demonstrated at all they have my best interest at heart.I couldn't agree more.

excon

what choice is that speech to be ripped off by "the market"? The free market and choice is an illusion created by some slick adman.

In this case, some aspects of the market needed to be regulated and as a result chances happened. What can I tell you shlt happens! we have a political process so that eventually change happens, we would like to think it gives a good result but.................. we are dealing with people afterall

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

“Seven Deadly Sins

Wealth without work
Pleasure without conscience
Science without humanity
Knowledge without character
Politics without principle
Commerce without morality
Worship without sacrifice.”
― Mahatma Gandhi (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/5810891.Mahatma_Gandhi)

does any of this sound familiar

Hello again,

Obama ISN'T losing the health care debate to the Republicans.. He's losing it against HIMSELF. That's because the Republicans DON'T have a plan. To wit: Yesterday, John Boehner gave a news conference where he critisized Obamacare, and said stuff like people want to choose their insurance. They wanna choose their doctor. They wanna choose their hospital.. That's what patient centered health care looks like. (I looked for the video, but couldn't find it).

Then he was asked whether those ideas would be VOTED on in the House by 2014. He snickered, along with the newsmen, and said, "We'll see".

I've asked before here, what the Republican plan is. I remember Steve telling me that the Republican plan has been presented here SOOOO many times, that he wasn't going to repeat himself..

But, I WISH he would, because HE knows, and I KNOW, and Boehner KNOWS, and ALL the newsmen in that press conference KNEW, that there ISN'T a plan.

Oh, I know there are parts, like tort reform, and buying insurance across state lines, but that's it. There's no PLAN. There's NOTHING that can be scored. There's no BILL. There's NO alternative to Obamacare... There's just right wingers flapping their gums...

excon

Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/28/seriously-the-republicans-have-no-health-plan/)

Hello again, Steve:

Seriously?Yes, I'm being serious.. But, we're back to the same old games you play when you don't wanna answer, or there IS no answer...

I WENT to Forbes, but it didn't tell me what the Republican Health plan was.. It only listed the lefty's like me, who're saying the same things as me.. There WAS a link to the WSJ where it said that Karl Rover spelled out the Republican plan.. But, it wanted me to JOIN before it would let me read the article...

So, given THAT runaround, I'm left with believing that there IS NO PLAN.

Look.. Obamacare is 1,200 pages... I haven't read it, but I can TELL you what the plan IS, and HOW it's paid for. I'm simply asking YOU to do the same... But, you ain't gonna. I know you Steve. You WOULD if you COULD.. But, since there AIN'T no plan, you can't. Poor right winger.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yes, I have more to say... Aside from the tired old crap about tort reform and buying insurance across state lines, you TALK about how you'll KEEP the good stuff in Obamacare, like kids on their parents policy's till they're 26, ending the pre-existing condition crap, and ending the cap, and stuff like that...

But, I PROMISE you, it's NOT WRITTEN down, because PAYING for it would explode the deficit. You'd NEVER raise taxes to pay for it... So, this is a plan that resides in the minds of Republicans only, because no Republican in his right mind would EVER support it.

Over to you, winger.

excon

Hello again, Steve:
Yes, I'm being serious.. But, we're back to the same old games you play when you don't wanna answer, or there IS no answer...

I WENT to Forbes, but it didn't tell me what the Republican Health plan was.. It only listed the lefty's like me, who're saying the same things as me..

You obviously didn't read the whole article. Below the video and on page 2:


Comprehensive Republican health reform plans introduced in Congress


Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.

Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.

Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.

Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.

Patients’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.

H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).

Comprehensive conservative Obamacare replacement plans

Likewise, conservative market-oriented health policy scholars have developed a rich menu of potential replacement plans for Obamacare:


Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.

Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.

Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.

Fixed tax credits. A variety of proposals have centered on using fix tax credits to replace the current inefficient and unfair tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Two good explanations of how that would work are here:

James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, “How to Replace Obamacare,” National Affairs, no. 11 (Spring 2012).

James C. Capretta. Constructing an Alternative to Obamacare: Key Details for a Practical Replacement Program. American Enterprise Institute, December 2012.

Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USC–Jay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson—released Best of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits.

Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001.

Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly).

Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured).

The forgotten history of George W. Bush’s comprehensive health reform plan

Too many people conveniently ignore that in his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed.

What’s sad is that the Bush plan actually was superior to Obamacare when it comes to providing universal coverage. Remember, Obamacare actually does not provided universal coverage. The latest figures from CBO says that when it is fully implemented in 2016, Obamacare will cut the number of uninsured by only 45%, covering 89% of the non-elderly. Even if illegal immigrants are excluded, this percentage rises to only 92%. In contrast, the Bush plan (without a mandate!) would have cut the number of uninsured by 65%. But that’s ancient history. Consider one of the newest market-oriented health reform plans put on the table by Jim Capretta and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Compared to Obamacare, this plan would cost roughly the same amount yet cover 22% more (8 million!) uninsured. If there’s a superior alternative to the slow-motion train wreck now being implemented, why wouldn’t the President and Democrats in Congress want to seriously consider it as a replacement?

Of course even those willing to acknowledge Bush’s health reform plan then tend to counter with the claim that he wasn’t “serious” about his proposal. It was just a defensive move to defend Republicans in 2008 against the charge that the Republicans didn’t have a plan because they didn’t care about the issue (sound familiar). Those dubious about GWB’s “seriousness” about health reform should do the following thought experiment. Imagine that the Democrats in Congress had passed a bill containing the Bush administration’s health plan–no more, no less. Does anyone seriously believe GWB would have vetoed that bill? If not, I would argue his proposal was a serious one.

Enough of that argument, OK?

You repubs had plenty of time to get your ideas in the ACA, and did. I gave a link that spells them out.

You guys voted NO, but the bill passed and was upheld.

So now that the myth that Republicans haven't had any alternatives is exploded it's back to the myth that they had any input on Obamacare. Dude, they were locked out of the discussion, this is a 100 percent Democrat-owned disaster. Own it.