How Obamacare affects you in 2014 and Beyond
July 14, 2012
By: Faye Armitage
The Supreme court recently gave the green light to full implementation of Obamacare starting in 2014, ruling that the mandate to buy health care insurance was constitutional. Now that this is settled, many Americans are trying to figure out the specifics for their situation. So what exactly does the mandate mean?
http://www.examiner.com/article/how-obamacare-affects-you-2014-and-beyond
Certainly portrays Obamacare in the most favorable way possible. Actually, of all the favorable stuff listed in the article, there is very little that I oppose. It's the bad stuff that the article fails to mention that is why I oppose the bill.
You can make most anything look good if all you talk about is the good stuff. An article giving equal time to the bad stuff would be useful.
Quote from: fsquid on July 17, 2012, 09:41:49 AM
An article giving equal time to the bad stuff would be useful.
How about linking to one for us.
I don't need to link articles at all. Three downsides off the top of my hear would be the falicy that this will reduce the deficit (please don't link the CBO analysis as it is flawed beyond belief), the rationing of care (this is why Canadians come to the US and the Brits go to France when they need something done that is beyond basic), and the elimination of Health Spending Accounts (which no one is talking about).
I am totally supportive of providing at least a basic level of health care for everyone. I have no problem with the 80% that are currently happy with their health care paying more so that the other 20% can have health insurance. What I am not willing to do is to reduce access and quality for 80% of the population in order to improve those things for 20%.
There is a reason why this bill was phased in over several years, with many parts not taking effect until after the 2012 elections. Give out the good parts first, get the people hooked on them, and then when the bad parts kick in they will be conditioned to accept them.
Quote from: fsquid on July 17, 2012, 10:57:54 AM
I don't need to link articles at all.
So in other words, this is just your opinion on what the "bad" things will be.
USA today is saying less than 10% of Americans will pay even $0.01 a year more for Obamacare. I have the paper copy not the link but it is front page 7/17/2012 issue.
Obviously we will have some hurdles to deal with. Most notably the amount of Doctors we have has been populated to meet the current need. Whereas new demand (the real job creator) will bring more to the market it will take time.
It seems like most objections now are the idea of letting better delay good.
Quote from: finehoe on July 17, 2012, 11:20:11 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 17, 2012, 10:57:54 AM
I don't need to link articles at all.
So in other words, this is just your opinion on what the "bad" things will be.
The article linked is just an opinion piece too. we could go through the CBO analysis if you want to but it would probably make for some boring reading. add to the fact that all it did was crunch numbers given to them by congressional leaders, it is probably a waste of time too.
The rationing of care part come from what democrats have said in their support of Obamacare, that we are trying to copy the UK and Canada. So we are copying bad systems, not a good one. More particularly, we are combining the worst feature of our current system (health care remains tied to employment) with the worst feature of failed single-payer/single-provider systems (decisions by government bureaucrats interfering with the doctor-patient relationship).
Most of us struggle with our partisan tendencies. I don't begrudge partisans for being partisan.
HOWEVER... I do ask for intellectual honesty. I get that Democrats are circling the wagons. I get that Democrats prefer Obama to Romney. ( I do too as far as that goes. Reason? So far, despite continual drum beating, no attack on Iran. With a republican in office, I think we would already have attacked. A hunch... no real evidence.)
How anyone can honestly see PIGPACT as anything more than forced servitude to an already corrupt health insurance/health care industry is remarkable.
...."But there's good stuff in the bill too!"
Quote from: fsquid on July 17, 2012, 11:30:53 AM
we are trying to copy the UK and Canada.
The UK has a National Health Service, which is government-funded.
Canada has a single-payer system.
Obamacare is neither, so how is what they do even relevant?
I think you are right Bucket if you see Obamacare as the permanent endgame. I think we will see the public option follow.
fsquid this is not a copy of the UK/ Canadian system more of a poor man's copy of the German system.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 17, 2012, 11:28:18 AM
USA today is saying less than 10% of Americans will pay even $0.01 a year more for Obamacare. I have the paper copy not the link but it is front page 7/17/2012 issue.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-07-16/health-care-tax/56256676/1
Quote from: finehoe on July 17, 2012, 11:50:02 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 17, 2012, 11:28:18 AM
USA today is saying less than 10% of Americans will pay even $0.01 a year more for Obamacare. I have the paper copy not the link but it is front page 7/17/2012 issue.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-07-16/health-care-tax/56256676/1
yes, I'm sure those corporations will just eat the increased taxes. Surely, they will not increase the price of their services/products to keep their bottom line the same.
Quote from: finehoe on July 17, 2012, 11:44:53 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 17, 2012, 11:30:53 AM
we are trying to copy the UK and Canada.
The UK has a National Health Service, which is government-funded.
Canada has a single-payer system.
Obamacare is neither, so how is what they do even relevant?
Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. Obama and other leading democrats have made it pretty clear that their objective is to morph into a "single-payer" system (their term but I think they really mean either single-payer like Canada or single-provider like UK). The doctor appointed by Obama to head a major medical program (Medicare or Medicaid, IIRC, don't remember which one and googling on a Blackberry isn't the easiest) has stated openly his admiration for UK and Canada and his desire to take us there. Dennis Kucinich made it pretty clear that Obama promised him we would go there in order to get his vote for Obamacare and I may not agree with him on much but I do think he is honest. Those are objective, verifiable facts.
Quote from: fsquid on July 17, 2012, 04:41:36 PM
Those are objective, verifiable facts.
Yet nowhere in the law that was passed by both house of Congress, signed into law by the President, and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court does it say that at some future date the law will "morph" into either system, so your speculation on what *might* happen is worthless.
Quote from: finehoe on July 17, 2012, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 17, 2012, 04:41:36 PM
Those are objective, verifiable facts.
Yet nowhere in the law that was passed by both house of Congress, signed into law by the President, and subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court does it say that at some future date the law will "morph" into either system, so your speculation on what *might* happen is worthless.
You see, Finehoe... I actually believe what you typed.
Most progressives believe this is a piecemeal step towards single payer, or it's cousin-in-law.
Pragmatically, I believe ObamaCare (PIGPACT) is what it is. There is nothing within the bill to remedy potential problems, likewise there is no provision which would ensure a single payer system when insurance premiums inevitably go all exponential on that ass.
Who knows what congress will look like in a few years, or what the next few presidents will conjure up?
If history is any guide...
Quote from: buckethead on July 17, 2012, 11:39:58 AM
How anyone can honestly see PIGPACT as anything more than forced servitude to an already corrupt health insurance/health care industry is remarkable.
...."But there's good stuff in the bill too!"
I agree with you buckethead and progressives were disappointed with Obama's silence on the obviously better single payer system that would have greatly dimished the role of the for-profit insurance middleman.
Instead we have increased the pool of customers for the for-profit insurance industry and only given them a few rules to work by.........no annual or life-time caps. Pre-existing conditions cannot be charged more than 3 times the average rate, and 85% of premiums should go to direct health care provision.
But who is going to police them?
I know I'm supposed to get my refund check from Humana in August because they broke the last rule:
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2012/06/aetna-blue-cross-humana-among.html
Progressive states would have hailed the Supreme court rejection of Obamacare because they would have proceeded with their single-payer system........CA stood ready to go that route.
Why do you want to get rid of the insurance companies? Make it so they have to compete for business. I'd much rather have that then just a federal bureaucracy.
When you have more than one corporation competing for business, you have a choice. There's only one federal government. That's not a choice.
I'm pro choice.
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
When you have more than one corporation competing for business, you have a choice.
True enough. But how many people actually have a choice in who their insurer is? My company offers one insurance plan. Take it or leave it. Where's the choice?
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. Monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate." -Adam Smith
Quote from: finehoe on July 18, 2012, 05:36:30 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
When you have more than one corporation competing for business, you have a choice.
True enough. But how many people actually have a choice in who their insurer is? My company offers one insurance plan. Take it or leave it. Where's the choice?
Bingo.
This does point out one problem with the current system. When insurance is tied to employment, you often end up with only one choice, whatever the employer chooses. If we had a French or German type system, you could give everyone a voucher and he or she could take that voucher to any insurance company for a basic plan. Then he or she could "top up" that basic plan to provide better coverage of more advanced needs. Employers could provide "top ups" as employee benefits. And the insurance companies would compete very aggressively for the basic plan business, in order to get the cash flow and the upselling potential.
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2012, 05:38:53 PM
Quote from: finehoe on July 18, 2012, 05:36:30 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
When you have more than one corporation competing for business, you have a choice.
True enough. But how many people actually have a choice in who their insurer is? My company offers one insurance plan. Take it or leave it. Where's the choice?
Bingo.
This does point out one problem with the current system. When insurance is tied to employment, you often end up with only one choice, whatever the employer chooses. If we had a French or German type system, you could give everyone a voucher and he or she could take that voucher to any insurance company for a basic plan. Then he or she could "top up" that basic plan to provide better coverage of more advanced needs. Employers could provide "top ups" as employee benefits. And the insurance companies would compete very aggressively for the basic plan business, in order to get the cash flow and the upselling potential.
Ah, the way Medicare supplemental insurance plans work...........too much choice becomes a complicated headache.
I like choices.
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
Why do you want to get rid of the insurance companies? Make it so they have to compete for business. I'd much rather have that then just a federal bureaucracy.
When you have more than one corporation competing for business, you have a choice. There's only one federal government. That's not a choice.
I'm pro choice.
If the federal government can do it cheaper and better, I want THAT choice.
I want to choose Medicare, regardless of my age.
Republicans want to take away my choice for the cheaper and better health care plan.
Quote from: finehoe on July 18, 2012, 05:36:30 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
When you have more than one corporation competing for business, you have a choice.
True enough. But how many people actually have a choice in who their insurer is? My company offers one insurance plan. Take it or leave it. Where's the choice?
The choice is take it or leave it. If you leave it, you can go out and buy your own.
I don't understand why everyone seems to be missing this.
Quote from: FayeforCure on July 18, 2012, 06:38:23 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2012, 05:38:53 PM
Quote from: finehoe on July 18, 2012, 05:36:30 PM
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
When you have more than one corporation competing for business, you have a choice.
True enough. But how many people actually have a choice in who their insurer is? My company offers one insurance plan. Take it or leave it. Where's the choice?
Bingo.
This does point out one problem with the current system. When insurance is tied to employment, you often end up with only one choice, whatever the employer chooses. If we had a French or German type system, you could give everyone a voucher and he or she could take that voucher to any insurance company for a basic plan. Then he or she could "top up" that basic plan to provide better coverage of more advanced needs. Employers could provide "top ups" as employee benefits. And the insurance companies would compete very aggressively for the basic plan business, in order to get the cash flow and the upselling potential.
Ah, the way Medicare supplemental insurance plans work...........too much choice becomes a complicated headache.
Why does too much choice cause a headache? People don't seem to have problems making a choice looking at a menu in a restaurant. Did you not shop around when you purchased a car, or insurance for your car or home?
It sounds more like people who don't want the choices are too lazy to educate themselves on their available choices and do the necessary research to make an educated decision. People need to learn that having choices allows them to select what best fits their needs and is at the price point they are willing to pay. What works for you most likely does not work for me and I would not want to get stuck in that type of plan just like you would not want to get stuck in a plan that works for me.
Quote from: FayeforCure on July 19, 2012, 11:43:45 AM
Quote from: fsquid on July 18, 2012, 05:28:52 PM
Why do you want to get rid of the insurance companies? Make it so they have to compete for business. I'd much rather have that then just a federal bureaucracy.
When you have more than one corporation competing for business, you have a choice. There's only one federal government. That's not a choice.
I'm pro choice.
If the federal government can do it cheaper and better, I want THAT choice.
Yes the Federal Government is known for cheaper and better. Go back to la la land and it will all be OK.
Talking to someone who works for the accounting department of HCA hospital group yesterday and she said their analysis is that Obamacare is going to save them much of the 17million they have to write off from care they give the uninsured that is never payed for.
The stated accounting practice is to "write off" the "losses" caused by the non-payment of charges for service.
Just like any other expense incurred by the corporations of this country, the so-called losses are always recovered by inflating the cost to the consumer who does pay.
Quote from: Ralph W on July 19, 2012, 04:40:27 PM
The stated accounting practice is to "write off" the "losses" caused by the non-payment of charges for service.
Just like any other expense incurred by the corporations of this country, the so-called losses are always recovered by inflating the cost to the consumer who does pay.
Yes but expenses are not always easy to pass down the line. More exciting is if many of the non payers become payers a business owner won't lower the prices dollar for dollar of the new income. As a business owner I personally have seen that it is hard to pass on 100% of any new expense and I never give back 100% of new savings.
Quote from: bill on July 19, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
Yes the Federal Government is known for cheaper and better. Go back to la la land and it will all be OK.
You would appear to be the one in la la land:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/
Quote from: finehoe on July 20, 2012, 10:04:17 AM
Quote from: bill on July 19, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
Yes the Federal Government is known for cheaper and better. Go back to la la land and it will all be OK.
You would appear to be the one in la la land:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/
I've seen this defense multiple times. It is misinformed.
Medicare outsources administration, then administrates the administrators. Each state has a private firm who pays medicare claims. There is a competitive bid to win the contract. (BCBS had held the FL contract for quite some time. Info available at cms.gov)
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/2052-12.pdf
According to Kaiser, in 2009, 22% of medicare beneficiaries were enrolled in MA plans (private medicare plans where private insurers are paid per member/per month far in excess of premiums taken in by cms). These beneficiaries do not count as administered by CMS.
Claims disputes are generally handled at the private sector level with those remaining unresolved escalating to CMS.
Credentialling (providing documentation which proves a provider to be qualified and eligible to provide to medicare beneficiaries) is outsourced.
The claim is disengenuous.
I'm not opposed to Medicare. I support single payer. Facts need to be truthfully presented.
I am not saying you are intentionally presenting misinformation, but a Senator should know better.
Quote from: buckethead on July 20, 2012, 10:21:07 AM
I am not saying you are intentionally presenting misinformation
No worries, I didn't take it that way.
However, did you look at the Urban Institute piece cited in the article? (http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411762_public_insurance.pdf) They address this, and say
CBO compared the administrative costs and private
health plans participating in Medicare with
those of the traditional Medicare program.
Both estimates would underestimate Medicare
administrative costs for the reasons given
above, but
the key point is the differential.
Italics mine. Yes, this may cause Medicare admin costs to be understated, but the results still show the private insurance admin costs to be greater.
Quote from: finehoe on July 20, 2012, 10:04:17 AM
Quote from: bill on July 19, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
Yes the Federal Government is known for cheaper and better. Go back to la la land and it will all be OK.
You would appear to be the one in la la land:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/
Sure Boxer and politifact, both credible. I am sure it will be effecient and cheaper like the post office, I mean DMV, no welfare, um maybe government schools, nevermind I am sure it really will be cheaper and better. Now back to the real world.
Quote from: bill on July 20, 2012, 12:24:28 PM
Quote from: finehoe on July 20, 2012, 10:04:17 AM
Quote from: bill on July 19, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
Yes the Federal Government is known for cheaper and better. Go back to la la land and it will all be OK.
You would appear to be the one in la la land:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/
Sure Boxer and politifact, both credible. I am sure it will be effecient and cheaper like the post office, I mean DMV, no welfare, um maybe government schools, nevermind I am sure it really will be cheaper and better. Now back to the real world.
This reminds me of a Republican I spoke with recently.........he was so funny........he said he doesn't believe in all the studies that are done that show decreased up ward mobility in the US vs many other western nations..........to which he responded:
"I don't believe in aggregate studies, because on an individual basis it is still possible."
IOW don't bother doing ANY studies........collecting any collective facts..........as long as in my little world it is as it is.......I will never be convinced.
I you believe in the sham of for-profit schools, you have no idea how our students are being ripped off:
Costly Lesson: For-Profit schools' students buried in loan debt
http://www.mnn.com/money/personal-finance/videos/costly-lesson-for-profit-schools-students-buried-in-loan-debt
This is an outrage! 16,500 employees will get health insurance but the pizza loving public now must foot the bill! Thanks a lot Obama...
QuotePapa John's CEO John Schnatter says that Obamacare will result in a $0.11 to $0.14 price increase per pizza, or $0.15 to $0.20 cents per order, Pizza Marketplace, a trade publication, reports.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/papa-johns-obamacare-pizza_n_1752126.html
Well that puts this goddamn socialism into perspective doesn't it...
So I have to pay an extra $0.11, but 16,500 people are covered by health insurance?
Wow, yeah, umm...what a travesty.
They'll get that $0.11 out of my cold, dead, hands.
Naive or disingenuous?
You decide....
Occupy Papa Johns?
Calling on all Republican opponents of Obamacare to reject their health care insurance rebate checks.
Help healthcare companies increase their profits. Send your rebate checks back to the healthcare insurance companies.
"Welfare to the corporations" is the motto.
How many Republican takers do we have so far in Jax?
If you could get us completely out of Obamacare, you would have takers. But then, who would pay for all that medical care?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y
Quote from: fsquid on May 01, 2013, 09:46:15 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y
Interesting article except that those are the same kind of increases we have seen over the last 15 years we can hardly blame Obamacare for sky rocketing premiums that have already been skyrocketing. Insurers will continue to charge what the market can bear. Now once we get this portion of insurance reform done we need to move on to Healthcare reform that Obamacare is often confused for.
It seems hard to believe that taking many free riders off the back of the government and that moving many who will still be getting the government to pay for their care out of the emergency room as primary care won't have any positive cost effects.
Change is almost always met with fear mongering especially when one side has a political interest in breeding discontent. I don't mind those that want to change Obamacare but those that insist we repeal and return to the old dysfunctional system first strike me as disingenuous.
And this is the problem in a nut shell. They didn't do anything to cap costs on premiums.
I agree that one shouldn't repeal it unless they have another program ready to come to the floor for a vote.
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 01, 2013, 10:41:43 AM
Quote from: fsquid on May 01, 2013, 09:46:15 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578441032081716170?mg=reno64-wsj.html?dsk=y
Interesting article except that those are the same kind of increases we have seen over the last 15 years we can hardly blame Obamacare for sky rocketing premiums that have already been skyrocketing. Insurers will continue to charge what the market can bear. Now once we get this portion of insurance reform done we need to move on to Healthcare reform that Obamacare is often confused for.
It seems hard to believe that taking many free riders off the back of the government and that moving many who will still be getting the government to pay for their care out of the emergency room as primary care won't have any positive cost effects.
Change is almost always met with fear mongering especially when one side has a political interest in breeding discontent. I don't mind those that want to change Obamacare but those that insist we repeal and return to the old dysfunctional system first strike me as disingenuous.
As someone who pays completely out of pocket for insurance, my premiums this year increased significantly more this year than in years past. In previous years I've had a single digit increase typically under 5%, this year it was over 10%
It also won't be apples to apples with the coverage pre Obamacare because the coverages will have diffrent standards to meet. I am worried even though I support moving forward. We should just go back to having health insurance be for non profits only worked very well in America for a long time. However I would support single payer over this.
Quote from: fsquid on May 01, 2013, 11:55:01 AM
And this is the problem in a nut shell. They didn't do anything to cap costs on premiums.
Premiums are capped to the extent that they have to rebate money not spent on medical services less 2%.
I have no doubt that for profit businesses will beat the Government at this game and will administer 1000 paper cuts of small "improvements" for the companies over the customers.
Single healthy men who now carry coverage look like they will be the losers as premium balancing will take away their previous advantage. Particularly in states where no exchanges will be formed.
I have shouted this from the rooftops since the initial debate, and I stand by it: Obamacare is a catastrophe in the making. I don't pretend to think Obama wrote it, and I never claimed that there aren't benefits to the plan. The harm done outweighs the benefits exponentially. We are mere months away from corporate and small business downsizing, skyrocketing premiums, and revolting subjects.
This, from the start, was a corporate takeover. They have a captive 'customer' base. More aptly they have subjugated the populace using the coercive force of government. Sound familiar?
We also know the insurers (health and otherwise) are intertwined with Wall Street financial firms. A wholesome enough lot, but do you really trust those same firms who delivered FWMD to Main St to be managing your health for profit?
Not to worry... "We eliminated pre-existing condition clauses!"
Corporations are masters of bureaucracy. They bloat, just like governments. Now that the Feds have one hand on the steering wheel, profits will be mandated. Efficiency will not. I take solace in the fact that they don't need to be efficient in order to make a profit.
Would any of my progressive friends here like to see Medicare privatized? (It has already been done in part. Medicare Advantage plans are exqctly that)
Well, In the words of Plato: "Hang on Baby Jesus.... It's about to get bumpy."
And as many should remember, this libertarian/conservative /anarchist/supply side/trickle down/Austrian School/ Freidmanite/lasse faire/flat worlder has maintained that single payer was a superior option to ACA.
I will give you credit you have warned of this from the start. Now I hope it blows up private insurance and we actually have to enter the civilized world of healthcare. Likely it won't be as good as the proponents claim or as bad as the opponents claim.
I have to point out....
the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to establish a madatory medical program. If such a program is wanted, it should be initiated and governed by the states, such as the Mass. system.
NN The question of its legality was put before Over 400 congressional representatives, 100 senators, several state court judges, several federal court judges, 12 Supreme Court Justices and one president and decided as the group that it was in fact legal. Now you can certainly disagree with them but you can hardly state that It is a fact that it's not legal.
I think the key issue is that no one understands how this is going to work, nor how much it is going to cost in the end. Its such a massive program to swallow at one time, and the bureaucrats in DC are still writing the regulations. Its going to be interesting when it hits the streets.
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2013, 09:15:46 AM
I have to point out....
the Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to establish a madatory medical program. If such a program is wanted, it should be initiated and governed by the states, such as the Mass. system.
:'( :'( :'(
I agree Stephen if we can't be smart enough to become a single payer country we should at least have a public option or a non-profit insurance industry.
The people responsible for passing it (The Republicans, mostly) were more interested in screaming at people in wheelchairs and calling anyone who wanted to talk about costs 'socialists')
What? Actually there were no Republican votes for it at all in the senate, and damned few in the house
Civil I would be interested to hear how you feel about Stephen's contention that if you maximize the system to make profit then it won't be cheap to fund. We can't cry the market controls that because we moved away from true market competition in healthcare long ago.
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 03, 2013, 09:22:21 AM
NN The question of its legality was put before Over 400 congressional representatives, 100 senators, several state court judges, several federal court judges, 12 Supreme Court Justices and one president and decided as the group that it was in fact legal. Now you can certainly disagree with them but you can hardly state that It is a fact that it's not legal.
Agreed...my opinion only. I do believe that we would be better off with state versions of such medical systems, which would certainly encourage innovation.
OK, let me get this straight....The Affordable Care Act is now a creation of Republicans and the Tea Party? Is that really going to be the Democratic talking point as this thing caves?
Quote from: NotNow on May 03, 2013, 03:41:41 PM
OK, let me get this straight....The Affordable Care Act is now a creation of Republicans and the Tea Party? Is that really going to be the Democratic talking point as this thing caves?
I agree that won't fly. Democrats and Americans for that matter need to find away to make this thing work for the good of all involved. If Vermont uses it to become single payer I predict the States will start competing over the best way to use the Federal funds. Florida will have to suck eggs for a while because we won't have those federal funds.
Now there are plenty of originally Republican ideas in the bill
Mandates, Fraud reduction, Insurance exchanges and I am not sure if out of state policies actually made it into the bill.
It would be a good time to "examine our options". There may still be time to get a usable system out of this. Obviously, I would prefer that states design their own systems. Thank God there appears to at least be a growing agreement that the ACA is an abomination.
It's an abomination because congress stripped out the part that would've made the whole thing work by forcing the providers to be competitive, namely the government option. Now the same people want to gripe that there is no natural cap on costs. Well no $h!t sherlocks, you took it out.
The thing was shoved through a democratically controlled house and senate by the Presidents own power brokers Pelosi and Reid. As I recall, no one had even read the thing. EVERY promise and prediction about the act has proven to be wrong. So now the snarky comments and the blame game begins. The "same people" are the ones who told you it was a monstrous abomination and now the effort is to shift the blame to them. That is obvious BS. The President, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, and all of the others who rammed the act through by sheer bullying must now take responsibility for it. It has become quite obvious that the democrats (and their shills) will not admit any mistakes by trying to fix at least some of the problems for the American people. Just as they have twisted their own sequester to inflict maximum pain on the public, they will continue to play politics on Obamacare no matter the cost to the country.
It should now be even more obvious why most folks don't want "Gubmint" hands on any part of their lives.