 |
And then what ? The fines increase at a similar rate of increase for insurance coverage . Without a tremendous amt of subsidies ,the young (who's enrollment is key in the calculations to make the fantasy work) will continue to opt out .Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hello again, wingers:
Let me ask you this. Even if you HATE Obamacare, and you HATE how it's paid for, aren't you happy that the poor family down the street can buy insurance?
excon
Remember the Stupak–Pitts Amendment that conned the blue dog dems into voting for Obamacare ? Well so much for that deception.
Obama administration: Lawmakers, staff can get abortion coverage - Washington Times
Don't know how many blue dogs are left in Congress since the Dems have been purging anyone who isn't far radical left from their ranks . But they must been feeling stupid .
This what you get when you are not paying attention to the detail
This is what you get when you have an emperor who decides which laws he chooses to enforce/ ignore .
That poor family down the street could have had Medicaid.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It depends on how you define poor. Poor working family or lazy family living off food stamps, welfare, and the free phone they were given?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Not unless your governor okays the Medicaid expansion. One million Texans are excluded from Medicaid because he hasn't.
Hello again, J:
Of those poor families, what percentage do you believe are "working poor", or scammers?
excon
If they're "poor" they could have gotten Medicaid before Zerocare. Instead, you guys had to totally remake healthcare for everyone and quite frankly a lot of us resent that. The "poor" had a safety net but you think everyone needs a government nanny and quite frankly, a lot of us resent that. In typical liberal/progressive fashion you refuse to do things that will lift others up so we can all prosper, you have to bring others down and "level the playing field" whatever that means.
And meanwhile, the elite you pretend to hate just get richer and more powerful. They will still get whatever care they want while the rest of us deal with fewer options, fewer providers, and long waits.
Oh, believe me. I see them all. In my location there are more living off the system than working poor. If it didn't violate HIPAA I have stories that would shock you.
Stablize, give pills for pain and symptoms, and get told to go see a doctor, is the safety net you think is adequate? If they could afford to see a doctor they wouldn't be in the emergency room of the county hospital. That's where the poor elderly get shuffled in Texas. Don't know about Tennessee or Oklahoma, where a lot of hollering about losing their present system of state run health care safety nets, but so far, I am finding the same general plan for those lazy poor people who run to emergency rooms for their doctor needs.
Seems to come down to how well the states have been tackling the problem, and how well they prepared for the changes the law represents.
I found these points to be of interest,
Obamacare and why the Cleveland Clinic is really cutting jobs - Dave Ross Blog - MyNorthwest.com
Wait until they add the sequester to the mix, and those government contractors start laying off. LOL, and repubs expect everything to work, without paying for anything.Quote:
But in fact, this is one of those examples of the government actually spending less money.
When the government spends less, yeah, jobs get cut.
You kind of have to choose which side of the seesaw you want to be on.
If you hate government spending, you should be happy the government is spending less on Medicaid and Medicare, and that the Cleveland Clinic is making a 5 percent cut in its budget to get ready for that.
When you cut costs as the clinic is doing, and as it's supposed to do, if we're going to save money on health care, what has to happen? Some people have to lose their jobs.
Like when people clamored for the government to cut spending, and then say, "Will you look at that, unemployment is up!" Well, how do you think you cut spending? You cut salaries or fire people.
I guess you missed where ER visits increased after Romneycare and why that might be? You think they're going to decrease after Obamacare? Bwa ha ha!!Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
http://www.mass.gov/chia/docs/r/pubs...-2004-2008.ppt
pp26Quote:
Findings:
Community Health Network Areas (CHNA) with the highest per capita rates of preventable/avoidable ED use had rates that were 3 to 5 times the CHNAs with the lowest rates. This could signal that there are substantial disparities among communities in primary care access and treatment.
Designated medically underserved populations (low income) consistently exhibited higher rates of preventable or avoidable ED visits compared to the state average. For some, Fall River, North Berkshire and Springfield, the rates were more than double the state average. This may indicate that socio-economic factors play a role in access to primary care. Only one area (Lowell) designated as a medically underserved population had a lower than average rate of preventable/avoidable ED visits. This is consistent with a lower rate found for the Greater Lowell Community Health Network Area.
Geographic areas designated as health professional shortage areas showed mixed results. Unlike socio-economic barriers (medically-underserved populations above), geographic barriers measured by distance from the nearest primary care provider alone may not be a significant driver of preventable or avoidable ED visits.
pp27Quote:
The preventable/avoidable ED visit data can also contribute to a set of measurable outcomes to evaluate progress towards improved health in the CHNA. It should be recognized, however, that socio-economic factors in each region play a significant role.
These were pre recession numbers to be sure, but one other factor is apparent, no primary physician, the whole key to accessing reasonable Health Care for anyone.
If you have a link for more recent data please provide it.
Thanks A Lot, Mr. President! My Health Premium Is Up 114% - ForbesQuote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
This is something I found out today while doing some more research...
A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018. Those whose employers pay for all, or most, of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual, or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. Americans for Tax Reform
I pay approximately $3,200 per year for my insurance, now I'm going to be taxed an additional $1,280? Where am I going to get this money from? I can't work 24 hours a day 7 days a week!
Yep, that's liberal logic - penalize you for having good insurance, penalize you for having no insurance, exempt themselves from it all.Quote:
Originally Posted by J_9
I bet if this was ever challenged under the equal protection clause... it would not stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Subjecting one goup to one thing while specifically exempting another... fill in rich/poor, black/white... etc... Polititions/peons...
But won't this get people off Medicaid (our tax dollars at work) and make them responsible for their own health care? Isn't that want Republics especially want -- individual responsibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:05 AM. |