NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[michaelskis]

Some of you have made very valid points, others have given a vague concept that I was wrong.

So please, someone answer these questions:
Will Obamacare cost more than what it was predicted?
Is Obamacare a tax?
Where in any document does it say that healthcare is a right?
Why did the healthcare agent at my previous employer explain that the rates were going up because of Obamacare?
Why will my doctor be making less after Obamacare is fully implemented (thus he is retiring)
Why is our current health insurance provider (though the wife's employer) reducing the number of providers that they cover?
If 30 sates are not participating, more than 50% of Americans are not in support of the Obamacare, why is it still moving forward?
Why does it still include funding for Abortions and Contraception?
How is forced participation not socialism?
Why does Forbes say that it is Killing traditional Employer Sponsored Healthcare.
Why does the Times note that the lower cost ONLY comes with less options?
Will there be subsidies for federal employees regardless of income? (I have seen this both yes and no... and I don't know for sure)

Not 100% of the bill is bad, but because of the way it is structured as a government mandate, and because there is enough bad stuff in it, I can't support it and be frankly honest, I rather the government get shut down than the funding get approved.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Some of you have made very valid points, others have given a vague concept that I was wrong.

So please, someone answer these questions:
Will Obamacare cost more than what it was predicted?
Is Obamacare a tax?
Where in any document does it say that healthcare is a right?
Why did the healthcare agent at my previous employer explain that the rates were going up because of Obamacare?
Why will my doctor be making less after Obamacare is fully implemented (thus he is retiring)
Why is our current health insurance provider (though the wife's employer) reducing the number of providers that they cover?
If 30 sates are not participating, more than 50% of Americans are not in support of the Obamacare, why is it still moving forward?
Why does it still include funding for Abortions and Contraception?
How is forced participation not socialism?
Why does Forbes say that it is Killing traditional Employer Sponsored Healthcare.
Why does the Times note that the lower cost ONLY comes with less options?
Will there be subsidies for federal employees regardless of income? (I have seen this both yes and no... and I don't know for sure)

Not 100% of the bill is bad, but because of the way it is structured as a government mandate, and because there is enough bad stuff in it, I can't support it and be frankly honest, I rather the government get shut down than the funding get approved.

So are you trying to argue facts or your beliefs? A couple of post back you that you were against ACA because of your beliefs and nothing was going to change them. If you arguing your beliefs, then further discussion with you is nonsensical. You can argue facts, not beliefs.

 

[michaelskis]

Can you answer the questions WHP?

Being against abortion and government funded contraception is based on belief.

Can you prove anything else is not fact?

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Can you answer the questions WHP?

Being against abortion and government funded contraception is based on belief.

Can you prove anything else is not fact?

Well, the facts have been presented up to this point and you haven't been able to dispute them. That makes me think you are arguing from a position of belief. There is nothing wrong in that and we should know what we believe and why. However, it makes for unequal ground when you are debating something.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

So please, someone answer these questions:

Will Obamacare cost more than what it was predicted? Most likely less, given the fact there are indications that premiums are coming in under the projected costs of increase.

Is Obamacare a tax? Why does it matter? If you listened to the debate at the supreme court, the definition of a "tax" is as wide open as it gets. You could float an aircraft carrier through the three letter word.

Where in any document does it say that healthcare is a right? It doesn't.... yet. It morally and ethically SHOULD be.

Why did the healthcare agent at my previous employer explain that the rates were going up because of Obamacare? Because he is a republican shill trying to scare the crap out of you. Seeing how Michigan is currently being run by republicans, it behooves them to make sure they do their best to sabotage the republican idea called Romneycare. Why, nobody really knows. We can guess that Republicans just cant stand the idea that a black man might get any credit for implementing one of their ideas. What you call that is up to you.

Why will my doctor be making less after Obamacare is fully implemented (thus he is retiring) He should probably retire anyway. He is no longer paying his student loans back, so he is more than likely blaming his desire not to change on the ACA in order to cover for his ineptitude or unwillingness to change. Or maybe he is really just greedy. In any case, the medical profession will probably be better off without him.


Why is our current health insurance provider (though the wife's employer) reducing the number of providers that they cover? How the hell would we know? Why would you ask such a dumb question we couldn't possibly have an answer to it?

If 30 sates are not participating, more than 50% of Americans are not in support of the Obamacare, why is it still moving forward? Because its a good idea. The level of sabotage from an oposing party is unprecedented in this country. With the level of lies, obfuscation, and unwillingness to fix identified issues by republicans it is no wonder people are nervous.


Why does it still include funding for Abortions and Contraception? You should separate your question here. There is no funding for abortion. There is a mandate that non religious organizations such as ... churches pay for their employees contraception. Yes, you are one of those people who think that using a condom is abortion. The notion is ridiculous. Your argument then means that you believe your small representative portion of the population should tell the rest of us how to live life. Your funny. Hobby Lobby is not a religious institution. If they want to sell to the public at large, and hire the public at large, they should have to follow the rule like everyone else. I hope Hobby Loby goes out of business because of this. Less religion in our society and Michaels will easily pic up the slack and jobs. May you have 18 kids in your lifetime.


How is forced participation not socialism? Nobody is forcing you to participate. You have the right to opt out should you want to. You already have two options for insurance before having to make that decision. Through your current choice through your wifes employer and through your employer. Where is the forced participation you are whining about? Should you not want to use either of them, then you do not have to sign up for or use the ACA. Of course, we all get taxed for things we don't like, so that doesn't count whatsoever. I don't like my tax money being used to subsidize the oil industry, but I have no more choice over that than you will if you don't like the tax penalty should you ridiculously not want to have any insurance at all. Deal with it. I hear many religious leaning republicans like yourself feel Russia is a fabulous place, truly family oriented because they hate gay people. That might be a better choice for where you want to live for you and your family.


Why does Forbes say that it is Killing traditional Employer Sponsored Healthcare. Because its FORBES! Its like asking why the KKK hates black people. They are republicans and its the party line to try and sabotage the ACA. Here is the real question, why do non insurance company employers think it is a good idea to be in the insurance provision business? Its silly and should never be part of any business business to be involved in healthcare past the Family medical leave act requirements.

Why does the Times note that the lower cost ONLY comes with less options? Define less options. That could mean what most people already have in their policys if they have an HMO or have "approved" doctors. Its meaningless without stating what it means.

Will there be subsidies for federal employees regardless of income? (I have seen this both yes and no... and I don't know for sure) Seems like that should be covered as per any other employer. Might be one of those ideas that could be fixed with ease if the GOP wanted to help by actually wanting to fix issues and make the situation better rather than screaming no like petulant children. Why are you so insistent on punishing government workers? Oh, thats right, you get your insurance through your wifes company, so you feel free to attack your coworkers. I hope you are that open with them about wanting to harm them in any way you can.

Not 100% of the bill is bad, but because of the way it is structured as a government mandate, and because there is enough bad stuff in it, I can't support it and be frankly honest, I rather the government get shut down than the funding get approved.[/QUOTE] Ok, you can't support it. You are certainly willing to stop government in its tracks and presumably to destroy the world economy to stop the ACA. I know what I describe it when a person is willing to harm millions of his fellow countrymen. Looking forward to seeing how you like the last 2 years of life in this administration when the house turns blue from 14 to 16.

 

[Planit]

The way I look at the ACA is this...it's morally responsible and we're doing it anyway.

Those who call it a "tax" are short-sighted in the fact that us citizens can pay something to help with insured medical care now OR pay for the uninsured when they have to go to the hospital / emergency room later and they don't pay for their stay - because hospital are obligated to render service to all whether they can pay, have health insurance or not.

It's the classic pay it now or pay it later

Additionally - taking the political debate out of it - in many cases people don't like change and this is a new way to do business. Instead of whining about it, learn the new way and take advantage of it. My wife is a HR Director for a manufacturing company. The ACA has created more work for her, but she sees benefits for the employees.




This is my opinion and I'm not going to debate pieces or try and answer rhetoric questions.

 

[Hink]

Some of you have made very valid points, others have given a vague concept that I was wrong.

So please, someone answer these questions:
Will Obamacare cost more than what it was predicted? No way to know today. Most people say no, once all the exchanges are in place and the premiums start coming down even further. We can't know for sure. Personally, I think they will, but not as much as the D's think.
Is Obamacare a tax? Yes. You know that.
Where in any document does it say that healthcare is a right? It doesn't. Just like many other things our country does for its citizenry that aren't "rights" as defined by old white guys 200 years ago. Does it matter that it isn't a "right" as you define it?
Why did the healthcare agent at my previous employer explain that the rates were going up because of Obamacare? Because they work for the healthcare agency, who is primarily supported by big insurance. Come on. Why did the democratic president say it would cost less? Is it because he is in favor of it?
Why will my doctor be making less after Obamacare is fully implemented (thus he is retiring). There is no way he knows that he will be making less yet. Unless he only takes non-medicare patients which is doubtful. If he is primary care, then the guess is that he will make more overall. Just like emergency physicians and internal medicine physicians. The specialties like rads, gas, and derm will most likely see less, but that is because ACA mandates lower costs. I personally don't agree with portions of the ACA, but most physicians are not going to be harmed as much as it is sold. As I said before, this isn't a healthcare bill, it is an insurance bill. Doctors need to be protected and fostered with further legislation. If the ACA proposed this, most would be supportive.
Why is our current health insurance provider (though the wife's employer) reducing the number of providers that they cover? Because they are pre-planning for what they think will happen. My guess is that they are afraid of competition and they feel they need to cover their 30% profit.
If 30 sates are not participating, more than 50% of Americans are not in support of the Obamacare, why is it still moving forward? We could do that for gun control, or abortion, or gay marriage. If we have people that are stupid, short sighted, or wrong, should we just allow it? Most of America supports gay rights? Why haven't we made that a federal law? Most Americans support abortion rights, why isn't it a federal law? I mean why wouldn't it move forward it most people support it?
Why does it still include funding for Abortions and Contraception? It requires that everyone protect women, no matter your beliefs. Why is this even a talking point? It isn't an employers place to determine whether a women should have her "rights" taken away.
How is forced participation not socialism? Any activity that our government does that is for the betterment of our society could be called socialism if that is how you define it. If you want to take things to an extreme then go ahead, but that isn't reality. The ACA is not socialism. It isn't even close. Look up socialism.
Why does Forbes say that it is Killing traditional Employer Sponsored Healthcare. Because it is. Which is a good thing. Traditional employe sponsored healthcare is not portable, it is not even handed, and it is not affordable. Sure it is more affordable to the worker, but ask a business about the portion they are covering. In 5 years, if this works out the way they seem to think it will, companies are going to love the ACA.
Why does the Times note that the lower cost ONLY comes with less options? I know nothing about this, so I won't respond.
Will there be subsidies for federal employees regardless of income? (I have seen this both yes and no... and I don't know for sure) Yes. I don't agree with that. I think the federal government is selling us some fools gold with this. I strongly believe that the government should have to live under the regulations that they approve.

Not 100% of the bill is bad, but because of the way it is structured as a government mandate, and because there is enough bad stuff in it, I can't support it and be frankly honest, I rather the government get shut down than the funding get approved. Tell me what you support in the bill. I would like to understand your understanding of what is good.

My thoughts.

 

[dw914er]

Not 100% of the bill is bad, but because of the way it is structured as a government mandate, and because there is enough bad stuff in it, I can't support it and be frankly honest, I rather the government get shut down than the funding get approved.

That's the spirit! Let us just knock down the whole Government since that is clearly the best way to get things done.

 

[terraplnr]

Under-discussed fact in our country: 5% of individuals use ~50% of health care spending in this country. That is an enormous dollar figure. In the $trillions.

That report is really interesting, and I keep coming back to a question... if "rising prices per unit of service have played a larger role than rising utilization rates as a determinant of recent [health] expenditure growth", then will the ACA do anything to help curb this? One of the many reasons that health care spending in the US is higher than other countries is because we develop/use new technologies more often, and are kind of the guinea pigs for these technologies (as the report talks about). Will increased competition among private insurers help to see that new technologies are used only when they are likely to be beneficial? And not just because they are new and the hospital / doctor's office / physician group wants to pay for them, and/or because that hospital/physican group is the only game in town so the insurance company has less leverage to negotiate on the price? Also, if each unit of service costs a lot, won't health care spending increase if more people are using those servcies? I know the inclusion of young, healthy uninsured people could help bring insurance premiums down (if there are more of them than older uninsured people with health care needs), but will it help enough?

And on another note, as Baby Boomers retire and go on to Medicare, will the government reduce Medicare payments to providers (covering more people by paying doctors/hosptials less for each servcie)? If so, doctors/hospitals will try to recoup that loss from the private insurers, making private insurance premiums go up. This already happens, but it could happen even more when the bulk of the Baby Boomers are on Medicare. Who knows. So many questions to be answered, wish we could look into a crystal ball to see how the ACA will play out.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

S I can't support it and be frankly honest, I rather the government get shut down than the funding get approved.

That my friend, is the ideology of madmen

 

[imaplanner]

Skis. Obamacare is not a great law. Is it better than the status quo? Many people think so. It will result in far less people dying from lack of insurance or being denied coverage, and it will result in less freeloaders having the rest of us pay for their emergency services, and it will reduce the deficit. These are all knowns. There will be problems. Now maybe people dying from lack of insurance is an acceptable trade off for incoveniences, thats for you to decide. There are problems with the law and its fine to oppose the law based on actual problems and things that it does- but its not acceptable IMO to oppose the law based on lies that are easily disproved if you step outside the right wing noise machine. So we will try to answer some questions. i've done ALOT of reading about this law.

Some of you have made very valid points, others have given a vague concept that I was wrong.

So please, someone answer these questions:
Will Obamacare cost more than what it was predicted? At this point its coming in under projections, but its still an unknown. It will reduce the deficit however, as it is shifting more of the cost to the individuals and away from the federal government (you know- conservatism)
Is Obamacare a tax? Only if you refuse to have insurance and pay the penalty. The court ruled that the penalty is a tax.
Where in any document does it say that healthcare is a right? It doesn't. Many of us think that's a shame. Many others seem to think its totally acceptable to have fellow Americans die from lack of access to health care. That's up to you to decide
Why did the healthcare agent at my previous employer explain that the rates were going up because of Obamacare? Alot of misinformation about the law and alot of confusion. Many people thought it would go up. So far, in the states where it has been openly embraced the rate of increases is dropping. Rates will still go up JUST LIKE THEY ALWAYS HAVE. The idea is that the rate of increase will be slowed and in fact - premium increases have slowed substantially. Rates would still be going up without Obamacare. Were you not alive throughout the 2000s? And further, how the hell should we know why someone told you something
Why will my doctor be making less after Obamacare is fully implemented (thus he is retiring) Obamacare does not affect doctors salaries. It cuts fraud and waste, and it does stop abuse of overcharging and doublecharging and unecessary charges. Maybe your doctor was a shitty doctor who had a habit of overbilling or engaging in fraud
Why is our current health insurance provider (though the wife's employer) reducing the number of providers that they cover? how the hell should we know? Ask them skis. Some providers may very well be doing this, but employer provided health insurance is not subject to many of the cost provisions that the open market exchanges will be. Each insurance is different and providers were already being reduced in some plans before Obamacare. You have to ask your provider the reasons. Why do you ask stupid questions that we can't answer - do I ask you why my dog is biting herself? Jeezus.
If 30 sates are not participating, more than 50% of Americans are not in support of the Obamacare, why is it still moving forward? Its a law that was passed. A president ran on it twice and was reelected by big majorities. Polls also show a majority do not want it repealed. Do you not remember the 2012 election? This was the major issue in the election. The voters spoke. Do you have a memory problem?

Why does it still include funding for Abortions and Contraception? Well contraception is one thing that is proven to reduce health spending. Its almost no cost whatsoever and reduces health costs dramatically and if you are against contraception and think its should not be provided to people than really that tells us all we need to know about a few things- including your character. On abortion it doesn't cover abortion. You are being lied to. Obamacare requires people to have private insurance. They can choose whether to pick insurance that will cover abortion or not. By law the states must provide options for insurance that does not cover abortion. And there are provisions that require tax subsidies to not be directly used for abortion coverage

How is forced participation not socialism? Because of the definition of socialism. Fucking read a dictionary already

Why does Forbes say that it is Killing traditional Employer Sponsored Healthcare. Forbes is a republican mouthpiece and this headline and assertions are a bit hyperbolic not to mention extremely premature. Some employers will no doubt be moving away, so far its been minimal and from what I have seen its likely to remain minimal. If not, we'll see and then maybe there will be something to this. Of note is that many people will actually be better off on the individual market than through employer provided. I've mentioned before that if I opt out of my and my wifes health care and buy into the individual market here in california it looks likely to actually be a net increase in my take home pay
Why does the Times note that the lower cost ONLY comes with less options? Read it yourself. Obamacare is structures to try to reduce costs. One way to do that seems to be making smaller pools of provider networks in some areas. A tradeoff I guess. You will still have the option in most areas to get yourself a higher cost plan. You can't have your cake and eat it too skis. Do you want lower costs or more options. You will likely have the ability to make that decision yourself
Will there be subsidies for federal employees regardless of income? This is again a misunderstanding of Obamacare. federal government workers get insurance covered through their workplace. Nothing will change for them except that they will have greater consumer protections just like everyone. They will not need to purchase insurance on the open market. Please, please understand this difference as it is critical. Obamacare changes the way individuals puchase on the open market. It does not change anything relative to employer provided health care.


Not 100% of the bill is bad, but because of the way it is structured as a government mandate, and because there is enough bad stuff in it, I can't support it and be frankly honest, I rather the government get shut down than the funding get approved. The shut down will not stop Obamacare funding so your out of luck there. But even were that true that a shut down would stop it (and its not) that is not the way a representative democracy works. Many of us were opposed to the iraq war, the tax cuts for the rich, and many other things. Ask yourself what would happen if the goivernment shut down everytime one party lost an election and threw a tantrum like this

 

[ColoGI]

That's the spirit! Let us just knock down the whole Government since that is clearly the best way to get things done.

That doesn't sound bats--- or irresponsible or low functioning at all!

That report is really interesting, and I keep coming back to a question... if "rising prices per unit of service have played a larger role than rising utilization rates as a determinant of recent [health] expenditure growth", then will the ACA do anything to help curb this? One of the many reasons that health care spending in the US is higher than other countries is because we develop/use new technologies more often, and are kind of the guinea pigs for these technologies (as the report talks about). ...So many questions to be answered, wish we could look into a crystal ball to see how the ACA will play out.

There are lots of reasons why we pay much more and get much less than most (if not all) other developed nations. The logic AIUI is that the larger pool available thru ACA lowers costs for everyone, lowering the carrying costs for the very costly (and the costs we incur for keeping people alive for 3 more weeks because we don't know what to do at the end). Many things to fix.

 

[MD Planner]

I've really enjoyed this thread today. That is all.

 

[michaelskis]

I only have a few moments before I am going into a meeting so I will make this quick,

DOD, some of what you posted might be true, I don't have time to search to verifiy it today, but your interpretation of the cost analysis is a bold faced lie. Study after study show that the 800 Billion does not even come close to the cost, and most reports are talking Trillions.

Iamaplanner, "some" might support it, but the majority of Americans are against it and the majority of states are against it.

It is situations like this where if the bill continues on, it will cause unrepairable damage to the American health care system. There are good things in it, but it would be like drinking poison to cure a headache. It is better to hold off, find something better... Because no, this is not better.

 

[imaplanner]

.

Iamaplanner, "some" might support it, but the majority of Americans are against it and the majority of states are against it.

.

Polls are interesting things aren't they? So some polls say about 51% of americans are opposed to the law. Some other polls show vast majorities don't want it repealed but fixed. Other polls show majorities support the actual elements of the law. Polls do show that most Americans dont understand the law, and that the more people understand all of the law the more likely they are to support it. Some polls showed Mitt Romney was going to win. These are all polls, you know- information that is useful but never the whole story

Here is the thing, the last election was all about Obamacare and Obamacare won. That was not a poll. That was Americans actually making their choice with their votes. You can pick what polls you want to believe and what ones you want to ignore all you want and it doesn't change that fact, that the people decided this.

This is ultimately the biggest issue with you; and it IS an isue with your character- albiet one that no doubt is common to those you surround yourself with. You hear what you want, believe the polls you want and ignore the polls you don't, and pick and choose what information you want to believe and disbelieve in order to justify your predetermined belief system. This is not how planners are supposed to approach how we make decisions in our occupation. We consider sources of information, we look at data-hard data, and we act. We don't pick and choose what things to use and ignore data contrary to what we want. This is why you are running into opposition here. As I've said from the beginning, I believe some of the reasons you oppose the law are valid. Many others are cherry-picked information, outright lies, or complete unknowns. Thats not how we do things as planners.

 

[btrage]

Iamaplanner, "some" might support it, but the majority of Americans are against it and the majority of states are against it.

Well, a majority of people and states elected Obama twice. So maybe Republicans should step out of the way and let Obama implement things how he likes.

 

[Hink]

Moving to other sigh worthy news...

Watch a Fox News host's unhinged rant about Muslims, mosques, and Kenya
http://theweek.com/article/index/25...unhinged-rant-about-muslims-mosques-and-kenya

 

[arcplans]

It is situations like this where if the bill continues on, it will cause unrepairable damage to the American health care system. There are good things in it, but it would be like drinking poison to cure a headache. It is better to hold off, find something better... Because no, this is not better.

Single Payer System.. seems to be good enough for everyone else in the civilized world...

 

[ColoGI]

It is situations like this where if the bill continues on, it will cause unrepairable damage to the American health care system. There are good things in it, but it would be like drinking poison to cure a headache. It is better to hold off, find something better... Because no, this is not better.

That comedy skit was better when delivered by one of the automatons on Arab-funded Faux "News" or similar disinformation dissemination channel. It loses some of its entertainment value when transcribed onto a discussion board, as some of the full crazy doesn't get translated.

 

[Gotta Speakup]

Polls show that about 51% of surveyed people (who tend to be less likely to be poor and minorities-groups more likely to support the ACA) oppose the ACA.

But that amount includes the 15+% of people who want it replaced with a single payer system. Only about a third of the population is against the law as an affront to jndrivuak rights, etc.

 

[ColoGI]

Polls show that about 51% of surveyed people (who tend to be less likely to be poor and minorities-groups more likely to support the ACA) oppose the ACA.

But that amount includes the 15+% of people who want it replaced with a single payer system. Only about a third of the population is against the law as an affront to jndrivuak rights, etc.

I also saw a note that folk are more favorably disposed to the ACA as opposed to Obamacare (Romneycare/Heritage-Republicancare).

 

[imaplanner]

Why will my doctor be making less after Obamacare is fully implemented (thus he is retiring)
.

I did a little reading on this one, to find out who is out there saying this nonsense. And I'm not surprised. The misinformation machine is blaming obamacare for the medicare pay cut that has been in effect since 2002.

What you have is a law passed by congress earlier, way before 2002 that required increases in medicare payments to doctors to be tied to cost of living. In 2002 this led to medicare requiring reductions in reimbursements to doctors. But every year congress has passed a one year stop to the reduction. If congress doesn't pass a stop in any year the payments to doctors will be cut.

So obamacare did nothing to address this. Congress can pass the law this year or not. If they don't, doctors will get a cut to medicare reimbursements. Nothing requires doctors to accept medicare payments. I was unaware of this, but apparently the right wing bubble machine is blaming this on Obamacare. I would think your doctor would know this but maybe he doesn't, or maybe it's just easier to blame Obamacare.

 

[Brocktoon]

Some of you have made very valid points, others have given a vague concept that I was wrong.


Not 100% of the bill is bad, but because of the way it is structured as a government mandate, and because there is enough bad stuff in it, I can't support it and be frankly honest, I rather the government get shut down than the funding get approved.

So let me get this straight. You have said numerous times that the debt the US is one of the biggest concerns regarding the country. So you support a move to default making it much more costly to borrow money and thereby making it more costly to operate the federal government and resulting in a further expansion of the debt. Think about the cascade effect this would have on cities and states and how hard it will to build infrastructure or the impact on the worlds financial markets. Like it or not but the entire worlds financial system is based upon the US paying its debts in a timely manner.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Hey Skis,

It looks like your whining about costs are about to come to a big cliff. This is a huge improvement if the rates are anything like this in WI. Even the High end will be MORE 200% cheaper than what Badger Care offers. Counting the subsidized rate, you are talking about $30 to $125 a month. OH THE HUMANITY! Tell people working 2 part time jobs that they can finally have health insurance for $50 bucks a month and there will be no way the republican scum will be able to prevent young people not to sign up! What parent would tell them they shouldn't outside of ... you? A year from now, there will be no way to get rid of it.

I like it, the white house leaked some cost information about the bill during the neo-filibuster by the dishonorable gas bag from texas' speech. The talk today will be about that, rather than gas bag. It's also quite good, talking about bending the cost curve down. Win Win!

In Baltimore, a 40-year-old will be able to buy a so-called bronze health insurance plan for as little as $146 a month, compared to $336 a month in Burlington, Vt., not including the savings from tax credits available to people who earn up to four times the federal poverty level -- $45,960 for a single person this year -- according to the report.

"Most people buying their own insurance will qualify for premium tax credits, which will significantly lower the cost of their premiums," the Kaiser Family Foundation report says. The foundation also notes that premiums released so far are lower than projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

 

[Hink]

Ted Cruz knows how to be unlikeable. He makes Rand Paul look like a teddy bear.

I am at a loss though, as I support his unwillingness to work within his party. I like the 3-5 party system. I would much prefer that he split (with the religious right going with him) from the republicans, and start running as the Tea Party or the Crazy Right Party. Call it whatever you want, but start standing up for your personal party not the republicans.

Then the Republicans can get back to being the party of fiscal responsibility and not have to worry about these nutjobs and religious zealots. Here's to hoping Cruz has the guts to do it!


=============
Obamacare's average monthly cost across U.S.: $328
http://news.yahoo.com/obamacares-average-monthly-cost-across-u-328-040209815.html

Uh, oh shaggy...

And that is before subsidies for lower income people....

 

[michaelskis]

So let me get this straight. You have said numerous times that the debt the US is one of the biggest concerns regarding the country. So you support a move to default making it much more costly to borrow money and thereby making it more costly to operate the federal government and resulting in a further expansion of the debt. Think about the cascade effect this would have on cities and states and how hard it will to build infrastructure or the impact on the worlds financial markets. Like it or not but the entire worlds financial system is based upon the US paying its debts in a timely manner.

It is not a fortunate situation, and no I don't want the government to default on it's obligations. But I think that the federal government spending even more on bad programs is worse.

But here is the question... if you want the government to stay open why are you not contacting your Senators to request that they approve the bill that was passed by the House of Representatives that will keep the government open. If the ACA is so wonderful, I am sure that they would be able to fund it at a later date.

***On a side note, I am not a fan of what Senator Cruz is doing right now. I rather the Senate just vote to support the House bill.


DOD I have looked into it, and ours insurance rates are going up, and there is the cost to implement it. That is what the CBO shows as costing about twice what the President says it will.

 

[DVD]

Iamaplanner, "some" might support it, but the majority of Americans are against it and the majority of states are against it.

Just a stupid side comment, if the majority truly hates this law, why can't congress vote it out? They are supposed to represent the majority of people (House) and states (Senate). I just get tired of the absolute argument of the law must be repealed or not. Can't we just vote to change what needs to be fixed? For myself, I still don't have a solid opinion. I like to wait until I see actual effects or something substantial before I condemn something.

 

[michaelskis]

Just a stupid side comment, if the majority truly hates this law, why can't congress vote it out? They are supposed to represent the majority of people (House) and states (Senate). I just get tired of the absolute argument of the law must be repealed or not. Can't we just vote to change what needs to be fixed? For myself, I still don't have a solid opinion. I like to wait until I see actual effects or something substantial before I condemn something.

As I pointed out before, there are some parts of the bill that makes sense and I rather see a structured Health Savings Account with some of the provisions (including preexisting conditions clause) as I think that would make far more sense than this program. If they defund it, it can be restructured, and Obama can still come out looking good in the end.

There have been several votes to repeal it, but it requires a super majority and thus far, it has not occurred. (and no, that is actually a very logical question as most people don't understand how the Federal Government works.)

 

[Hink]

There have been several votes to repeal it, but it requires a super majority and thus far, it has not occurred. (and no, that is actually a very logical question as most people don't understand how the Federal Government works.)

Because the Country voted in Democrats who support the ACA. This is what I don't get. All the republicans are crying about the Senate not voting, but you realize that the house pushed their bill through because they had the numbers right? Isn't it the Senates right to do that? Or the President's? He won.

He is the majority winner of the country. All the votes to repeal have come from a small faction of republicans. Not 50% of the population. I would like to note that a super majority made the ACA a reality. So a super majority to remove it seems fair.

 

[michaelskis]

Because the Country voted in Democrats who support the ACA. This is what I don't get. All the republicans are crying about the Senate not voting, but you realize that the house pushed their bill through because they had the numbers right? Isn't it the Senates right to do that? Or the President's? He won.

He is the majority winner of the country. All the votes to repeal have come from a small faction of republicans. Not 50% of the population.

Winning an election does not provide absolute power. If that was the case, we would have invaded Syria.

As for 50% of the population. CNN (and many other lyeing polls) say that they don't like it) If this was a true democracy (which it's not thank God), then they would be forced to repeal it. But because we are a constitutional republic, we have a 3 part system.

The President is only one part, and the Senate makes up 1/2 of one part. The 3rd part has ruled it is a Tax. As for funding, the Article I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution looks to the house to be the originator of bills and notes that the Senate "may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." Looks like the American people elected the Republicans (most of which are total idiots BTW), to have the 'power of the purse."

So no, just because the President has a D behind his name and 52 Senators also have a D behind their name, does not authorize them to have ultimate control over everything and forgo the Constitution (although many on each side do every day)

The biggest thing is up until 1936, this would not even have been an option for the any of the Federal Government. It was Butler V. United States where the Supreme Court ruled, and in the opinion, they changed the definition of public good, which then opened the doors on what Congress can spend money on.

 

[Planit]

Nice little article about real costs:


Obamacare marketplace premiums in Florida lower than expected

http://www.tampabay.com/news/busine...etplace-premiums-released-for-florida/2143679

 

[Hink]

The President is only one part, and the Senate makes up 1/2 of one part. The 3rd part has ruled it is a Tax. As for funding, the Article I, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution looks to the house to be the originator of bills and notes that the Senate "may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills." Looks like the American people elected the Republicans (most of which are total idiots BTW), to have the 'power of the purse."

I agree. My point is the country elected 2 of 4 (House, Senate, President, and SC) spots who support the ACA. Only one believes that it isn't legal or should be repealed.

Why doesn't the republican led house actually create a budget? Why try and score pointless political points to try and prove how you were right and the country (which elected these people) was wrong?

This isn't a battle. It is a policy decision that was made legally, supported by the Supreme Court, and hasn't even been implemented.

Let it run its course. Then complain. I am not even saying don't complain, because you have a right to disagree with policies. But you aren't being fair to the process if you won't even let it get into place and you are already complaining about how it is going to ruin our democracy and healthcare in general....

 

[NHPlanner]

Looks like the American people elected the Republicans (most of which are total idiots BTW), to have the 'power of the purse."

True...the GOP retained the house based on the new districts that were created after the 2010 Census. The fact remains, though, that in the aggregate, Dem candidates for the House received more than a million more votes than the GOP candidates did:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHZCbzJocGtxYkR6OTdZbzZwRUFvS3c#gid=0

 

[terraplnr]

In Baltimore, a 40-year-old will be able to buy a so-called bronze health insurance plan for as little as $146 a month, compared to $336 a month in Burlington, Vt., not including the savings from tax credits available to people who earn up to four times the federal poverty level -- $45,960 for a single person this year -- according to the report.

I was doing a little thinking about the federal subsidies (for those who earn too much to be on Medcaid), and it seems like it promotes self-employment/very small businesses because the subsidy limits are fairly high. $45k for an individual and $94k for a family of four. How come this isn't promoted more by ACA supporters? Or is there something I'm missing?

 

[michaelskis]

I agree. My point is the country elected 2 of 4 (House, Senate, President, and SC) spots who support the ACA. Only one believes that it isn't legal or should be repealed.

Is that what they teach in school these days? Because the Constitution that I read says that the Federal Government has 3 parts. The Legislative, (Article 1 Section 1) The Executive (Article 2 Section 1), and the Judicial (Article 3, Section 1).

Why doesn't the republican led house actually create a budget? Why try and score pointless political points to try and prove how you were right and the country (which elected these people) was wrong?

Because most of the Republicans are a bunch of money hungry losers... just like many of the Democrats.

This isn't a battle. It is a policy decision that was made legally, supported by the Supreme Court, and hasn't even been implemented.

Per the constitution, the Supreme Count can only rule of something is or is not constitutional, determine if someone is guilty of treason, and trial of crimes (most of with come from appeals) not to support something. They (per the majority opinion) declared that it is constitutional because it is a tax.

Let it run its course. Then complain. I am not even saying don't complain, because you have a right to disagree with policies. But you aren't being fair to the process if you won't even let it get into place and you are already complaining about how it is going to ruin our democracy and healthcare in general....

Fair to the process, please don't take this personally, but that is the biggest line of BS yet. I can not think of one person in the Senate, Congress, or the President that has been fair to the process. The vote came without the 2 day posting period and without the people who were voting on it had the opportunity to read it, or understand it. Process, there is over 50% of Americans who don't want this bill (as written) to continue... We are a republic... which means those who serve are representing the public. When the public says one thing and they do something else, that is a blatant slap in the face to their constituents.

True...the GOP retained the house based on the new districts that were created after the 2010 Census. The fact remains, though, that in the aggregate, Dem candidates for the House received more than a million more votes than the GOP candidates did:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHZCbzJocGtxYkR6OTdZbzZwRUFvS3c#gid=0

And Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election.... Which was wrong but that is the process and it should be changed to prevent that from happening. Now over 50% of Americans don't want this bill... to push it through, that is still wrong.

I was doing a little thinking about the federal subsidies (for those who earn too much to be on Medcaid), and it seems like it promotes self-employment/very small businesses because the subsidy limits are fairly high. $45k for an individual and $94k for a family of four. How come this isn't promoted more by ACA supporters? Or is there something I'm missing?

Where is the money for those subsidies coming from? The government... how does the government gets its money? Taxes? Who pays taxes? Us.

 

[Hink]

Is that what they teach in school these days? Because the Constitution that I read says that the Federal Government has 3 parts. The Legislative, (Article 1 Section 1) The Executive (Article 2 Section 1), and the Judicial (Article 3, Section 1).

Good one. You know what I meant. My point was pretty clear.

Fair to the process, please don't take this personally, but that is the biggest line of BS yet. I can not think of one person in the Senate, Congress, or the President that has been fair to the process. The vote came without the 2 day posting period and without the people who were voting on it had the opportunity to read it, or understand it. Process, there is over 50% of Americans who don't want this bill (as written) to continue... We are a republic... which means those who serve are representing the public. When the public says one thing and they do something else, that is a blatant slap in the face to their constituents.

Fair to the process means that it went through legal means of adoption. Has it been taken to the courts? Yep. Is it legal? Yep.

I just want to understand something. 54% of the country supports gay marriage. 58% of the country supports abortion being legal in at least some cases.

Since that is the countries will, you are okay when those get voted into federal law, correct? I mean it is the countries will, so you will support that. Because for me, I can't fathom why you wouldn't, being civil rights that were granted by our constitution and all. That added to the fact that polls support it.

As long as you say yes, I will let my argument go. I will wait for your yes answer.

 

[michaelskis]

Good one. You know what I meant. My point was pretty clear.

Was your point that you don't understand the Constitution or you where trying to indicate that democrats control half the government?

Fair to the process means that it went through legal means of adoption. Has it been taken to the courts? Yep. Is it legal? Yep.

I just want to understand something. 54% of the country supports gay marriage. 58% of the country supports abortion being legal in at least some cases.

Since that is the countries will, you are okay when those get voted into federal law, correct? I mean it is the countries will, so you will support that. Because for me, I can't fathom why you wouldn't, being civil rights that were granted by our constitution and all. That added to the fact that polls support it.

As long as you say yes, I will let my argument go. I will wait for your yes answer.

If two people love each other, than I don't believe that any governmental body telling them that they can, or cannot be married. I have said it before, I don't think that the Government should be in any aspect of marriage... what so ever. I have gay friends who have 'partners' and I see their relationship the same as the relationship between my wife and I.

As for abortion, when it does not involve the murder an unborn human then I will support it. Until then, it is a moral sin and I will view it as murder and will oppose it.

I think this is interesting. In both of those cases (neither of which has bills pending before congress), you want more choice for people (unless it the baby that is about to be shredded and sucked out, I don't think they have a choice, but hey, if you support that kind of thing....), yet for Obamacare, it is designed to progressively limit choice. Why?

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

I was doing a little thinking about the federal subsidies (for those who earn too much to be on Medcaid), and it seems like it promotes self-employment/very small businesses because the subsidy limits are fairly high. $45k for an individual and $94k for a family of four. How come this isn’t promoted more by ACA supporters? Or is there something I’m missing?

The democratic supporters have done a terrible job trying to get the message of the benefits of the ACA out to people for common knowledge. It has already managed to start many positive structural changes in the health care industry, such as placing the 80% must be spent on health care limit. It also does not help that the opposition has been unthinking and fanatical. So the volume from the fanatical fringe works to drown out the positive messaging.

The good thing is that the fanatics are going to loose, creating voter apathy and infighting within their caucus in the 14 elections.

There is no good reason to further delay the republican designed (90%) ACA law. Implement and fix... as opposed to... repeal and do not replace.

In six days, every state will know what kinds of fixed costs for insurance will be available. If you saw the Bloomberg article, they complained that the "High Cost of Health Plans of $3,000 a Year" could be unbearable. This is an example of fighting against bad messaging. Break it down to reality. $3,000 a year is $250 a month. A single prescription can cost more than that easily. A broken arm will cost $10,000 per arm. Put in proper perspective, its significant, but not the $1,800 a person might have had to pay previously.

 

[michaelskis]

The democratic supporters have done a terrible job trying to get the message of the benefits of the ACA out to people for common knowledge. It has already managed to start many positive structural changes in the health care industry, such as placing the 80% must be spent on health care limit. It also does not help that the opposition has been unthinking and fanatical. So the volume from the fanatical fringe works to drown out the positive messaging.

The good thing is that the fanatics are going to loose, creating voter apathy and infighting within their caucus in the 14 elections.

There is no good reason to further delay the republican designed (90%) ACA law. Implement and fix... as opposed to... repeal and do not replace.

In six days, every state will know what kinds of fixed costs for insurance will be available. If you saw the Bloomberg article, they complained that the "High Cost of Health Plans of $3,000 a Year" could be unbearable. This is an example of fighting against bad messaging. Break it down to reality. $3,000 a year is $250 a month. A single prescription can cost more than that easily. A broken arm will cost $10,000 per arm. Put in proper perspective, its significant, but not the $1,800 a person might have had to pay previously.

Where will the money from the subsidies come from?

 

[Hink]

Was your point that you don't understand the Constitution...

Yep you got me. Damn I was trying to be sneaky, but you caught me. You are a wily one.

If two people love each other, than I don't believe that any governmental body telling them that they can, or cannot be married. I have said it before, I don't think that the Government should be in any aspect of marriage... what so ever. I have gay friends who have 'partners' and I see their relationship the same as the relationship between my wife and I.

Okay so that is a yes. You fully support gay marriage because it is a right. Glad to hear that.

As for abortion, when it does not involve the murder an unborn human then I will support it. Until then, it is a moral sin and I will view it as murder and will oppose it.

I think this is interesting. In both of those cases (neither of which has bills pending before congress), you want more choice for people (unless it the baby that is about to be shredded and sucked out, I don't think they have a choice, but hey, if you support that kind of thing....), yet for Obamacare, it is designed to progressively limit choice. Why?

So that is a no, although we could probably argue on your definition, because that isn't what abortion is, but I will ignore that part to move on. Because your religion (which is separate from our constitution or our country) you can't support a woman's right to choose.

I find it interesting that you want to take freedom from someone who has to make a horrible choice because of their circumstances, and take freedom from people who want to be able to choose a healthcare plan and not be forced to live uncovered. That is an odd grouping for someone who supports personal freedoms.

As a note, Obamacare actually provides more choices for those who currently are unable to get insurance. A lot more choices. For me, it is probably less because I am healthy and young(ish). On average, it provides a LOT more choices than less in the aggregate.

When you are unable or willing to cognizantly think through topics, you are not actually debating, you are just talking. Please debate. Otherwise, it is pointless to have these talks. Please provide me facts with which Obamacare reduces choices for those who currently don't have insurance or are not able to get insurance because they have a pre-existing condition.

Please provide me where the constitution says that a women doesn't have a right to make a choice about her own body.

Please provide me where in the constitution it says moral sins are illegal.

Again, separate your religious and personal thoughts, and open your mind. If you can't do that, stay away from topics in which you have no intention of actually thinking about. I am probably more on your side on this topic (ACA) than most on this board, but you are not doing yourself any favors with your rhetoric. Especially all the false "facts" so far.

 

[imaplanner]

.


Fair to the process, please don't take this personally, but that is the biggest line of BS yet. I can not think of one person in the Senate, Congress, or the President that has been fair to the process. The vote came without the 2 day posting period and without the people who were voting on it had the opportunity to read it, or understand it. Process, there is over 50% of Americans who don't want this bill (as written) to continue... We are a republic... which means those who serve are representing the public. When the public says one thing and they do something else, that is a blatant slap in the face to their constituents..

This is a bunch or be and outright lies here skis. And either you have bumped yourself on the head and can't remember back to 2009 or you are willfully lying to support your politics. The bill was drafted, and we went to a fucking August recess where we had huge and rowdy town halls talking about this fucking thing. Months of debate. The final bill was essentially what was the draft that had months of debate. Even after the august recess it wasnt until december that it got passed. The actual final draft of the bill was finalized in like late october but it was the same idea debated from before the august recess. if congress dodnt read it thats out of laziness. And the polls are all over the place so you continue to cherry pick to support your assanine acceation that the American people want the bill gone.

And this is my issue with you. You are a dishonest asshat who puts politics above any factual accounting of history and data. And so sorry if that is an attack on your character, but your character is that you are an outright liar.

Moderator note:

Crossed the line into personal attack territory. Tone it down please.

 

[michaelskis]

Okay so that is a yes. You fully support gay marriage because it is a right. Glad to hear that.

As long as the Government stays out of it, then yes.

So that is a no, although we could probably argue on your definition, because that isn't what abortion is, but I will ignore that part to move on. Because your religion (which is separate from our constitution or our country) you can't support a woman's right to choose.

I find it interesting that you want to take freedom from someone who has to make a horrible choice because of their circumstances, and take freedom from people who want to be able to choose a healthcare plan and not be forced to live uncovered. That is an odd grouping for someone who supports personal freedoms.

As a note, Obamacare actually provides more choices for those who currently are unable to get insurance. A lot more choices. For me, it is probably less because I am healthy and young(ish). On average, it provides a LOT more choices than less in the aggregate.

When you are unable or willing to cognizant think through topics, you are not actually debating, you are just talking. Please debate. Otherwise, it is pointless to have these talks. Please provide me facts with which Obamacare reduces choices for those who currently don't have insurance or are not able to get insurance because they have a pre-existing condition.

That is one case where it does provide choices. As I said before, I don't have a problem with the pre-existing condition. One thing that I do know is that we are trying to figure out how we are going to pay for our son's physical therapist out of pocket starting next month. How is that increasing our choices?

Please provide me where the constitution says that a women doesn't have a right to make a choice about her own body.

Please show me where it says that a mother can choose to kill her child? If she wants to cover her body in tattoos, smoke enough pot to fry her brain, shaver her head, and listen to European bands, have at it. I draw the line when it involves murder.

Please provide me where in the constitution it says moral sins are illegal.

The 5th Amendment "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" For me, it is a mortal sin to murder. In the Constitution, it is illegal.

Again, separate your religious and personal thoughts, and open your mind. If you can't do that, stay away from topics in which you have no intention of actually thinking about. I am probably more on your side on this topic (ACA) than most on this board, but you are not doing yourself any favors with your rhetoric. Especially all the false "facts" so far.

Hink, if you don't like what I say, don't respond. Much of this thread is me defending my points of view while others attack it because I am not 'liberal minded.'

This is a bunch or be and outright lies here skis. And either you have bumped yourself on the head and can't remember back to 2009 or you are willfully lying to support your politics. The bill was drafted, and we went to a fucking August recess where we had huge and rowdy town halls talking about this fucking thing. Months of debate. The final bill was essentially what was the draft that had months of debate. Even after the august recess it wasnt until december that it got passed. The actual final draft of the bill was finalized in like late october but it was the same idea debated from before the august recess. if congress dodnt read it thats out of laziness. And the polls are all over the place so you continue to cherry pick to support your assanine acceation that the American people want the bill gone.

The final amendments were installed on November 6, 2009 and the bill passed on November 7, 2009 at 11:19 PM in the House of Representatives. Per Obama's own admission, everything would be posted for several days online for review in final draft form. I don't see several (or any) says between November 6 and November 7.

And this is my issue with you. You are a dishonest asshat who puts politics above any factual accounting of history and data. And so sorry if that is an attack on your character, but your character is that you are an outright liar.

This is why you and I are different. I can discuss topic without loosing my cool. I guess you can't.

 

[dw914er]

As long as the Government stays out of it, then yes.

I would say that society has evolved to a point where Government has to be involved. Sure, I can just have a ceremony with my local Rabbi or something and be "married" with my girlfriend, but the full value requires that government issued license. I can add her to my insurance policies, have her visit the hospital and have power of attorney in case I am in a coma or something, claim her in my taxes, etc. Being married today carries different responsibilities (and legal ramifications) than it did when the country was founded, which is reasonable. That is why there are those fighting for gay marriage, and why I support them in that endeavor.

Now, on a side note, I seem to remember that healthcare has been a point of contention for awhile now, right? Didn't Clinton, and even W. Bush, run with a goal to fix the issue? Costs have been significantly rising for well over a decade, and the current insurance scheme is a large part of that issue, right? And Obamacare is essentially a reformed, federal version of Romneycare, which helped curb that issue, right? I feel like alot of apprehension towards the ACA is because of the Obama connotation, rather than the bill itself. Most of what I hear against the bill is empty, partisan rhetoric rather than actual substance.

 

[Hink]

Hink, if you don't like what I say, don't respond. Much of this thread is me defending my points of view while others attack it because I am not 'liberal minded.'

I am not liberal minded. I disagree with much of the liberal agenda. It isn't about being liberal minded. It is about having a concrete position and being unwilling to see others viewpoint. Asking why anyone would support the ACA is a case and point.

There are many good reasons to support it. You know that. But when you state it that way, it makes it seem like you are either ignoring the good, or pretending like there isn't any good. Both of which are not fair to a balanced and vibrant discussion.

I respond, for the same reasons you do I would imagine. It is fun.

 

[imaplanner]

Just so everyone knows, the final bill, which was only a slightly revised version of a previous bill that had been debated in for months, was introduced on October 29,2009. And first voted on on November 7,2009.

 

[michaelskis]

I would say that society has evolved to a point where Government has to be involved. Sure, I can just have a ceremony with my local Rabbi or something and be "married" with my girlfriend, but the full value requires that government issued license. I can add her to my insurance policies, have her visit the hospital and have power of attorney in case I am in a coma or something, claim her in my taxes, etc. Being married today carries different responsibilities (and legal ramifications) than it did when the country was founded, which is reasonable. That is why there are those fighting for gay marriage, and why I support them in that endeavor.

That is a whole other discussion for another day. But there would need to be some restructuring in the way the government treats people would need to happen. But other than that, a power of attorney and a will can do take care of almost everything.

Now, on a side note, I seem to remember that healthcare has been a point of contention for awhile now, right? Didn't Clinton, and even W. Bush, run with a goal to fix the issue? Costs have been significantly rising for well over a decade, and the current insurance scheme is a large part of that issue, right? And Obamacare is essentially a reformed, federal version of Romneycare, which helped curb that issue, right? I feel like alot of apprehension towards the ACA is because of the Obama connotation, rather than the bill itself. Most of what I hear against the bill is empty, partisan rhetoric rather than actual substance.

I agree that our current system is broken and they all ran on it. In fact, while Clinton was President, Hillary orchestrated a restructuring of the healthcare system. There has yet to be a bill that I can support.

I have heard several fascinating discussions on why Hillarycare failed and Obamacare hasn't.

Just so everyone knows, the final bill, which was only a slightly revised version of a previous bill that had been debated in for months, was introduced on October 29,2009. And first voted on on November 7,2009.

Then there was the Stupak–Pitts Amendment which was introduced on November 6, 2009 and approved the morning of November 7, 2009. It was the only way that Bart Stupak (D) from Michigan's Upper Peninsula was going to vote for it. A short time later Bart (who I know and for the most part is a great guy) announced that he was going to retire from politics.

I am not liberal minded. I disagree with much of the liberal agenda. It isn't about being liberal minded. It is about having a concrete position and being unwilling to see others viewpoint. Asking why anyone would support the ACA is a case and point.

There are many good reasons to support it. You know that. But when you state it that way, it makes it seem like you are either ignoring the good, or pretending like there isn't any good. Both of which are not fair to a balanced and vibrant discussion.

I respond, for the same reasons you do I would imagine. It is fun.

I do like the provisions for doctors to communicate with each other, I do like the pre-existing disabilities clause, and I think that parts preventative parts are great. All of those would roll perfectly into an Health Savings Account system.

But I don't like centralized records. I don't like that contraception will be covered, I don't like that it is forced (taxed if not participate) I don't like the anticipated cost (both coverage and government $ spent), I don't like that it will cut the pay for people who are there to save our lives (doctors and nurses), I don't like how companies are cutting staff hours, and finally, I don't think that the federal Government should be involved.

 

[imaplanner]

.



Then there was the Stupak–Pitts Amendment which was introduced on November 6, 2009 and approved the morning of November 7, 2009. It was the only way that Bart Stupak (D) from Michigan's Upper Peninsula was going to vote for it. A short time later Bart (who I know and for the most part is a great guy) announced that he was going to retire from politics.
.

Forget it. Im just tired of these demonstrable falsehoods

 

[Hink]

But I don't like centralized records. I don't like that contraception will be covered, I don't like that it is forced (taxed if not participate) I don't like the anticipated cost (both coverage and government $ spent), I don't like that it will cut the pay for people who are there to save our lives (doctors and nurses), I don't like how companies are cutting staff hours, and finally, I don't think that the federal Government should be involved.

Centralized records are a great resource for doctors. It will provide better care to those who don't know you (i.e. not your primary care physician). They can see how many times people have been prescribed meds, and hopefully keep you on track with a program that you were following. Digital centralized medical records having nothing to do with the ACA, but are a HUGE resource that is helping doctors every day.

I agree with you that the concept that doctors are overpaid and just cut their salaries to make healthcare affordable is a good portion of what is wrong with the ACA. Instead of looking a big healthcare (i.e. insurance, hospital CEOs etc.) they look at the people who actually do the work. Did you know a Primary Care Physician makes on average $175k? Add the cost of medical school ($145k), plus the fact that they don't start working until 30 and you aren't actually making that much money. Add to that the fact that you are in no way protected from frivolous lawsuits and it is a job someone would take because they love it, not because they want to get rich. The ACA does nothing to address the underlaying problems with physician compensation, hospital press ganey scores, unqualified people doing doctors work (i.e. hospitals hiring nurses to do physicians work to cut costs), and malpractice environment reform.

See we at least agree on a couple parts of the ACA and what it is lacking. I knew we would find something.

 

[michaelskis]

Centralized records are a great resource for doctors. It will provide better care to those who don't know you (i.e. not your primary care physician). They can see how many times people have been prescribed meds, and hopefully keep you on track with a program that you were following. Digital centralized medical records having nothing to do with the ACA, but are a HUGE resource that is helping doctors every day.

I would not have a problem with centralized records if they could be kept secure. But anytime that it could be accessed by that many people, you know that there is bound to be problems with leaks.

I agree with you that the concept that doctors are overpaid and just cut their salaries to make healthcare affordable is a good portion of what is wrong with the ACA. Instead of looking a big healthcare (i.e. insurance, hospital CEOs etc.) they look at the people who actually do the work. Did you know a Primary Care Physician makes on average $175k? Add the cost of medical school ($145k), plus the fact that they don't start working until 30 and you aren't actually making that much money. Add to that the fact that you are in no way protected from frivolous lawsuits and it is a job someone would take because they love it, not because they want to get rich. The ACA does nothing to address the underlaying problems with physician compensation, hospital press ganey scores, unqualified people doing doctors work (i.e. hospitals hiring nurses to do physicians work to cut costs), and malpractice environment reform.

See we at least agree on a couple parts of the ACA and what it is lacking. I knew we would find something.

I think that doctors deserve the salary that they make, I think that nursers and teachers are underpaid, and I think that administrators for both professions are WAY overpaid. A doctor friend of ours (who specialized >$250K total in student loans) told us that he hopes to have his student loans paid off before he retires.

 

[kjel]

Using the Affordable Care Act as a tool against the Obama presidency has been a grand political move by the tea party faction of the GOP. For the most part it has worked to keep their base fired up about their anti-government stance.

If you really took a close look at the Affordable Care Act, it really is a bi-partisan effort that took on ideas and concepts from both political parties. It was a compromise of ideas, but the tea partiers refuse to accept this, and have used it to their advantage. Again, a deft political move. If the government is to play a role in health care, the Affordable Care Act is a good starting point. For those who believe the government should play no role in health care, then I get why they oppose the Affordable Care Act. But then those people should also oppose Medicare and Medicaid, programs which certain segments of the tea party base thoroughly support.

It's just a bunch of political grandstanding that again moves us away from what really matters - infrastructure improvements, energy policies, job creation.

One of the more fascinating presentations on healthcare reform I've attended was given by Newt Gingrich....in 2005. Many of the ideas and concepts he was promoting are in the ACA. Mitt Romney was very proud of the Massachusetts universal health care system until he started running for president.

As for doctors and nurses, my wife is a nurse and from the information that she has received from doctors (some of whom are big Obama fans) they don't think it is a good thing either. They agree the system is broken but they agree that this will not fix the problems but will create new ones.

Based on the information provided to me by doctors, nurses, and health insurance agents, this is a bad thing for America and will not help.

Not to mention the cost of Obama Care. Even the CBO says it is going to be more than double of what Obama said it was going to cost when it was proposed.
CBO report.

It might be a good thing for them and it might not. The current state of health care insurance is generally not a good thing for most doctors because the insurance companies severely negotiate downward what they are actually paying health care providers. That gross bill might be $1000 but insurance likely pays $250 + your copay. It also requires a lot of staff and billing overhead to navigate the payment system. I have a friend who left a typical practice and now works on a cash basis making housecalls. He says he practices better medicine, has less stress, and still makes good money.

The CBO report is a bit misleading, but there is a kernel of truth in your statement. The costs will be steep to implement the ACA, just like they were when Medicare and Medicaid rolled out. It will take a number of years before any substantial savings will be seen. One really needs to take a long range view.

No, it just goes to show that some people on here will argue with my beliefs because they don't agree with them. My beliefs are based on information that I find credible, although it is also scary when un-credible sources say the same thing... like Jimmy Hoffa Jr. Hell has frozen over when a Union Boss and I agree on something... :-{

Fact, the CNN poll (posted elsewhere in this thread today) says that the American Population is against it... and has been for quite a while now.
Fact, the CBO office says it will cost twice as much as originally predicted... (link posted above) Not exactly.
Fact, several companies have cut hours to push employees into part time status because of ObamaCare (it is all over the news... even CNN) It's a convenient excuse.
Fact, few years ago when I was working for another firm, the Insurance agent explained that our rates were all going up and the only thing that had changed was the passing of Obamacare. (personal experience) He was bullshitting you. Rates go up for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with ACA.
Fact, this is the first time in history that the Federal Government is requiring the US population to purchase something or be taxed. (Check the history books) Perhaps, but there are many comparable situations, ex. you are required to have liability insurance on your vehicle if you want to register and operate it, if you don't you either cannot drive/register the vehicle and you may be fined if caught.
Fact, healthy people who have a low cost, high deductible plan will not have the same options that they had before. (Health Insurance provider/ personal experience) The goal is to lessen the deductibles because frankly many people don't have that kind of cash to cough up in a catastrophic event. You personally might, but the masses likely don't. Health care costs are the #1 reason why people file bankruptcy. We all pay when there are unpaid or uninsured charges.
Fact, doctors will now be required to ask questions that have no reliance to what you are there to see them about. (Doctor who works with my wife)
Fact, all health records will be stored at a centralized database. Given the Edward Snowden situation, is the government the best place for those? (common sense) The government already knows what it wants to know about you. In a crisis situation, a centralized database would be an enormous help in delivering appropriate care. Also it's a means of gathering information on health outcomes.
Fact, there will be situations where you will not be able to pay cash if medicare or medicaid deies your request. (according to an HR coworker of my wife) So are you supposed to pay in wampum? Every time someone goes for medical services even if they have insurance they sign the form that says they are liable for all charges.
Fact, right now you have an option of paying cash for some procedures and the hospital will actually charge less... this will go away (according to a doctor my wife works with)
Fact, several sources show that this will result in higher taxes. (CBO) The depends on the particular state. In NJ if you do not have insurance you can only be charged 110% of the Medicare reimbursement rate for a give procedure or service. This will not go away under the ACA. A hospital or medical provider is not required to accept you as a patient unless you have an emergency and then they are only required to stabilize you. A number of health care facilities receive compensation based on the number of uninsured patients that it treats, the local or state government funds this via your tax contributions.

I don't see how any of that is good for America.

Sometimes your delivery can be a bit in your face for some folks.

DOD I have looked into it, and ours insurance rates are going up, and there is the cost to implement it. That is what the CBO shows as costing about twice what the President says it will.

Insurance rates go up for a very large variety of reasons. Much of it has to do with the group or pool you are enrolled in, what their demographic makeup is, how much was spent collectively in the group, and the back end negotiation done with providers for what they are willing to accepts as reimbursement rates.