Hello:
Do I NEED to ask a question??
excon
|
Hello:
Do I NEED to ask a question??
excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
I said no one is refused care. It may not be ideal
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
It's good to be king, if just for a whileQuote:
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..
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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:
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.Quote:
Look, I have always been an advocate for improving the safety net so we can dispense AGAIN with that meme.
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/op...ause.html?_r=0
I didn't stutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.Quote:
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.
P.S. Expanding Medicaid is just making it worse for Obamacare.
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
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!Quote:
P.S. Expanding Medicaid is just making it worse for Obamacare.
Medicaid enrollment spike a threat to Obamacare structure?
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
Quote:
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/site...3-20130318.pdf
And that will be doubly so when the temporary funding inducement by the Federal Government ends.
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.Quote:
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.
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:
Just like my driving an 1986 yellow Volvo station wagon doesn't make me poor either.Quote:
I would also point out Speech the cars in the lot or $100 dollars sneakers doesn't make them poor people
I LOVE my old, VERY old car. I'm going for record of 450,000 miles on ONE engine.
excon
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.Quote:
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 second, being in line with my daughter does make them "poor" people on government assistance.
If they were driving 86 Volvos I wouldn't have mentioned it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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
Hello again, Steve:Why am I getting flashes of Reagan's welfare queen??Quote:
If they were driving 86 Volvos I wouldn't have mentioned it.
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
yes I believe a Volvo is capable of turning the clock a number of times.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.Quote:
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?"
But this is probably the topic for another OP.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So this is about you deciding who gets dwindling resources? Now I get it.
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...97486775_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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 AM. |