I know, it's hard to figure out to get enough of other people's money to make us all equally healthy and wealthy.
|
I know, it's hard to figure out to get enough of other people's money to make us all equally healthy and wealthy.
If you were poor and not healthy, what would your resources be? What would you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I fail to see the relevance to my post. In spite of the constant rhetoric it's well documented that I am all in favor of a safety net for those in need. The question is how does one reach this alleged goal of "equality?" There is nothing fair in hurting one person to help another and I think you'd be hard pressed to find me some examples of such experiments that haven't hurt the people while enriching the elite and creating shortages and chaos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
How's that working out in Sean Penn's hero's state?
As Venezuelans Rush To Appliance Stores, Maduro Urges Calm | Fox News Latino
Its not other peoples money its OUR money pooled to help US all. That's what I hate about Ted Cruz, he enjoys his cadillac insurance from his wife, and tells poor people, working people, old people they don't deserve it, and tries to destroy any plan that helps them.
I would expect that response from you. Your side thinks our children don't belong to us, it's no surprise you don't think our money belongs to us - but we've known that for a long time. Sorry dude, I support paying a reasonable tax but stop EXPECTING us to be happy when you take more of our money or FORCE us to spend what's left how YOU choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
FYI, another Democrat has experienced the reality of the crap sandwich Obama gave her. Kirsten Powers is not happy...
Don't hold your breath over the emperor being honest about anything, Kirsten. Which reminds me, what were the official numbers enrolled today? Any demographics on that? How many were just in the shopping cart?Quote:
My blood pressure goes up every time they say that they’re protecting us from substandard health insurance plans,” Powers told Bret Baier. “There is nothing to support what they’re saying.”
“I have talked to about how I’m losing my health insurance,” she continued. “If I want to keep the same health insurance, it’s going to cost twice as much. There’s nothing substandard about my plan.”
“All of the things they say that are not in my plan are in my plan,” Powers lamented. “All of the things they have listed — there’s no explanation for doubling my premiums other than the fact that it’s subsidizing other people. They need to be honest about that.”
Does that include the 900,000 vets on food stamps? Well some of them will lose that access.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
170,000 Veterans May Lose Access To Food Stamps | Food Rant | Food | KCET
Nearly 1 Million Vets Face Food Stamps Cut | Military.comQuote:
The reasons that vets utilize SNAP is multi-dimensional and, sadly, somewhat predictable:
Veterans returning home from service have more trouble finding work than other folks, and rely more heavily on the food stamp program. The unemployment rate for recent veterans--those who have served in the past decade--is about 10 percent, almost 3 points above the national unemployment rate. War-related disabilities are one reason why. About a quarter of recent veterans reported service-related disabilities in 2011. Households that have a disabled veteran who is unable to work are twice as likely to lack access to sufficient food than households without a disabled service member.
Non action is not a good option.Quote:
About 900,000 veterans and 5,000 active duty troops face cuts in their food stamp benefits beginning Thursday as $5 billion is automatically trimmed from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program for low-income families.
"The coming benefit cut will reduce SNAP benefits, which are already modest, for all households by 7 percent on average, or about $10 per person per month," according to an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.......The SNAP program received a boost under the 2009 Recovery Act, or stimulus bill aimed at lifting the nation out of recession, but that temporary increase will expire Thursday as Congress continues to debate a new farm bill which would separate farm subsidies from food stamp benefits.
The problem with stimulus is it becomes an entitlement and cannot be withdrawn without hardshipQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
yup it becomes new base line ....in this case we are now in the 53rd month of the worse recovery since the Great Depression. Now we are told that this week's whopping "higher-than-expected" 2.8% real GDP gain is a result of this massive stimulus spending .But the driver any GDP increase is the energy sector's fracking development on private lands .
Meanwhile this almost non-recovery recovery was purchased with the national debt jumping from $10 to $17 trillion dollars in the time since the emperor took office.
Yes one day soon you will have to pay the piper, economics suggests that should be by a massive devaluation of your currency, but even if that happens it won't help your industries because they are already offshore and those businesses who thought to profit from Chinese cheap labour will feel the greatest pinch, so goodbye big executive salaries for doing nothingQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Depends on the type of equity you are trying to promote. Regardless of the system you had and regardless of the system you will end up with in the future you probably will still have a system whereby a person's economic circumstances determines the level of health care they receive. This is actually a recipe for inequality. You end up hurting the poor into order to favour the wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The type of equity that should be promoted is the brand that attempt to afford all people( regardless of economic circumstances) the same access to medical care.
So if a wealthy person finds the need to visit a doctor once a week for a year, the same medical opportunity is afford to the person who has little money. It is this attempt at equity that diminishes inequality in medical terms. So less people suffer because the pain in shared around.
I don't think the example you posted is relevant. For some reason there seems to be an inability to understand that equity of health is not necessarily the same as economic equity
Tutt you know that is not attainable .It's utopian delusions of what's possible . Even in your system there is a so called "universal " basic care and then a 2nd coverage system for those with the means to buy in.
Yes, I think everyone knows that. This is why I used the words, "attempt at" and "promoted" So yes, it is an attempt at something that will never be actually realized. In terms of medical access this is not argument against the attempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom I would like to answer your supposition, the basic difference between our systems is the provision of basic care, this is not dependent upon circumstance, it is a right, a benefit of being a citizen. It is provided for by a levy on those who don't have health insurance, it wasn't always so, but outside ideas have permetated our nation. The second tier provides access to care in private hospitals. What this gives you is quicker access for elective procedures, not to life saving procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I was in hospital a short time ago, all my extra cover would have provided in that instance is a free television, every thing else was covered.
What I would say to you is our utopian delusions have been realised and what stops you from doing the same is an ideological trap. Now I know we have had forty years experience in implementation you don't have, and we had the same misgivings in the beginning and it was not without the rebellion of the medical profession but in the end it has worked out for the benefit of everyone
I can tell you there is a co-payment in some instances but this is the perogative of the doctor, not the system and those who can't afford it don't use those doctors
and what is mandated as essential basic care ? Because here the emperor is dicatating that everything except the kitchen sink get covered.
And the elite will still get richer, more powerful and all the care they want.
Unless it destroys a system that worked well and served most of the nation more than sufficiently .Quote:
In terms of medical access this is not argument against the attempt.
well Tom the way it works is you go to the GP, a large number of whom are in the system, if he thinks you need something extra he refers you, basic pathology is covered and what the specialist charges is up to him, but a basic benefit is paid. if you need a hospital procedure and you have health cover you go to a private hospital otherwise you wait for a public hospital bed to be available, that is in the case of elective procedures. There is a pharameutical benefits scheme which covers at least part of the cost and there is an annual threshold above which you pay nothing. Health insurance covers stuff like chiropractic, extra dental, drugs not in the scheme, private hospitals, ambulance. Basically public hospitals are free. we don't have state taxes so the federal goverment finances the state systems, at least in part. It works off an ID card, no card you pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Costs are covered by a levy on income, unless you have insurance so once you have a reasonable income level it is stupid not to have insurance. If you are on welfare, etc you don't have to pay anything. Lots of people don't have enough income to have insurance, basically a family would need an income of $50,000 before they could afford insurance (ie, the insurance becomes cheaper than the levy)
Now I know I have made it look simple but it is all backed up by good software which links it all together and soon they will be implementing a national medical records scheme so the doctors are connected everywhere
so there are many fewer defined and mandated benefits . Thought so .
If I understand Clete, they use financial incentives in place of mandates.
Quote:
basically a family would need an income of $50,000 before they could afford insurance (ie, the insurance becomes cheaper than the levy)
Single payer is like prevailing wages, when we get it, you'll take it. And as the numbers grow on the enrollment, you will take that too. Personally, a couple of dems up for re election hollering like repubs, don't impress me.
it ought to when it comes from a leading Democrat Senator from the bluest state in the nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Tal, this is what irritates me the most about you libs, your arrogance in thinking you know what's best for us and what we want. Mind your own business, it's what you holler about with us when it comes to abortion, you want your paws in every area of our lives BUT that. Leave us alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
And the trans-vaginal ultrasound probe isn't someone's paw in MY (or my women friends') personal space? The closed women's health clinic "because it occasionally did an abortion" doesn't affect me (or my women friends)?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:
Let's review, shall we?Quote:
Tal, this is what irritates me the most about you libs, your arrogance in thinking you know what's best for us and what we want.
Yes, when the Democrats have an IDEA, they write a bill, that if passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president, becomes LAW. That's how it WORKS here in the good ole US of A.Certainly WE don't want the restrictions on abortion that you right wingers are doing. Do you care??? LEAVE THOSE WOMEN ALONE!!!Quote:
you want your paws in every area of our lives BUT that. Leave us alone.
excon
Thank you both for validating my point.
More whiners unhappy with losing the cheaper junk insurance they had, the City of Bel Aire, KS.
Quote:
City Workers of Bel Aire, Kansas, Losing Health Care They Like
Today, Congressman Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas, released communications he received from Ty Lasher, the city manager of Bel Aire, Kansas, describing the terrible impact of the Affordable Care Act on city workers. Contrary to President Obama’s promise that “if you like your health-care plan, you can keep it,” the city manager of Bel Aire, Kansas, revealed that city's 30+ employees have just received notice that because of the Affordable Care Act, their current insurance will no longer be available. The text of the email is below:
“Bel Aire is a small city of approximately 7,000 residents. We have about 30 full-time employees and a number of part-time staff that are all very attached and dedicated to our organization. We just received notice that the health-insurance coverage employees receive through Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) is no longer available. Everyone liked that plan which had very good benefits.
“Now, BCBS offers other plans that we can choose from based on the government’s standards. All offer higher deductibles and the two closest to our old plan each cost more than what we were paying. In addition, because we are under 50 employees, we no longer get a ‘group’ rate so everyone is being judged as a single.
“We have some long-term employees who are older and seeing their rates double. We are also seeing families paying more based on the number of children they have. We had a couple of employees who worked 20 hours a week and the city still allowed them on our health coverage plan.
“Now, BCBS said they will not cover anyone unless they work more than 30 hours per week. Therefore, those part-time employees will now lose their health coverage. To top it off, we were told if more than 25% of our ineligible employees choose to go elsewhere for their insurance, they will drop us, and all of our employees will have to go to the insurance exchange.
“As you are probably aware, governments typically pay a lower wage in exchange for better benefits. Now, our health insurance benefits are being eroded which may lead to a larger turnover in employees.”
Lasher continued: “I simply wanted you to know the pain this is causing me and my staff in losing the terrific health coverage we had through Blue Cross Blue Shield in exchange for worse coverage at a higher price. As you know, it is difficult to present dedicated employees with declining health coverage with a higher premium.”
Congressman Pompeo, who sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee which oversees the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, has been an outspoken critic of the law and its execution. During a recent hearing, he clashed with former Kansas Governor and current HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius over the claim that some insurance that people had and liked was not “true insurance.”
The emperor just again unilaterally changed the law. Aren't you glad the constitution gives the Presidency such power ?
Now we can keep those 'substandard plans ' for a year . Of course now millions of cancellation notices have already been sent out . So now it's up to the insurance companies to reinstitute policies that the emperor forced them to discontinue ,so they can discontinue them again in a year . And they have a month to get this done.
He gave you what you have been screaming about, Still you scream.
You holler about the sky falling, and you holler about it not falling. If there were no sky to holler about, you would holler anyway.
A one year reprieve is not what I was "screaming " for . That's a joke ,a blame shift ,and a cya for his cronies in Congress who are screaming about their electoral prospects
(and not their constitutents prospects ) .
line of the speech ..... there is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate ... that's poli-speak for 'I lied ' .
My expectation was that for 98% of the American people, either it wouldn't change at all or they'd be pleasantly surprised. That's another the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate (lie) . Still that means he knowingly swindled 2% of the people (over 6 million) . Bernie Madoff step aside . There's a new champ in town.
Hello again, tom:
DOWN goes Obama, but he springs up and lands a crushing blow to the temple. There's hope yet for Obamacare.Quote:
There's a new champ in town.
Don't measure the drapes yet, Mrs. Cruz.
excon
Until people figure out it doesn't work. You know, you've still pi$$ed off the rest of us with insurance we liked that had to be changed, got more expensive, gave us fewer choices in providers. Businesses have been switching plans already because they had to, it's not going to revert to last year's plan and you're still going to see the sick folks sign up while the healthy guys you need aren't going to. Nice going, champ..Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I keep on finding gems .... I get how upsetting this could be especially after hearing assurances from me
The Obama-ized version of "I feel your pain."Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
AHIP Statement on Consumers Keeping Their Current Coverage | AHIP CoverageQuote:
Changing the rules after health plans have already met the requirements of the law could destabilize the market and result in higher premiums for consumers. Premiums have already been set for next year based on an assumption of when consumers will be transitioning to the new marketplace. If due to these changes fewer younger and healthier people choose to purchase coverage in the exchange, premiums will increase in the marketplace and there will be fewer choices for consumers. Additional steps must be taken to stabilize the marketplace and mitigate the adverse impact on consumers -
Yes sir, he's undermining his own plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And then there's this, The Liar is still considering giving unions preferred treatment. I won't hold my breath waiting for any of The Liar's supporters to scream about the inequality in that.
Quote:
Republican senators sent a letter on Wednesday urging the administration not to go ahead with a regulation that would exempt unions from an Obamacare fee that applies to employers, charities, and faith-based organizations.
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a regulation that exempts union health plans from the reinsurance fee that comes along with Obamacare on Oct. 30.
Senior members of committees with key oversight roles concerning the health care system, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R. Tenn.), Sen. Orin Hatch (R., Utah), and Sen. John Thune (R. S.D.), along with eighteen other Republican senators wrote that the regulation makes no justification for why union members should receive special treatment.
“The [reinsurance] fee is undeniably expensive for unions, employers, charities and faith-based organizations whose health plans are not available in the new health insurance exchanges and will not see any of those dollars returned to them. For the year 2014, the fee is $63 per covered life—a multi-million dollar levy for larger organizations. […]
The regulation makes no justification as to why union members should be exempted from this fee while other similarly situated organizations (and, ultimately, their beneficiaries) must continue to pay it.
It has been widely reported that labor unions recently sought an exemption from the reinsurance fee through Congress but were rightly rebuffed. To think that the Obama Administration would consider such an action that benefits one group over another can only be characterized as cronyism at its worst.”
so much for that equity canard.Quote:
To think that the Obama Administration would consider such an action that benefits one group over another can only be characterized as cronyism at its worst.”
Strange isn't it? Less, strange is the fact that both sides do it. That is to say, politicians working to promote the interests of one group in society over another.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Equity will stop being a canard when a way is found to break that particular mindset. The mindset that says that, equity in economic terms is the same as all other types of equity.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:44 PM. |