Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Supreme Court Upholds "Obamacare"
Show More
Loading...
Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 1, 2012 9:04 PM EDT

 



Supreme Court Upholds "Romneycare"  Laughing

Flag mountain_man July 1, 2012 9:47 PM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 8:09PM, IreneAdler wrote:

Can’t say for a certainty, but in times past, health care coverage was a benefit an employer could offer that was not taxed in the same manner as employee salary. 


Game has changed now.


Yes, it has. With the Affordable Health Care Act small businesses that were unable to afford health insurance for it's workers will not get tax breaks for doing so.

Flag mainecaptain July 2, 2012 9:49 AM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 8:02PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 7:40PM, mainecaptain wrote:

yes they did, go bankrupt or drop dead, they don't care which


They do care which. Many years ago they, the Regressives, made it harder, and almost impossible, for an individual to file for bankruptcy.  That privilege is now reserved for corporations and the rich.


By the way.... medical bills account for more than half of all personal bankruptcies. The Affordable Health Care Act has, or will, eliminate the caps on health insurance policies. They can no longer say; "Oh, too bad. You have do die now since you reached your cap. Thanks for doing business with us."



Good point.

Flag mindis1 July 2, 2012 9:55 AM EDT

The Court’s ruling is certainly a page-turner: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-3... Intriguingly, more Justices joined more parts of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent/concurrence than joined Justice Roberts’ opinion. More intriguingly, there is a joint dissent in which Justice Scalia is listed as the first author, but it is unlike his writing. Scalia, especially when he gets wound up on a dissent, has a distinctive sardonic style of writing. These are not his sentences.


Ginsburg begins her dissent/concurrence with interesting statistics by which she adeptly sets forth the problem that Congress attempted to solve with the ACA:  


Unlike markets for most products, however, the inability to pay for care does not mean that an uninsured individual will receive no care. Federal and state law, as well as professional obligations and embedded social norms, require hospitals and physicians to provide care when it is most needed, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. [. . .]


As a consequence, medical-care providers deliver significant amounts of care to the uninsured for which the providers receive no payment. In 2008, for example, hospitals, physicians, and other health-care professionals received no compensation for $43 billion worth of the $116 billion in care they administered to those without insurance. [. . .] 


Health-care providers do not absorb these bad debts. Instead, they raise their prices, passing along the cost of uncompensated care to those who do pay reliably: the government and private insurance companies. In response, private insurers increase their premiums, shifting the cost of the elevated bills from providers onto those who carry insurance. The net result: Those with health insurance subsidize the medical care of those without it. As economists would describe what happens, the uninsured “free ride” on those who pay for health insurance.


The size of this subsidy is considerable. Congress found that the cost-shifting just described “increases family [insurance] premiums by on average over $1,000 a year.” Ibid. Higher premiums, in turn, render health insurance less affordable, forcing more people to go without insurance and leading to further cost-shifting.


But does the ACA change this “cost-shifting” regimen in any way? Won’t the big fat insurance companies continue to cost-shift down to the little people? Won’t the people who now carry insurance but consume less than they pay continue to pay for those who cannot pay for what they consume?


Is the ACA expected to save families who currently carry health insurance $1000 per year? It seems unlikely that the currently insured will reap such a savings--the law is simply not constructed to pass on any hypothetical savings to the currently insured. Not that I am complaining, but as someone who has never had a day without cover of health insurance, and who, during the 34 years of my adulthood, has only spent my deductible one year, in 1989 when I had minor surgery and spent several days in the hospital (the equivalent procedure would be an outpatient visit today), even a hypothetical savings of $1000 per year does not sound like a substantial pay-back anyway. Given my mortal fear of doctors and hospitals, I may have already paid in more than I will ever consume.


The ACA does not in any way address the exorbitant cost of health care that Americans already pay. Indeed, the law does nothing but further cost-shifting--but there will be a much larger bureaucracy to support. On this point, Dr. Marcia Angell, of Harvard Medical School, provides a finer analysis:


Obamacare is simply incapable of doing what it is supposed to do -- provide nearly universal care at an affordable and sustainable cost. The problem is that three years ago, in his futile efforts to win over Republicans (remember the embarrassing courtship of Olympia Snowe?), Obama gutted the law before it was even passed. He made the private insurance companies the linchpin of the new system, and promised them millions of additional customers and billions of taxpayer dollars. He also did nothing to rein in the profit-oriented delivery system that rewards providers on a piecework basis for doing tests and procedures. So with all the new dollars flowing into the system and no restraints on the way medicine is practiced, the law is inherently inflationary. 


Although there are some provisions to curb the worst abuses of the insurance companies, such as excluding people with preexisting conditions, there is nothing in the law that would stop insurers from raising premiums. A senior executive of the industry's trade association, America's Health Insurance Plans, told me privately that that's exactly what the companies will do if regulations cut into their profits. Thus, costs under Obamacare will almost certainly rise even faster than at present. No reform can work well or very long if its costs are unsustainable.


www.huffingtonpost.com/marcia-angell-md/...


Dr. Angell notes that even if Obama is re-elected (which she hopes he is), Obamacare will unravel. She points to some of the lose threads that will lead to the unraveling:  


Many of the uninsured who are subject to the mandate to purchase private insurance will choose to pay the penalty/tax instead. That will lead the insurance companies to raise their premiums, demand that the penalties be greater, or both. Deductibles and co-payments will increase to the point that many people will have insurance they can't afford to use. (This is the case in Massachusetts.) Many employers will simply stop offering health insurance, since our high unemployment means workers no longer have the leverage to demand it, or they will stop insuring dependents (thus avoiding having to cover grown children to age 26). In addition, because insurers have a strong financial incentive to evade the new regulations requiring them to take all comers, it will take a huge bureaucracy to monitor them. 


Next year, states are supposed to set up insurance exchanges to pool risks and offer a menu of approved insurance plans for individuals and small businesses. But they are unlikely to be functioning by 2014, as called for in the law, either because Republican states simply refuse to set them up and hamper federal efforts to step in, or because of the administrative complexities. Some states may also refuse to accept the funds to expand Medicaid, as called for in the law, since the Supreme Court found that they could opt out without losing their existing federal Medicaid funding. Here again, the bureaucracy necessary to aid and monitor state compliance will be huge, diverting resources from health care. In addition, there are likely to be multiple legal challenges to nearly all provisions of the law. 


Obamacare partially offsets the costs of federal subsidies to insurance companies and Medicaid costs by cutting Medicare reimbursement to providers. That means hospitals and other health facilities will take a hit, and many are already struggling.


I cannot help but agree with her when she says:


. . . I think the Democrats would have been better off if the Supreme Court had overturned Obamacare, and I think it would have been better for our health system, as well.

Flag TemplarS July 2, 2012 10:29 AM EDT

 


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:55AM, mindis1 wrote:


Won’t the people who now carry insurance but consume less than they pay continue to pay for those who cannot pay for what they consume?




Sure, but that is the point to insurance.


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:55AM, mindis1 wrote:


The ACA does not in any way address the exorbitant cost of health care that Americans already pay. Indeed, the law does nothing but further cost-shifting--but there will be a much larger bureaucracy to support.




This is true; however, on the point of bureaucracy, that is only because it will continue and expand the current dual system: government and private insurance. That is, indeed, part of the current problem with the "private" system.  Doctors offices are filled with clerical people who are necessary to fight their way through the myriads of private insurance plans out there. Insurance companies employ an army of doctors and nurses (who ought to be treating patients and not processing paper) for the purpose of critically examining claims and services provided.  The way hospitals and medical providers bill for services is absurd: you go in for a surgery, you get separate bills from the hospital, the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, the lab, the pathologist, the radiologist, your primary care doctor if he happens to wander by your room to see how you are doing.  All of these separate bills must be processed through  billing departments, the insurance claims departments, accounts receivable, and so on.  Hospitals have different rates for different patients, depending on their insurance status; how can there be cost control if nobody understands what procedures really cost?  With all of this, payments to providers are at best delayed and at worst lost in the system forever- so the providers do what any business person would do to maintain cash flow: raise rates.  The current malpractice system throws another insurance mess on top of this, increasing rates and doing nothing to get bad doctors out of practice (since cases are generally settled out of court, with no admission of guilt).


Obamacare does nothing about all of this. It corrects certain practices which are subject to abuse by insurers, and will serve to enable coverage for more people, which is all good. 


But the whole system of the way medical care is provided, billed, and paid for needs to be razed and rebuilt in a sane manner.  I don't know how to make this happen. All I know is that the current system by which private health insurance is provided enables this mess;  and all the special interests which "assist" Congress in re-writing regulations are no help either.

Flag Ebon July 2, 2012 10:30 AM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 8:02PM, mountain_man wrote:

By the way.... medical bills account for more than half of all personal bankruptcies. The Affordable Health Care Act has, or will, eliminate the caps on health insurance policies. They can no longer say; "Oh, too bad. You have do die now since you reached your cap. Thanks for doing business with us."



Whereas here, we have zero medical bankruptcies and your out-of-pocket is limited to the roughly fifteen dollars it costs to get a prescription filled.

Flag TemplarS July 2, 2012 1:10 PM EDT

Ebon, that is all well and good, but I do not know the path to get there on this side of the pond.  Too much political water has passed under the bridge to deconstruct what we have now and reconstruct it in a totally sane manner. That might have (and should have) been done in the 60s or 70s; now it is like trying to move Mt. Everest.


I would not have been disappointed had Obamacare been overturned, had I any faith that the people in Washington would be able to put their heads together and come up with something better.  In fact, the Republicans have made it clear that they have no clue as to what such a "better" program would look like.  To them, "not-Obamacare" says everything that needs to be said; and I have even less faith that the American voter will press them hard enough to force them to actually explain themselves.

Flag Ebon July 2, 2012 1:15 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 1:10PM, TemplarS wrote:

Ebon, that is all well and good, but I do not know the path to get there on this side of the pond.  Too much political water has passed under the bridge to deconstruct what we have now and reconstruct it in a totally sane manner. That might have (and should have) been done in the 60s or 70s; now it is like trying to move Mt. Everest.


I would not have been disappointed had Obamacare been overturned, had I any faith that the people in Washington would be able to put their heads together and come up with something better.  In fact, the Republicans have made it clear that they have no clue as to what such a "better" program would look like.  To them, "not-Obamacare" says everything that needs to be said; and I have even less faith that the American voter will press them hard enough to force them to actually explain themselves.



As I said, the simplest way to do so would have been to open up Medicare to everyone.

Flag TemplarS July 2, 2012 3:08 PM EDT

Obviously, Ebon.


But the Republican plan is to defund Medicare in favor of vouchers for (dysfunctional) private insurance.


Actually, Medicare has a funding problem, but it has nothing to do with the program, it has to do with demographics (i.e., more older people).


So one would logically think that opening it to all would help on both accounts; providing more reliable insurance for everyone, and bringing younger (presumably healthier) people into the paying pool.


But no...

Flag mountain_man July 2, 2012 3:41 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 1:15PM, Ebon wrote:

As I said, the simplest way to do so would have been to open up Medicare to everyone.


It's not that simple. The Health Insurance Industry contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to, mostly, Republican politicians. These companies make huge profits are are willing to spend a portion of that to guarantee those profits. Those companies, and the Republicans, could not care less what is best for Americans. They only worry about money and power.

Flag Ebon July 2, 2012 3:42 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 3:41PM, mountain_man wrote:

It's not that simple. The Health Insurance Industry contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to, mostly, Republican politicians. These companies make huge profits are are willing to spend a portion of that to guarantee those profits. Those companies, and the Republicans, could not care less what is best for Americans. They only worry about money and power.



Well, obviously, I'm talking a world where things make sense and Congress actually tries to help the people.

Flag mountain_man July 2, 2012 5:09 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 3:42PM, Ebon wrote:

Well, obviously, I'm talking a world where things make sense and Congress actually tries to help the people.


At this time that world, for the USA anyway, is just a Progressive fantasy.

Flag IreneAdler July 2, 2012 7:36 PM EDT

Jul 1, 2012 -- 9:47PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jul 1, 2012 -- 8:09PM, IreneAdler wrote:

Can’t say for a certainty, but in times past, health care coverage was a benefit an employer could offer that was not taxed in the same manner as employee salary. 


Game has changed now.


Yes, it has. With the Affordable Health Care Act small businesses that were unable to afford health insurance for it's workers will not get tax breaks for doing so.






And, in an odd twist, some companies are seriously pondering paying the penalty than continue to offer health insurance to their employees.  Current penalty is less than the insurance costs.  Need to maximize profits to make that new Device Tax.


The prez of my company feels strongly that our company must continue to offer health insurance (bless him!). But the options may become reduced (we have 4 or 5 different health plans to choose from now).


Irene.  

Flag farragut July 2, 2012 8:33 PM EDT

Irene, you do have my best wishes, but we know, don't we, how much good that can do.


Ciao

Flag Cowfornow July 3, 2012 12:53 AM EDT

ACA is a start in the right direction, but it's a feeble one.  I am grateful for the elimination of the pre-existing condition clause, though - I would imagine most people who are too young for Medicare but still old enough to want to retire have some pre-existing conditions.  I would have been ready to retire at the start of this year, eligible for Social Security, but since I'm not old enough for Medicare, I'd have to wait until my husband's insurance had open enrollment.  Sort of fortunately, I lost my job anyway, so now I can sign up sooner.  Goofy rules - can't sign up on the new insurance if I voluntarily quit working, but I can by getting fired or laid off.


Also, if they would lower the eligibility age for Medicare, there might be more early retirees, which would open up some jobs, which would help the economy and get more dollars into the Social Security fund.  Of course, the Repooplicans would somehow screw that up.   

Flag TemplarS July 3, 2012 8:22 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:53AM, Cowfornow wrote:


ACA is a start in the right direction, but it's a feeble one.  I am grateful for the elimination of the pre-existing condition clause, though - I would imagine most people who are too young for Medicare but still old enough to want to retire have some pre-existing conditions.  I would have been ready to retire at the start of this year, eligible for Social Security, but since I'm not old enough for Medicare, I'd have to wait until my husband's insurance had open enrollment.  Sort of fortunately, I lost my job anyway, so now I can sign up sooner.  Goofy rules - can't sign up on the new insurance if I voluntarily quit working, but I can by getting fired or laid off.


Also, if they would lower the eligibility age for Medicare, there might be more early retirees, which would open up some jobs, which would help the economy and get more dollars into the Social Security fund.  Of course, the Repooplicans would somehow screw that up.   




Quite right. However, eliminating the pre-existing condition exclusion, and as I understand it the formation of health care exchanges, will help a lot in that regard.


This is another thing wrong with employer-sponsored insurance. People stay in jobs they don't want simply for the benefits. And if they leave they cannot get the same rates for insurance as a single buyer, because corporations can get group rates which individuals (now) cannot).  Part time employers also get screwed.  And conversely, because of the cost of such of benefits, employers find it better to work people overtime than hire new workers.  The whole system is an anachronism. 

Flag mindis1 July 3, 2012 12:01 PM EDT

Jul 2, 2012 -- 10:29AM, TemplarS wrote:


Jul 2, 2012 -- 9:55AM, mindis1 wrote:


The ACA does not in any way address the exorbitant cost of health care that Americans already pay. Indeed, the law does nothing but further cost-shifting--but there will be a much larger bureaucracy to support.




This is true; however, on the point of bureaucracy, that is only because it will continue and expand the current dual system: government and private insurance. That is, indeed, part of the current problem with the "private" system.  Doctors offices are filled with clerical people who are necessary to fight their way through the myriads of private insurance plans out there. Insurance companies employ an army of doctors and nurses (who ought to be treating patients and not processing paper) for the purpose of critically examining claims and services provided.  The way hospitals and medical providers bill for services is absurd: you go in for a surgery, you get separate bills from the hospital, the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, the lab, the pathologist, the radiologist, your primary care doctor if he happens to wander by your room to see how you are doing.  All of these separate bills must be processed through  billing departments, the insurance claims departments, accounts receivable, and so on.  Hospitals have different rates for different patients, depending on their insurance status; how can there be cost control if nobody understands what procedures really cost?  With all of this, payments to providers are at best delayed and at worst lost in the system forever- so the providers do what any business person would do to maintain cash flow: raise rates.  The current malpractice system throws another insurance mess on top of this, increasing rates and doing nothing to get bad doctors out of practice (since cases are generally settled out of court, with no admission of guilt).


Obamacare does nothing about all of this. It corrects certain practices which are subject to abuse by insurers, and will serve to enable coverage for more people, which is all good. 


But the whole system of the way medical care is provided, billed, and paid for needs to be razed and rebuilt in a sane manner.  I don't know how to make this happen. All I know is that the current system by which private health insurance is provided enables this mess;  and all the special interests which "assist" Congress in re-writing regulations are no help either.



I agree with everything you’ve said here, and not just here but your other posts on this topic also. So why shouldn’t what you’ve said be sufficient reason for someone to favor Romney over Obama in November at least on the issue of health care?


According to what I read somewhere yesterday, Romney at least has a consistent take on the individual mandate and the Supreme Court ruling. He says that the individual mandate is not a tax but a penalty, and that it is unconstitutional for Congress to enact this penalty against individuals for not engaging in this commerce. And the fact is that a majority of the Justices did not find that Commerce Clause precedent authorizes Congress to compel individuals to engage in commerce by requiring the purchase of an unwanted product. Justice Ginsburg has a good argument that everyone does, or will eventually and unpredictably, participate in the health-care market, and that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate this activity. But she didn't pull in a majority of Jusitices on this point.  


To me it looks like that if Romney has any intention of doing anything to replace the ACA, he has painted himself into a corner: a Massachusetts-type program, which Obamacare is, is unconstitutional for Congress to enact. So the only other option for trying to provide universal health care is the expansion of single-payer Medicare.

Flag TemplarS July 3, 2012 12:47 PM EDT

Mindis, I have less faith in Romney and the Republicans than I have in the Democrats, the insurance industry bureaucrats, the heath care providers, or anyone else I have mentioned.


Sure, Romney says he opposes the individual mandate and the SCOTUS ruling. But what is he for?  He isn't even for what he did in Massachusetts anymore.  The man may and probably does have some good ideas in his head, but he simply doesn't have the balls to stand up to those on the right of his party who make all the noise.  To take on the health care issue requires immense personal courage in the face of all the vested interests to combat.  With his weaseling on health care and on climate change,  his peremptory firing of the gay staff member, his refusal to condemn Limbaugh's remarks on Sandra Fluke, and numerous other matters, Romney has displayed no personal courage whatsoever.


The SCOTUS ruling was actually a gift for Romney and the GOP. Had the law been overturned, they would have been forced to propose something as an alternative. Now, all they have to do is chant the mantra of "not-Obamacare", and hope (probably correctly) that people won't dig any deeper.


 


 


 

Flag Girlchristian July 3, 2012 12:56 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47PM, TemplarS wrote:


Mindis, I have less faith in Romney and the Republicans than I have in the Democrats, the insurance industry bureaucrats, the heath care providers, or anyone else I have mentioned.


Sure, Romney says he opposes the individual mandate and the SCOTUS ruling. But what is he for?  He isn't even for what he did in Massachusetts anymore.  The man may and probably does have some good ideas in his head, but he simply doesn't have the balls to stand up to those on the right of his party who make all the noise.  To take on the health care issue requires immense personal courage in the face of all the vested interests to combat.  With his weaseling on health care and on climate change,  his peremptory firing of the gay staff member, his refusal to condemn Limbaugh's remarks on Sandra Fluke, and numerous other matters, Romney has displayed no personal courage whatsoever.


The SCOTUS ruling was actually a gift for Romney and the GOP. Had the law been overturned, they would have been forced to propose something as an alternative. Now, all they have to do is chant the mantra of "not-Obamacare", and hope (probably correctly) that people won't dig any deeper.


 


 


 




Well, Romney should not be 'for' what he did in MA if you look at the problems it's having. Here is an article that discusses them and points out that since 'Obamacare" is exactly like the MA plan in many ways, we will see the same problems with it.


money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/ma...


 

Flag REteach July 3, 2012 1:01 PM EDT

I have just spent probably over an hour and a half with a patient. She is a train wreck. She has thought about suicide and tried once. She can't be on meds that have helped her because her insurance doesn't cover them. She is having to transition from one insurance plan to another.


I would like all you who think our system is just fine to get on the phone and manage the system for this person. Of course, my experience with Beliefnet is that a lot of you just don't really care much about the needs of others and often the ones who most loudly proclaim how Christian they are are those who care the least.

Flag Iwantamotto July 3, 2012 5:35 PM EDT

Indeed.  I would think any healthcare professional would consider this a great idea.  The more we help people now the more we all ... ALL ... won't get shafted with the health risks, the economic problems (both for funding medical treatment AND for lost productivity in the workforce).

Flag Cowfornow July 3, 2012 6:00 PM EDT

[/quote]


Quite right. However, eliminating the pre-existing condition exclusion, and as I understand it the formation of health care exchanges, will help a lot in that regard.


This is another thing wrong with employer-sponsored insurance. People stay in jobs they don't want simply for the benefits. And if they leave they cannot get the same rates for insurance as a single buyer, because corporations can get group rates which individuals (now) cannot).  Part time employers also get screwed.  And conversely, because of the cost of such of benefits, employers find it better to work people overtime than hire new workers.  The whole system is an anachronism. 


[/quote]


(Sorry, I'm sure I didn't do the quote thingy right)


Another reason that health care needs to be divorced from the workplace is that a lot of entry-level and low-level jobs (and possibly some higher) have become part-time, with little or no benefits, which is the usual case of financially punishing the people who are already in a precarious position.  I was surprised in the late 1980s when I was job-hunting that so many decent starter jobs like bank tellers were no longer full-time, and I'm sure it's gotten worse.  My favorite rotten-job story is my 6-month stint at a place that terminated all but a small permanent staff of four people right before they became eligible for benefits.  Please use revolving door!  I have nasty body bits that have never healed correctly from injuries sustained while I was uninsured years ago and had to patch up myself.

Flag mindis1 July 3, 2012 7:54 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:47PM, TemplarS wrote:


Mindis, I have less faith in Romney and the Republicans than I have in the Democrats, the insurance industry bureaucrats, the heath care providers, or anyone else I have mentioned.


Sure, Romney says he opposes the individual mandate and the SCOTUS ruling. But what is he for?  He isn't even for what he did in Massachusetts anymore.  The man may and probably does have some good ideas in his head, but he simply doesn't have the balls to stand up to those on the right of his party who make all the noise.  To take on the health care issue requires immense personal courage in the face of all the vested interests to combat.  With his weaseling on health care and on climate change,  his peremptory firing of the gay staff member, his refusal to condemn Limbaugh's remarks on Sandra Fluke, and numerous other matters, Romney has displayed no personal courage whatsoever.



And on top of all this, the ACA will not be repealed by a Democrat-controlled Senate, regardless of who is elected President.

Flag mindis1 July 3, 2012 7:58 PM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Well, Romney should not be 'for' what he did in MA if you look at the problems it's having. Here is an article that discusses them and points out that since 'Obamacare" is exactly like the MA plan in many ways, we will see the same problems with it.


money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/ma...



The irony is delicious. Had Republicans nominated any other candidate in the world, s/he could point out the problems and runaway costs that Obamacare will bring, by citing the facts about Romneycare in Massachusetts.


And, of course, Obama must avoid any suggestion that Romney’s record on healthcare reform in Massachusetts is inflationary and unsustainable.


A third-party candidate would have lots of comedy material here.

Flag vra July 5, 2012 10:49 AM EDT

One of the bad things about the ACA is that it does so little to reduce overall costs, but at least it's a bit of an improvement over what we had.  For the decade up to 2009, the average health-care inflation rate was 9% per year, and now it's at 7%, which is still atrocious, imo.  But at least it's helping more people, and we shouldn't be forgetting that.   

Flag LeahOne July 5, 2012 11:09 AM EDT

Jul 3, 2012 -- 1:01PM, REteach wrote:


I have just spent probably over an hour and a half with a patient. She is a train wreck. She has thought about suicide and tried once. She can't be on meds that have helped her because her insurance doesn't cover them. She is having to transition from one insurance plan to another.


I would like all you who think our system is just fine to get on the phone and manage the system for this person. Of course, my experience with Beliefnet is that a lot of you just don't really care much about the needs of others and often the ones who most loudly proclaim how Christian they are are those who care the least.





Reteach, I have often wondered how much of the medical 'industry' is prey to ignorance and misinformation about mental illness - particularly the 'insurance' end of things....   Obviously the effective meds would cost less than ER 'treatment' and/or hospitalization which is the likely 'alternative'.....not to mention that avoiding same would be better for the patient!

Flag LeahOne July 5, 2012 11:19 AM EDT

Lest those who have 'employer provided' health care begin to feel smug & secure - I know at least 2 people who have acquired long-term disability ONLY TO BE LAID OFF BY THEIR EMPLOYERS!!!


One is a lady in her early 60's with some kind of chronic fatigue syndrome - she was laid off by Sun Life of Canada.


The other is a lady about 50 who used to work for Dell:  she sustained a fall at home which resulted in damage to cervical vertibrae and hasn't been able to work for several months because of that.


Now I don't have the largest social circle in America, nor do I query all acquaintances about their medical or employment situations.  My impression is, if the big companies can get away with doing this - smaller places probably do it too (I'd bet they have even more incentive).


And for those who haven't had the 'opportunity' to find this out?  Your COBRA payment is probably larger than your mortgage .......

Flag mindis1 July 5, 2012 3:06 PM EDT

Jul 5, 2012 -- 10:49AM, vra wrote:


One of the bad things about the ACA is that it does so little to reduce overall costs, but at least it's a bit of an improvement over what we had.  For the decade up to 2009, the average health-care inflation rate was 9% per year, and now it's at 7%, which is still atrocious, imo.  But at least it's helping more people, and we shouldn't be forgetting that.   



Not in Massachusetts under Commonwealth Care. From the CNN article GC linked to:  


Instead of attacking the real causes of the explosion in costs -- the combination of overly generous state aid and a dearth of competition among hospitals and physician groups -- Massachusetts is vilifying prestigious, non-profit insurers, and punishing them, believe it nor not, with price controls. In April, Governor Deval Patrick refused the request of carriers such as Harvard Pilgrim, the top-rated plan in the country, for premium increases of 8% to 32%. Instead, his administration is refusing all rate hikes over 7.7%; any rate requests the administration rejects are automatically held at 2009 levels.


[. . .]


Lesson 1: The Massachusetts plan does not control costs.


When Massachusetts launched its reform program in 2006, it already had the highest medical costs in the nation. Today, the burden is still rising far faster than wages or inflation, from those already lofty levels. A report from that state attorney general in March -- remember, this is a Democratic administration -- asked rhetorically "Can we expect the existing health-care market in Massachusetts to successfully contain health-care costs?" The report concluded, "To date, the answer is an unequivocal 'no.'"


Costs are rising relentlessly for both families and for the state government. The median annual premium for family plans jumped 10% from 2007 to 2009 to $14,300 -- again, that's a substantial rise on top of an already enormous number. For small businesses, the increase was 12%. In 2006, the state spent around $1 billion on Medicaid, subsidies for medium-to-lower earners, and other health-care programs. Today, the figure is $1.75 billion. The federal government absorbed half of the increase.


Hence reform's proponents boast that expenses have risen only $354 million or around 6% a year. But the real increase is double that, including the federal share. And it's highly possible that given the current budget pressures, the U.S. will reduce the contribution that has encouraged the state to spend so lavishly.


money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/ma...





Flag IreneAdler July 5, 2012 4:31 PM EDT

Jul 5, 2012 -- 11:19AM, LeahOne wrote:


Lest those who have 'employer provided' health care begin to feel smug & secure - I know at least 2 people who have acquired long-term disability ONLY TO BE LAID OFF BY THEIR EMPLOYERS!!!


One is a lady in her early 60's with some kind of chronic fatigue syndrome - she was laid off by Sun Life of Canada.


The other is a lady about 50 who used to work for Dell:  she sustained a fall at home which resulted in damage to cervical vertibrae and hasn't been able to work for several months because of that.


Now I don't have the largest social circle in America, nor do I query all acquaintances about their medical or employment situations.  My impression is, if the big companies can get away with doing this - smaller places probably do it too (I'd bet they have even more incentive).


And for those who haven't had the 'opportunity' to find this out?  Your COBRA payment is probably larger than your mortgage .......





And if the company is in a cost-cutting mind-set- they might seriously opt for paying the penalty for not offering health coverage than pay for health insurance for their employees. This is especially true with the requirement that folks must purchase their own.  


Yep the game's got new rules.  And those without integrity get to discover new ways to screw folks.


And those bosses who feel strongly that they must offer health care coverage to their employees, are finding that it is more expensive to do so-through no fault of their actions.  


(however, I am glad that some of the problems regarding health insurance coverage are gone -preexisting condition exclusion, for example. I just think Obamacare needed to be more carefully thought through. But, lawmakers can make changes should there be need. )


Irene.

Flag TemplarS July 5, 2012 8:13 PM EDT

Look: private corporations are in business to make money, not provide social services.   If they find they cannot afford the benefits, or choose not to and pay the penalty, that is really their financial decision.


If the country thinks it appropriate (as I do) to provide the basics of medical insurance for their citizens, why putz around with corporate mandates, or even individual mandates?  Why not just tax people (and call it a tax) and fund a national system?




Flag mountain_man July 5, 2012 9:47 PM EDT

Jul 5, 2012 -- 10:49AM, vra wrote:

One of the bad things about the ACA is that it does so little to reduce overall costs, but at least it's a bit of an improvement over what we had.


Then apparently you know little about the ACA. For one it caps profits. Insurance companies must spend a certain percentage of their income on health care and cannot raise rates as fast as they were prior to the law taking effect.


For the decade up to 2009, the average health-care inflation rate was 9% per year, and now it's at 7%, which is still atrocious, imo.  But at least it's helping more people, and we shouldn't be forgetting that.


As different provisions take effect we will see more savings.

Flag Sigmund July 6, 2012 10:46 AM EDT

Jul 5, 2012 -- 11:19AM, LeahOne wrote:


Lest those who have 'employer provided' health care begin to feel smug & secure - I know at least 2 people who have acquired long-term disability ONLY TO BE LAID OFF BY THEIR EMPLOYERS!!!


One is a lady in her early 60's with some kind of chronic fatigue syndrome - she was laid off by Sun Life of Canada.


The other is a lady about 50 who used to work for Dell:  she sustained a fall at home which resulted in damage to cervical vertibrae and hasn't been able to work for several months because of that.


Now I don't have the largest social circle in America, nor do I query all acquaintances about their medical or employment situations.  My impression is, if the big companies can get away with doing this - smaller places probably do it too (I'd bet they have even more incentive).


And for those who haven't had the 'opportunity' to find this out?  Your COBRA payment is probably larger than your mortgage .......





Do you believe that companies should be required to keep non-productive employees on the payroll indefinitely? If so, why?

Flag farragut July 6, 2012 10:53 AM EDT

"As different provisions take effect we will see more savings."


Some individuals will enjoy savings, but the nation's healthcare system will not. Instead of reducing costs, the administration's own actuaries acknowledge health care costs will grow because of Obamacare. The problem is that this effort approached the whole problem back-assward- the expansion of government health care should not drive reform - the need to address rising costs should. The reality is that the federal government cannot ignore rising health care costs and attempt to expand its responsibility without bankrupting the entire system and sacrificing quality care for everyone. 


That's my opinion.

Flag WannabeTheo July 6, 2012 10:58 AM EDT

Jul 6, 2012 -- 10:46AM, Sigmund wrote:



Do you believe that companies should be required to keep non-productive employees on the payroll indefinitely? If so, why?




I believe Leah's point is that healthcare should not be tied to employment, precisely because employment is so unsure, especially these days.


And I agree. I think the current employer sponsored healthcare system is terrible. 

Flag mountain_man July 6, 2012 9:34 PM EDT

Jul 6, 2012 -- 10:53AM, farragut wrote:

"As different provisions take effect we will see more savings."


Some individuals will enjoy savings, but the nation's healthcare system will not. Instead of reducing costs, the administration's own actuaries acknowledge health care costs will grow because of Obamacare.


That is mostly propaganda from the Regressives in the pockets of the insurance companies.


The problem is that this effort approached the whole problem back-assward....


That is because the Regressives are petulantly standing in the way of single payer health care. They are mucking up the works and we have to do what we can to get around them and their lies.


the expansion of government health care should not drive reform -


No "reform" in this area would happen without government interference. It is naive to believe otherwise.

Flag farragut July 6, 2012 9:46 PM EDT

You're ignoring the point, Dave. There is no cost containment in this plan. Without it, such an expansion of coverage is fiscally irresponsible.


But you don't care about that, we'll just force the "rich" to pay more taxes.

Flag mountain_man July 6, 2012 10:50 PM EDT

Jul 6, 2012 -- 9:46PM, farragut wrote:

You're ignoring the point, Dave.


I got the point.


There is no cost containment in this plan.


There is, but that was not the main focus of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Most of it has to do with bringing down insurance costs.


Without it, such an expansion of coverage is fiscally irresponsible.


That's not true.


But you don't care about that, we'll just force the "rich" to pay more taxes.


No, just their fair share. They're not paying that now.

Flag mainecaptain July 7, 2012 1:30 PM EDT

Jul 6, 2012 -- 10:50PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jul 6, 2012 -- 9:46PM, farragut wrote:

You're ignoring the point, Dave.


I got the point.


There is no cost containment in this plan.


There is, but that was not the main focus of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Most of it has to do with bringing down insurance costs.


Without it, such an expansion of coverage is fiscally irresponsible.


That's not true.


But you don't care about that, we'll just force the "rich" to pay more taxes.


No, just their fair share. They're not paying that now.




The very wealthy feel entitled NOT to pay their FAIR share, but they have no problem making the middle class and poor pay for what the rich enjoy.


Essentially the rich, riding on the backs of the poor and middle classes. And some are too blind to see it

Flag 2012escapee July 11, 2012 11:02 AM EDT

I spent 6 months on antidepressants, until I figured out, all on my own, that I had Celiac, and once I stopped eating gluten, no more depression. I also had a spot of skin cancer removed once. But otherwise, I have not been to a doctor for anything other than the checkups I'm entitled to on the insurance provided by my employer, and my cholesterol, heart, blood pressure, colonoscopy, breast exams, weight, everything, are A-OK, no health problems, I cost very little to maintain. Wink


 


But that brief bout with depression, which I corrected with diet, has left me with a "pre-existing condition", and the last time I looked, health insurance on my own would cost at least $300 a month, maybe $600, especially since I had the skin cancer removed. Why is health insurance, which I would hardly ever use, costing almost as much as rent? More than food, more than gas + car insurance + car repairs, more than anything other than rent?


It's like They want us enslaved to corporations, in order to recieve health insurance. How many people do you know who say they can't afford to quit their jobs, becuase of the insurance? And how many do you know with diet related health problems, which you could trace to the corporate food supply?


PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION


CORPORATE CRAP FOOD AND INFLATED DRUG PRICES CREATE HEALTH CARE CRISIS


PEOPLE CLAMOR FOR FREE HEALTH CARE, JUST LIKE CANADA AND EUROPE


"THEY" SWEEP IN, WITH REQUIRING EVERYONE TO PAY CORPORATIONS FOR INSURANCE, TO COVER THE PROBLEM THEY CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE

Flag lulu2 July 11, 2012 11:27 AM EDT

Folks who happen to love this law , love it for two valid reasons. Kids(pardon those people who dont consider themselves kids at 26) can still be taken care of by their parents.. ANd those who have been previously denied because of pre-existing conditions. But like most government programs we are already seeing the reason for the law, not living up to how it was sold. The cost of healthcare premiums has already tripled in most states. Doctors have more paperwork than ever before and therefore choose to see less patients or get paid less for more time they put in. Special needs children are being denied coverage in certain areas. Medical supplies are not being taxed more. there are taxes in this law, that have little or nothing to do with cutting costs, instead are placed on the middle class as a penalty, if they dont wish to add on to what they already have. Almost everything promised has been based upon "we'll know whats in it when its passed" What fools we mortals be, to believe GOvernment knows and recognizes the truth, much less speaks it...for fear it may displace them from the lifestyle they have built for themselves.


The supreme court struck down the commerce clause. All it upheld was the fact that COngress is constitutionally able to levi taxes..Just what most middle class need at this time. The only folks who are completely happy with this law, are those who are still on their parents dole..or those who have the time to occupy sit ins because someone is paying them to do so? Otherwise any person whose taxes will go up, who are not in the upper class of 250,000...will get buried in more taxes and higher everything else required to live. 

Flag TemplarS July 11, 2012 3:30 PM EDT

Jul 11, 2012 -- 11:27AM, lulu2 wrote:


Folks who happen to love this law , love it for two valid reasons. Kids(pardon those people who dont consider themselves kids at 26) can still be taken care of by their parents.. ANd those who have been previously denied because of pre-existing conditions.  





Well, Lulu, I haven't been denied for a pre-existing condition.  Yet.  But I'm perceptive enough to realize that I am only one illness away from being in such a state.  So are you.


In any case, some of what you say is right, some is not.


But (since Mr. Romney does not post here) I may as well ask you:  what are your ideas as to alternatives?  How would you deal with the millions of Americans who have no insurance yet require medical care?  How would you deal with denial of coverage by insurance companies to those with pre-existing conditions, or recission of coverage for those who develop illnesses?  How would you design an insurance system which neither covers only those who are well (as desired by the insurance companies) nor only those who are sick (which is what those who the oppose individual mandate while also opposing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions are effectively advocating)? 

Flag Stardove July 11, 2012 5:55 PM EDT

Romney jeered over healthcare in NAACP speech

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has been booed in a speech to a US civil rights group.

He was jeered as he vowed to "kill" the Obama healthcare overhaul, and when he said he would be a better president for African Americans. Romney jeered over healthcare in NAACP speech.


As Romney is booed he just stands there smiling.




Flag Sacrificialgoddess July 11, 2012 5:58 PM EDT

Romney needs to learn his target audience, doesn't he?

Flag lulu2 July 11, 2012 6:08 PM EDT

Thank You for asking ..First I believe all people should be covered. The poor are already covered  but our system is faltering, and they will be the first hurt.


First I would Group all  folks into Insurance based upon how much you make per year.  Just like people who work for supermarkets can group together. We can have groups based upon yearly earnings. This would allow the insurance companys to make insurance based on an individuals affordablility. No bells and whistles.basic coverage, for catastrophic problems. It  would be portable, almost cradle to grave, starting at 17.


 It can be given to them while they are in school, and part of their tutition. As folks get raises, and their salaries increase they would go into the  next group of people who make the same salary. Folks would see the cost of what they used per year. And those who have not made use or made healthy choice improvments in their health needs, would get a small discount that they can use to better their coverage or just as a bonus for making their lives better in a healthy way.


They would have to be responsible, and they would have to know the limits of their poliicy. Personal responsiblity as I said before, could allow them to get add ons like, chiopratic or massage etc.


I got bitten by a tick, and had to go to the emergency room once. I had just moved and had no insurance when I thought I had contracted lime disease. When I got the bill, I swore, I would never do that again. Had I had insurance, I doubt if I would have even known, the high cost of a two hour visit.


Friviolous law suits and tort reform would also be part of my plan. I know too many doctors who cover themselves by sending people for tests they are almost certain they dont need. I would have caps based upon the severity of a persons maltreatment or neglect. Or the  lawyers who do frivilous law suits, when they lose, they have to absorb the cost.


Another thing that might help pay for Medicaid is a serious panel to weed out  fraud and abuse.  People caught will have to pay at least 1/2 of what they took fraudulently.


These ideas have been out there..I guess what I would want, is for everyone who gets help, not take advantage of it. Use it gratefully. Be good stewards, not like trillions being lost, misdirected or misspent. I am indeed an optimist and believe people can be their better selves.. thanks for asking 

Flag mountain_man July 11, 2012 9:15 PM EDT

Jul 11, 2012 -- 11:02AM, 2012escapee wrote:

...PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION


The problem is often not really a problem and the reaction is an over reaction and the solution nonsense.


CORPORATE CRAP FOOD AND INFLATED DRUG PRICES CREATE HEALTH CARE CRISIS


"Corporate crap food" is not the problem. There is no such thing as a "bad food," only bad diets. You also neglect to define what a "corporation" is. The grower down the street from me, all organic, is a corporation. How is he selling people "crap food"?


PEOPLE CLAMOR FOR FREE HEALTH CARE, JUST LIKE CANADA AND EUROPE


Health care in neither of those countries is free. No one here in the USA wants free health care for all.


"THEY" SWEEP IN, WITH REQUIRING EVERYONE TO PAY CORPORATIONS FOR INSURANCE, TO COVER THE PROBLEM THEY CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE


It's interesting how the ignorant whine about one tiny aspect of THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT. There is much more to the AHCA than just one little "mandate." I suggest you read up on it instead of listening to those leading you by a ring they put in your nose.

Flag Ebon July 11, 2012 10:35 PM EDT

Jul 11, 2012 -- 9:15PM, mountain_man wrote:

There is no such thing as a "bad food,"



You've obviously never tasted haggis.

Flag Stardove July 11, 2012 10:41 PM EDT

What about those jobs??? This is the 33nd time the House has voted on repealing ACA.


A law repealing ACA will not get passed the Senate, and certainly the President would veto it, IF it did. 


The House is not doing the people business.  They are getting paid to waste time....


House Votes (Again) to Repeal Health Care Overhaul

Waging old battles with new zeal, the House passed a bill on Wednesday to repeal President Obama’s health care overhaul law less than two weeks after the Supreme Court upheld its major provisions as constitutional.



More at the link. 


Including:  Democrats said the House was wasting time that would have been better spent trying to create jobs


Edit:  33 times the House has voted on repeal of ACA.


Flag mountain_man July 11, 2012 11:00 PM EDT

Jul 11, 2012 -- 10:35PM, Ebon wrote:

You've obviously never tasted haggis.


A Celtic "festival" came out here a few years ago. I started asking questions about my Scottish background. I found out I was part of Clan Cian (pronounced KEY an). A good clan, a warrior clan. Guess who was running the haggis stand? Our clan chief.


Not only have I tasted haggis, and liked it, but I served it for a few hours.

Flag mountain_man July 11, 2012 11:04 PM EDT

Jul 11, 2012 -- 10:41PM, Stardove wrote:

What about those jobs??? This is the 33nd time the House has voted on repealing ACA.


A law repealing ACA will not get passed the Senate, and certainly the President would veto it, IF it did. 


The House is not doing the people business.  They are getting paid to waste time....



I came across a good word today, an old word that fits perfectly in the Regressive world - mammon; material wealth or possessions especially as having a debasing influence.


The Republicans serve mammon, not the people.



Edit: I got the number of times wrong in the quote by me.

Flag Nepenthe July 12, 2012 2:09 PM EDT

Jul 11, 2012 -- 5:58PM, Sacrificialgoddess wrote:


Romney needs to learn his target audience, doesn't he?





He knew exactly who his target audience was and they were not the ones sitting in front of him.

Flag Stardove July 12, 2012 8:29 PM EDT


Let not let any facts get in the way!

Flag mainecaptain July 12, 2012 9:13 PM EDT

Jul 11, 2012 -- 11:04PM, mountain_man wrote:


Jul 11, 2012 -- 10:41PM, Stardove wrote:

What about those jobs??? This is the 33nd time the House has voted on repealing ACA.


A law repealing ACA will not get passed the Senate, and certainly the President would veto it, IF it did. 


The House is not doing the people business.  They are getting paid to waste time....



I came across a good word today, an old word that fits perfectly in the Regressive world - mammon; material wealth or possessions especially as having a debasing influence.


The Republicans serve mammon, not the people.



Absolutely the turth, they do.



Edit: I got the number of times wrong in the quote by me.

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 20, 2012 2:16 PM EDT

At least Obama does Care, which is more than I can say about Romney.   Yell

Flag MMarcoe July 20, 2012 2:27 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


At least Obama does Care, which is more than I can say about Romney.   Yell





Obamacare is based on Romneycare. Didn't you know that?


 

Flag TRUECHRISTIAN July 21, 2012 6:33 PM EDT

Jul 20, 2012 -- 2:27PM, MMarcoe wrote:


Jul 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


At least Obama does Care, which is more than I can say about Romney.   Yell





Obamacare is based on Romneycare. Didn't you know that?


 




Yes.


 


Jul 1, 2012 -- 9:04PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:




Supreme Court Upholds "Romneycare"  Laughing






Flag lope August 9, 2012 11:59 AM EDT

Jul 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


At least Obama does Care, which is more than I can say about Romney.   Yell





Which one cares the most about avoiding the future that overspending brings?

Flag NATAS August 9, 2012 5:08 PM EDT

Aug 9, 2012 -- 11:59AM, lope wrote:


Jul 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


At least Obama does Care, which is more than I can say about Romney.   Yell





Which one cares the most about avoiding the future that overspending brings?





Romney defintely cares more about underspending than Obama!Laughing

Flag Curtisneeley October 18, 2012 12:50 AM EDT

This law is a valid tax law but the requiremjent to subsidize abortion has been ruled unconstitutional despite this. 


The Supreme Court fined Susan B. Anthony $100 for voting while female in 1873.


The SCOTUS is just nine "Honorable" citizens who can be entirely wrong and often are as explains why any decision may be appealed even after the ruling.

Flag Avemaria2002 November 1, 2012 3:34 AM EDT

I support some of the reforms that Obamacare brought into place but not all of them.  The only thing I can think of at this time that I support is the part of the law which says that health insurance companies cannot discriminate against people based upon preexisting conditions.



There is another part of the law that I strongly disagree with and it is known as the HHS Contraceptive Mandate.  It is a law which requires practically all employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs.  The Catholic Church, as I am, is against this mandate because it forces Catholic business owners to act against their conscience by providing health insurance coverage for something that is immoral.  This is why the Catholic Church is fighting this mandate in the courts.  I hope and pray that the mandate is overturned.  I strongly support conscience protection laws.

Flag AnglicanFirst May 25, 2013 12:00 AM EDT

My question is why this subject was posted on a religious discussion site.  Is socialism or capitalism or any other form of government a religious issue?  If so, why?  The priests tried to trap Jesus into approving or disapproving the Roman government, and he refused to play.  "Render unto Ceasar . . ."


Grant

Flag wspires45 July 15, 2013 11:40 PM EDT

Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:12AM, Ebon wrote:

I would so love to be a fly on Rush's wall right now. I hear Glenn Beck had to double his dosage of Xanax.


The quote to help the needy was not directed to government. The obvious reason for that is that whatever the government gives they can take away when it no longer serves as a control on ones behavior!

Flag wspires45 July 15, 2013 11:48 PM EDT

Nov 1, 2012 -- 3:34AM, Avemaria2002 wrote:

I support some of the reforms that Obamacare brought into place but not all of them.  The only thing I can think of at this time that I support is the part of the law which says that health insurance companies cannot discriminate against people based upon preexisting conditions.



There is another part of the law that I strongly disagree with and it is known as the HHS Contraceptive Mandate.  It is a law which requires practically all employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs.  The Catholic Church, as I am, is against this mandate because it forces Catholic business owners to act against their conscience by providing health insurance coverage for something that is immoral.  This is why the Catholic Church is fighting this mandate in the courts.  I hope and pray that the mandate is overturned.  I strongly support conscience protection laws.


I am glad there are still people like yourself who sees through the devious legislation that had several thousand pages of bureaucratic incoherent ramblings from deranged minds in Wash.d.c.; of course the few pages that sound so sweet are thrown in to appease the low information sheep, such as, cannot be refused coverage for pre-existing conditons. What happened to the coverage for all when the exemptions start to roll out to unions and big Obama donors; how is that achieving the goal of no one left uncovered ?  May the sick minds who participated and supported the abomination of rambling legislationm, be the first victims of it !

Flag teilhard July 16, 2013 12:03 AM EDT

Fact:


We are ALL gonna DIE (someday, from *somethin'*) ...


In the Mean Time, I fully plan and intend NOT to impoverish my Family by ringing up huge unnecesssary Med-Surg Debts ... 


THANK you, President O'Bama and Congress ...



Jul 15, 2013 -- 11:48PM, wspires45 wrote:

Nov 1, 2012 -- 3:34AM, Avemaria2002 wrote:


I support some of the reforms that Obamacare brought into place but not all of them.  The only thing I can think of at this time that I support is the part of the law which says that health insurance companies cannot discriminate against people based upon preexisting conditions.



There is another part of the law that I strongly disagree with and it is known as the HHS Contraceptive Mandate.  It is a law which requires practically all employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs.  The Catholic Church, as I am, is against this mandate because it forces Catholic business owners to act against their conscience by providing health insurance coverage for something that is immoral.  This is why the Catholic Church is fighting this mandate in the courts.  I hope and pray that the mandate is overturned.  I strongly support conscience protection laws.




I am glad there are still people like yourself who sees through the devious legislation that had several thousand pages of bureaucratic incoherent ramblings from deranged minds in Wash.d.c.; of course the few pages that sound so sweet are thrown in to appease the low information sheep, such as, cannot be refused coverage for pre-existing conditons. What happened to the coverage for all when the exemptions start to roll out to unions and big Obama donors; how is that achieving the goal of no one left uncovered ?  May the sick minds who participated and supported the abomination of rambling legislationm, be the first victims of it !





Flag Beautiful_Dreamer July 23, 2013 9:14 PM EDT

Speaking as someone who cannot get health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, I look forward to that aspect of the law.

Flag teilhard July 25, 2013 7:52 AM EDT

These Things are indeed about PEOPLE ...


I, for one, am GLAD that "O'Bama Care" finally gives more Power to PEOPLE, rather than Insurance Companies ... 

Flag clear_reality August 11, 2013 11:19 AM EDT

Google the face of Obamacare to see how effective it has been in saving people's lives.

Flag Ricky August 15, 2013 10:59 AM EDT

Woman who hated Obamacare has her life saved by it:



articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/06/opinion...





I want to apologize to President Obama. But first, some background.


I found out three weeks ago I have cancer. I'm 49 years old, have been married for almost 20 years and have two kids. My husband has his own small computer business, and I run a small nonprofit in the San Fernando Valley. I am also an artist. Money is tight, and we don't spend it frivolously. We're just ordinary, middle-class people, making an honest living, raising great kids and participating in our community, the kids' schools and church.






We're good people, and we work hard. But we haven't been able to afford health insurance for more than two years. And now I have third-stage breast cancer and am facing months of expensive treatment.


To understand how such a thing could happen to a family like ours, I need to take you back nine years to when my husband got laid off from the entertainment company where he'd worked for 10 years. Until then, we had been insured through his work, with a first-rate plan. After he got laid off, we got to keep that health insurance for 18 months through COBRA, by paying $1,300 a month, which was a huge burden on an unemployed father and his family.


By the time the COBRA ran out, my husband had decided to go into business for himself, so we had to purchase our own insurance. That was fine for a while. Every year his business grew. But insurance premiums were steadily rising too. More than once, we switched carriers for a lower rate, only to have them raise rates significantly after a few months.


With the recession, both of our businesses took a huge hit — my husband's income was cut in half, and the foundations that had supported my small nonprofit were going through their own tough times. We had to start using a home equity line of credit to pay for our health insurance premiums (which by that point cost as much as our monthly mortgage). When the bank capped our home equity line, we were forced to cash in my husband's IRA. The time finally came when we had to make a choice between paying our mortgage or paying for health insurance. We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost.


Not having insurance amplifies cancer stress. After the diagnosis, instead of focusing all of my energy on getting well, I was panicked about how we were going to pay for everything. I felt guilty and embarrassed about not being insured. When I went to the diagnostic center to pick up my first reports, I was sent to the financial department, where a woman sat me down to talk about resources for "cash patients" (a polite way of saying "uninsured").


"I'm not a deadbeat," I blurted out. "I'm a good person. I have two kids and a house!" The clerk was sympathetic, telling me how even though she worked in the healthcare field, she could barely afford insurance herself.


Although there have been a few people who judged us harshly, most people have been understanding about how this could happen to us. That's given me the courage to "out" myself and my family in hopes that it will educate people who are still lucky enough to have health insurance and view people like my family as irresponsible. We're not. What I want people to understand is that, if this could happen to us, it could happen to anybody.




If you are fortunate enough to still be employed and have insurance through your employers, you may feel insulated from the sufferings of people like me right now. But things can change abruptly. If you still have a good job with insurance, that doesn't mean that you're better than me, more deserving than me or smarter than me. It just means that you are luckier. And access to healthcare shouldn't depend on luck.


Fortunately for me, I've been saved by the federal government's Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, something I had never heard of before needing it. It's part of President Obama's healthcare plan, one of the things that has already kicked in, and it guarantees access to insurance for U.S. citizens with preexisting conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months. The application was short, the premiums are affordable, and I have found the people who work in the administration office to be quite compassionate (nothing like the people I have dealt with over the years at other insurance companies.) It's not perfect, of course, and it still leaves many people in need out in the cold. But it's a start, and for me it's been a lifesaver — perhaps literally.


Which brings me to my apology. I was pretty mad at Obama before I learned about this new insurance plan. I had changed my registration from Democrat to Independent, and I had blacked out the top of the "h" on my Obama bumper sticker, so that it read, "Got nope" instead of "got hope." I felt like he had let down the struggling middle class. My son and I had campaigned for him, but since he took office, we felt he had let us down.


So this is my public apology.


I'm sorry I didn't do enough of my own research to find out what promises the president has made good on. I'm sorry I didn't realize that he really has stood up for me and my family, and for so many others like us. I'm getting a new bumper sticker to cover the one that says "Got nope." It will say


"ObamaCares."




-----------




The internet is filled with hundreds of stories like that.


Your family may well be next!


Flag TRUECHRISTIAN August 16, 2013 6:19 PM EDT

Jul 25, 2013 -- 7:52AM, teilhard wrote:


These Things are indeed about PEOPLE ...


I, for one, am GLAD that "O'Bama Care" finally gives more Power to PEOPLE, rather than Insurance Companies ... 




But according to the Supreme Court, companies-corparations have the same rights as people!

Flag amcolph August 16, 2013 6:34 PM EDT

Aug 16, 2013 -- 6:19PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:


Jul 25, 2013 -- 7:52AM, teilhard wrote:


These Things are indeed about PEOPLE ...


I, for one, am GLAD that "O'Bama Care" finally gives more Power to PEOPLE, rather than Insurance Companies ... 




But according to the Supreme Court, companies-corparations have the same rights as people!




Which is about on a par with the Dred Scott decision.  Don't worry, it will be overturned eventually--I just hope it doesn't have to be by force.

Flag TENAC August 16, 2013 7:34 PM EDT

Aug 15, 2013 -- 10:59AM, Ricky wrote:


Woman who hated Obamacare has her life saved by it:



articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/06/opinion...





I want to apologize to President Obama. But first, some background.


I found out three weeks ago I have cancer. I'm 49 years old, have been married for almost 20 years and have two kids. My husband has his own small computer business, and I run a small nonprofit in the San Fernando Valley. I am also an artist. Money is tight, and we don't spend it frivolously. We're just ordinary, middle-class people, making an honest living, raising great kids and participating in our community, the kids' schools and church.






We're good people, and we work hard. But we haven't been able to afford health insurance for more than two years. And now I have third-stage breast cancer and am facing months of expensive treatment.


To understand how such a thing could happen to a family like ours, I need to take you back nine years to when my husband got laid off from the entertainment company where he'd worked for 10 years. Until then, we had been insured through his work, with a first-rate plan. After he got laid off, we got to keep that health insurance for 18 months through COBRA, by paying $1,300 a month, which was a huge burden on an unemployed father and his family.


By the time the COBRA ran out, my husband had decided to go into business for himself, so we had to purchase our own insurance. That was fine for a while. Every year his business grew. But insurance premiums were steadily rising too. More than once, we switched carriers for a lower rate, only to have them raise rates significantly after a few months.


With the recession, both of our businesses took a huge hit — my husband's income was cut in half, and the foundations that had supported my small nonprofit were going through their own tough times. We had to start using a home equity line of credit to pay for our health insurance premiums (which by that point cost as much as our monthly mortgage). When the bank capped our home equity line, we were forced to cash in my husband's IRA. The time finally came when we had to make a choice between paying our mortgage or paying for health insurance. We chose to keep our house. We made a nerve-racking gamble, and we lost.


Not having insurance amplifies cancer stress. After the diagnosis, instead of focusing all of my energy on getting well, I was panicked about how we were going to pay for everything. I felt guilty and embarrassed about not being insured. When I went to the diagnostic center to pick up my first reports, I was sent to the financial department, where a woman sat me down to talk about resources for "cash patients" (a polite way of saying "uninsured").


"I'm not a deadbeat," I blurted out. "I'm a good person. I have two kids and a house!" The clerk was sympathetic, telling me how even though she worked in the healthcare field, she could barely afford insurance herself.


Although there have been a few people who judged us harshly, most people have been understanding about how this could happen to us. That's given me the courage to "out" myself and my family in hopes that it will educate people who are still lucky enough to have health insurance and view people like my family as irresponsible. We're not. What I want people to understand is that, if this could happen to us, it could happen to anybody.




If you are fortunate enough to still be employed and have insurance through your employers, you may feel insulated from the sufferings of people like me right now. But things can change abruptly. If you still have a good job with insurance, that doesn't mean that you're better than me, more deserving than me or smarter than me. It just means that you are luckier. And access to healthcare shouldn't depend on luck.


Fortunately for me, I've been saved by the federal government's Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan, something I had never heard of before needing it. It's part of President Obama's healthcare plan, one of the things that has already kicked in, and it guarantees access to insurance for U.S. citizens with preexisting conditions who have been uninsured for at least six months. The application was short, the premiums are affordable, and I have found the people who work in the administration office to be quite compassionate (nothing like the people I have dealt with over the years at other insurance companies.) It's not perfect, of course, and it still leaves many people in need out in the cold. But it's a start, and for me it's been a lifesaver — perhaps literally.


Which brings me to my apology. I was pretty mad at Obama before I learned about this new insurance plan. I had changed my registration from Democrat to Independent, and I had blacked out the top of the "h" on my Obama bumper sticker, so that it read, "Got nope" instead of "got hope." I felt like he had let down the struggling middle class. My son and I had campaigned for him, but since he took office, we felt he had let us down.


So this is my public apology.


I'm sorry I didn't do enough of my own research to find out what promises the president has made good on. I'm sorry I didn't realize that he really has stood up for me and my family, and for so many others like us. I'm getting a new bumper sticker to cover the one that says "Got nope." It will say


"ObamaCares."




-----------




The internet is filled with hundreds of stories like that.


Your family may well be next!





obamacare's pre-existing heatlh care insurance program is sort of like one of those airplane/pyramid schemes.


You'd better get in early.




Affordable Care Act insurance funding for pre-existing conditions falling short





Flag Ricky August 17, 2013 12:58 AM EDT

Aug 16, 2013 -- 7:34PM, TENAC wrote:



obamacare's pre-existing heatlh care insurance program is sort of like one of those airplane/pyramid schemes.


You'd better get in early.




Affordable Care Act insurance funding for pre-existing conditions falling short









Actually, it's never too late:






After initially being denied, coverage was made retroactive.


Now all it takes is for Congress to give it  more funding.  After all it has enough money to finance two wars and corporate welfarism, therefore it has enough money to save lives domestically.

Flag TENAC August 17, 2013 9:16 AM EDT

Aug 17, 2013 -- 12:58AM, Ricky wrote:


Aug 16, 2013 -- 7:34PM, TENAC wrote:



obamacare's pre-existing heatlh care insurance program is sort of like one of those airplane/pyramid schemes.


You'd better get in early.




Affordable Care Act insurance funding for pre-existing conditions falling short









Actually, it's never too late:






After initially being denied, coverage was made retroactive.


Now all it takes is for Congress to give it  more funding.  After all it has enough money to finance two wars and corporate welfarism, therefore it has enough money to save lives domestically.




You article has zero to do with the ACA.  You might have meant a point in there somewhere, it wasnt clear.  COBRA is a separate issue from the ACA.  It was passed in the 80's.



If congress would fund a million dollars to me, I'd be a millionaire.



obamacare is already at a cost of more than 3x's what was proposed and growing.  Geeez, so just print a few more dollars......

Flag Ricky August 17, 2013 11:55 AM EDT

Aug 17, 2013 -- 9:16AM, TENAC wrote:


Aug 17, 2013 -- 12:58AM, Ricky wrote:


Aug 16, 2013 -- 7:34PM, TENAC wrote:



obamacare's pre-existing heatlh care insurance program is sort of like one of those airplane/pyramid schemes.


You'd better get in early.




Affordable Care Act insurance funding for pre-existing conditions falling short









Actually, it's never too late:






After initially being denied, coverage was made retroactive.


Now all it takes is for Congress to give it  more funding.  After all it has enough money to finance two wars and corporate welfarism, therefore it has enough money to save lives domestically.




You article has zero to do with the ACA.  You might have meant a point in there somewhere, it wasnt clear.  COBRA is a separate issue from the ACA.  It was passed in the 80's.



If congress would fund a million dollars to me, I'd be a millionaire.



obamacare is already at a cost of more than 3x's what was proposed and growing.  Geeez, so just print a few more dollars......






-----------




Insurance rates are actually falling in many states including California and New York while coverage is expanding.  Contrary to the myth that is is costing society money, it is saving lives so that "pro life" Christians should be applauding.





Flag TENAC August 17, 2013 12:36 PM EDT

Aug 17, 2013 -- 11:55AM, Ricky wrote:


Aug 17, 2013 -- 9:16AM, TENAC wrote:


Aug 17, 2013 -- 12:58AM, Ricky wrote:


Aug 16, 2013 -- 7:34PM, TENAC wrote:



obamacare's pre-existing heatlh care insurance program is sort of like one of those airplane/pyramid schemes.


You'd better get in early.




Affordable Care Act insurance funding for pre-existing conditions falling short








Actually, it's never too late:






After initially being denied, coverage was made retroactive.


Now all it takes is for Congress to give it  more funding.  After all it has enough money to finance two wars and corporate welfarism, therefore it has enough money to save lives domestically.




You article has zero to do with the ACA.  You might have meant a point in there somewhere, it wasnt clear.  COBRA is a separate issue from the ACA.  It was passed in the 80's.



If congress would fund a million dollars to me, I'd be a millionaire.



obamacare is already at a cost of more than 3x's what was proposed and growing.  Geeez, so just print a few more dollars......






-----------




Insurance rates are actually falling in many states including California and New York while coverage is expanding.  Contrary to the myth that is is costing society money, it is saving lives so that "pro life" Christians should be applauding.




I dunno.


Sometimes its like LSDs read a totally diffrent script than the rest of the world.




LINK



Rick, so far the posts I have seen with you include a lot of conjecture and few facts and even fewer citations.  A lot of times we try to link information to credible sources.  Even if considered non credible sources are linked to those stronger ones, thats not bad.



The ACA will fail on every level.  It has already failed on most levels, and in fact, I cannot think of any success so far.  Giving those with pre existing conditions coverage then under funding it is going to be the model of the ACA overall.



My conjecture:


Ultimately, as was the plan, if implemented the ACA will push most Americans to a single payer plan that most LSDs give a standing ovation.  But dont expect the same health care you have had unless you are government connected are exempted (another untruth from this admnistration and our politicians).


Medicare C will become the govt exchange in every state.  All the private insurers have such plans and will have a pipeline directly into the national treasury.

Flag Ricky August 18, 2013 9:38 AM EDT

Aug 17, 2013 -- 12:36PM, TENAC wrote:

Rick, so far the posts I have seen with you include a lot of conjecture and few facts and even fewer citations.  A lot of times we try to link information to credible sources.  Even if considered non credible sources are linked to those stronger ones, thats not bad.



The ACA will fail on every level.  It has already failed on most levels, and in fact, I cannot think of any success so far.  Giving those with pre existing conditions coverage then under funding it is going to be the model of the ACA overall.



My conjecture:


Ultimately, as was the plan, if implemented the ACA will push most Americans to a single payer plan that most LSDs give a standing ovation.  But dont expect the same health care you have had unless you are government connected are exempted (another untruth from this admnistration and our politicians).


Medicare C will become the govt exchange in every state.  All the private insurers have such plans and will have a pipeline directly into the national treasury.






Contrary to your beliefs, the facts prove that insurance costs are going DOWN while the amount of people covered is going up:



thinkprogress.org/health/2013/07/17/2313...



New York


Oregon


California


Montana


Louisiana



In other articles (and you can do your own research to confirm) Ohio, Washington State, and Washington, DC are reporting the same. HCR has worked to save lives as shown in the article I previously provided.  I can post DOZENS more. Perhaps HUNDREDS. 


These truths are not being reported by your nightly news as the far right is in control of the media and spews lies every night.  You have to link to websites like this one to get the truth.





Flag TENAC August 18, 2013 9:52 AM EDT
Yeah I meant  to put think progress on my favorites.

Without lookung at it right now,  I can guarantee you its misleading and lose with facts.  No rates are giing down.  There may be a promise or projection, but no one right niw us paying a lesser premium. An obamacare promisesis worth about the air it took to speak it.  I'll be back.
Flag TENAC August 18, 2013 2:15 PM EDT

Ok.


I'm back.



Again, as I said, no one is paying a lesser premium today, it is all economist projection.


Kudos for linking Think Progress, which linked its source, NYTs.  I have no problems with following the source material to its original form.  Lets keep in mind the NYT has had many many problems with accuracy and plagerism, but that is another matter.



There is a Forbes piece I will link that explains patially the problem with the proclamation of the heroic ACA plan to lessen the NY health premiums.  Keep in mind, it will be the duty of the msm to cheerlead this effort moving forward to the end of the year.


I had no idea the 1992 law signed by Mourio Cuomo destroyed the health care market in NY.  As the article points out, it had no where to go up.



Meanwhile insurance rates in CA, OR, and WA are soaring as well.



But take heart, they are no more soaring yet as neither are the premium decreases falling eiether.



Meanwhile private carriers are leaving states such as CA due to the propose rate structures passed by state insurance regulators.



What will be left in these states will be the Medicare C plans offered by these various private health insurers. 


My prediction is these will become your govt state exchanges, taking their guaranteed subsidzed premiums and guaranteed reimbursements directly out of the Federal Treasury.



The New York Times Tries -- And Fails -- To Protect Obamacare From Health Insurance 'Rate Shock'


Edit: link font from heading 1 to heading 4

Flag TENAC August 18, 2013 3:07 PM EDT
Flag Ricky August 19, 2013 11:10 AM EDT

Aug 18, 2013 -- 9:52AM, TENAC wrote:

Yeah I meant to put think progress on my favorites. Without lookung at it right now, I can guarantee you its misleading and lose with facts. No rates are giing down. There may be a promise or projection, but no one right niw us paying a lesser premium. An obamacare promisesis worth about the air it took to speak it. I'll be back.




Your guarantee is in error as the lower rates are being reported to government agencies which will administer the program.  Eleven states are now reporting lower rates with more expansive coverage.  This will save money and lives.  That is what matters the most.

Flag TENAC August 19, 2013 11:19 AM EDT

Aug 19, 2013 -- 11:10AM, Ricky wrote:


Aug 18, 2013 -- 9:52AM, TENAC wrote:

Yeah I meant to put think progress on my favorites. Without lookung at it right now, I can guarantee you its misleading and lose with facts. No rates are giing down. There may be a promise or projection, but no one right niw us paying a lesser premium. An obamacare promisesis worth about the air it took to speak it. I'll be back.




Your guarantee is in error as the lower rates are being reported to government agencies which will administer the program.  Eleven states are now reporting lower rates with more expansive coverage.  This will save money and lives.  That is what matters the most.




Ok, so as we are typing this, no one has received a cheaper premium payment? Everything right now are projections based on agency or economist predictions?


We are clear on that?



You do realize the CBO has projected after obamacare is fully implemented that it will leave approximately 30 million uninsured?


www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles...



Now think about that.


We did this entire obamacare dance for the past 3.5 years to insure 30 million people.  So at the end of the day we will have.........30 million people uninsured?  And how much money now have we wasted not insuring 30 million people.


This is worst than the job stimulous programs.

Flag Ricky August 19, 2013 11:39 AM EDT

It is unfortunate but at this point it appears some may not get full coverage.  But that can be attributed to the right wing and its campaign to water down Obamacare as it was proposed in the August, 2008 Democratic National Convention.


Here is but an example of that right wing campaign:



thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/19/248...



The Heritage Foundation is attempting to “stop Obamacare” by making it an Internet meme. The conservative think tank, led by former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), is asking that people Instagram their best anti-Obamacare arguments as part of Heritage’s campaign to shut down the government unless the health care law is defunded — and at least one contributor has taken a page from the Sarah Palin school of violent imagery in political advocacy.


Perhaps the best sign of how their campaign is going is this image Heritage posted over the weekend on their official Twitter feed and Tumblr, which threatens to unleash a gun-totting character from an underwhelming Hollywood flop if Congress does not deny health care to the millions of Americans who will receive it under Obamacare next year. Heritage tweeted the image out with the caption “He said #stopobamacare! Are you listening?”:





Edit: resize picture

Flag TENAC August 19, 2013 11:42 AM EDT

Aug 19, 2013 -- 11:39AM, Ricky wrote:


It is unfortunate but at this point it appears some may not get full coverage.  But that can be attributed to the right wing and its campaign to water down Obamacare as it was proposed in the August, 2008 Democratic National Convention.


Here is but an example of that right wing campaign:



thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/19/248...



The Heritage Foundation is attempting to “stop Obamacare” by making it an Internet meme. The conservative think tank, led by former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), is asking that people Instagram their best anti-Obamacare arguments as part of Heritage’s campaign to shut down the government unless the health care law is defunded — and at least one contributor has taken a page from the Sarah Palin school of violent imagery in political advocacy.


Perhaps the best sign of how their campaign is going is this image Heritage posted over the weekend on their official Twitter feed and Tumblr, which threatens to unleash a gun-totting character from an underwhelming Hollywood flop if Congress does not deny health care to the millions of Americans who will receive it under Obamacare next year. Heritage tweeted the image out with the caption “He said #stopobamacare! Are you listening?”:



Its becoming apparent you are a master of the talking point.

Flag Ricky August 20, 2013 7:35 AM EDT

Here's a talking point for Republicans:



A Republican Cancer Survivor Sends His Party a Message on Obamacare





www.newrepublic.com/article/114373/repub...



Lots of people have been telling Republican Party leaders that simply opposing Obamacare isn’t enough—that they need to develop an alternative. But few can offer such advice with the authority, or the insight, of Clint Murphy. 


One reason is that Murphy, 38, used to work in Republican politics. The other reason is that Murphy is a cancer survivor—and that, because of pre-existing conditions, he has apparently struggled finding health insurance. “When you say you’re against it,” Murphy wrote on his Facebook page, in an open letter to Republicans, “you’re saying that you don’t want people like me to have health insurance.


Murphy, who lives in Georgia, told the full version of his story to Jim Galloway, a columnist of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Here’s how it goes:



Murphy was an invincible 25-year-old working the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia when he was diagnosed. Four rounds of chemo later, all covered by insurance, the cancer was in remission by 2004. But the damage had been done. He was now a man with a medical record.


 


Political work is an on-again, off-again for many, as it was for Murphy. Some of that work offered insurance -- the McCain presidential campaign had an excellent plan, for instance.


 


But in his supplemental occupation, as a real estate agent, Murphy hit a roadblock. “That’s when I got into the pre-existing thing,” he said.


 


The year 2010 was a rough one. Murphy lost his mother to brain cancer. He left politics, weary of its meanness, and went full-time into real estate. After a decade of living cancer-free, he thought the insurance companies might lighten up. Instead, they found something else.


 


"I have sleep apnea. They treated sleep apnea as a pre-existing condition. I’m going right now with no insurance," said Murphy, now 38.


 


When Georgia’s health insurance exchange opens in October, Murphy will sign up. "Absolutely," he said.



It’s easy to dwell on the downsides of Obamacare, particularly right now, as federal and state officials work feverishly to prepare the new insurance exchanges for operation. The law is a hodgepodge of compromises, and it doesn’t do nearly everything its architects had once hoped. Meanwhile, political opponents are doing everything in their power to undermine the law, making implementation even more difficult than it would otherwise be. Nary a week goes by without news of the law’s shortcomings and glitches. Some are imagined. Some are real. (Avik Roy today reports on a series of missed implementation deadlines—those are real.) They all make for unpleasant reading.


But thanks to Obamacare, millions of young people have found insurance through their parents and millions of seniors have taken advantage of increasing prescription drug coverage. And that’s just the stuff that’s happened already. Starting next year, many millions of working-age Americans locked out of the insurance market—because they don’t have the money or they have pre-existing conditions—will finally have access to coverage they can afford. That's an awful lot of people.  If Republicans want to repeal the law, that means they want to take away most of it not all of these benefits. (One of the Republicans who backs full repeal without a replacement is Georgia's conservative Senate candidate. Murphy says he supports her, notwithstanding that position.) 


In fairness, some conservative thinkers and writers have thought seriously about what they would introduce in place of those benefits. So have a handful of Republican lawmakers, among them Congressman Tom Price, whose plan Murphy praises as an alternative. These plans wouldn’t accomplish nearly as much as Obamacare would—they would cover far fewer people, or provide much less protection, or some combination of the two. And one reason you don’t see Republican leaders endorsing these plans, or pursuing them seriously, is that they would have to acknowledge the very real failings and trade-offs in the approaches they prefer. 


But that's a story for another day. At least these conservatives acknowledge the problems of our health care system—and attempt to provide some relief to people who can’t get health coverage. The Republican Party leadership and conservative base won't even try that. When somebody like Murphy looks to them for assistance—for some way to avoid the problems of the status quo—they offer absolutely nothing. 


Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at the New Republic. Follow him on twitter @CitizenCohn





Flag TENAC August 20, 2013 10:39 AM EDT

At least you acknowledge you live by sound bits and talking points.


Understand this is typical debating from the Left.  Throw a handful of the tremendous benefits of a flawed program for a few individuals to window dress the reality.  Because if you look inside the window, it aint so pretty.


Another point while I am at it.  Liberals tend to look at the do gooder aspects of policy and programs because they have the best of intentions.  And I am with you on that note.  The people that have been helped by obamacare preexisting program is fantastic and I applaud the efforts.  But eventually reality will have to set in.


As is already the case with obamacare, the preexisting program has already run out of money in the short term.  The prospects in the long term are worse and growing worse day by day.  With the delay of implementation of various parts of the ACA, it is itself moving further behind the eight ball and will cause it to be more and more expensive when implementation to take place.




Flag Bodean August 20, 2013 11:21 AM EDT

Aug 20, 2013 -- 7:35AM, Ricky wrote:


 







Wish I could agree with you ... but all is not as it seems.


You, this fellow, and others are all excited about what Obamacare "says" it will do. But the reality is, Obamacare won't and can't do all it says it will do.


It is simple .. Obamacare, Single Payer, you name it, is nothing more than "insurance".  It is merely a payment method.  Where the rub comes in will actually be getting the "healthcare".


Given the scarcity of heatlhcare resources, as well as the greed in the healthcare industry, you will find that getting the actual healthcare that Obamacare is supposed to pay for is going to be challenging.  The "demand" will push prices up, and has already began to do so.  No only will healthcare cost go up, the cost for insurance will go up as well, because the ACA is a perfect "excuse", even if the increased cost are not realized.


OK .. so Mr Martin will be able to get "Insurance". .... maybe.  He's going to find that his out of pocket cost to pay for the portion that insurance does not pay will be as bad if not worse than having no insurance at all.


It's going to get bad.  Just wait and see.  You may not feel it ... but many will.  But what will feel it the most will be the taxpayer and the economy.  You are going to find that more people will have "no job", "no insurance" .. and since they have no job they won't even be able to buy insurance ... and that's going to be tough love.

Flag Ricky August 20, 2013 6:14 PM EDT

Universal health care works in Canada, Japan, Europe, and Israel where it is paid for by USA dollars.  It can work here just as easily.  Bear in mind that Fortune 500 companies get big deductions for health insurance costs on their corporate tax returns and nobody objects when these wealthy elites do it. Therefore, if you right wingers are willing to pay for the cost of Israelis and corporate fat cats you should have no trouble in allowing poor Americans to get a piece of that pie as well.


Also remember that as Americans get health care they return to work rather than go on welfare. This will INCREASE tax payments and productivity.  Therefore, health care pays for itself.

Flag TENAC August 20, 2013 6:25 PM EDT

Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:14PM, Ricky wrote:


Universal health care works in Canada, Japan, Europe, and Israel where it is paid for by USA dollars.  It can work here just as easily.  Bear in mind that Fortune 500 companies get big deductions for health insurance costs on their corporate tax returns and nobody objects when these wealthy elites do it. Therefore, if you right wingers are willing to pay for the cost of Israelis and corporate fat cats you should have no trouble in allowing poor Americans to get a piece of that pie as well.


Your term "works" is extremely relative.


Just so I understand, you are complaining the Fortune 500 companies that get deductions for providing health care for their employees and you are somehow complaining about such fat cats?  What have you against Fortune 500 employees?


Also remember that as Americans get health care they return to work rather than go on welfare. This will INCREASE tax payments and productivity.  Therefore, health care pays for itself.


So Americans dont work right now because they dont have health care?  Thats all it takes to create jobs?




Flag Ricky August 21, 2013 9:53 AM EDT

www.politicususa.com/2013/08/19/aca-supp...






In a must see video, a business owner takes ACA repeal supporting House Republican Rep. Joe Heck to task for wanting to repeal Obamacare. House Republicans might want to rethink running against the ACA in 2014.

This exchange is similar to one that happened to fellow Obamacare bashing House Republican Patrick McHenry of North Carolina at a town hall earlier this month

House Republicans are finding out that it isn’t 2009 anymore. They can’t just make stuff up to scare people about the ACA. People are experiencing some of the benefits of the new law, and just like the constituent in the video (Ron Nelson), they want to know why Republicans want to take away the good things that the ACA is doing?
Interestingly, the first response of Rep. Heck’s office was to label Nelson an OFA plant. Nelson admitted that he has attended some OFA meetings, but he is not an organizer for OFA, and he does live in Rep. Heck’s district. The problem that House Republicans all over the country are facing is that they can offer no practical truthful reason for repealing the ACA.
The mood is changing on Obamacare, and House Republicans may have made a fatal blunder by assuming that what worked in 2009-2010 will still work in 2013-2014. Now that people are experiencing the law for themselves, it is more difficult for Republicans to lie about it.




Health insurance costs are getting lower in many states.


More people now have affordable coverage.


More lives are being saved.


People go back to work rather than welfare thereby paying more taxes and increasing productivity.



Contrary to the lies from the deluded far right, Obamacare has brought a great many benefits to society and more is to come.

Flag Ricky August 21, 2013 9:56 AM EDT

Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:25PM, TENAC wrote:


Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:14PM, Ricky wrote:


Universal health care works in Canada, Japan, Europe, and Israel where it is paid for by USA dollars.  It can work here just as easily.  Bear in mind that Fortune 500 companies get big deductions for health insurance costs on their corporate tax returns and nobody objects when these wealthy elites do it. Therefore, if you right wingers are willing to pay for the cost of Israelis and corporate fat cats you should have no trouble in allowing poor Americans to get a piece of that pie as well.


Your term "works" is extremely relative.


Just so I understand, you are complaining the Fortune 500 companies that get deductions for providing health care for their employees and you are somehow complaining about such fat cats?  What have you against Fortune 500 employees?


Also remember that as Americans get health care they return to work rather than go on welfare. This will INCREASE tax payments and productivity.  Therefore, health care pays for itself.


So Americans dont work right now because they dont have health care?  Thats all it takes to create jobs?









Thank you for acknowledging that health care works everywhere it exists.



Fortune 500 employees get subsidized so should everyone else.



What have you got against the  51 million previously uninsured people?



Create jobs?  Why don't Republicans pass the jobs bill?

Flag TENAC August 21, 2013 9:40 PM EDT

Aug 21, 2013 -- 9:56AM, Ricky wrote:


Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:25PM, TENAC wrote:


Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:14PM, Ricky wrote:


Universal health care works in Canada, Japan, Europe, and Israel where it is paid for by USA dollars.  It can work here just as easily.  Bear in mind that Fortune 500 companies get big deductions for health insurance costs on their corporate tax returns and nobody objects when these wealthy elites do it. Therefore, if you right wingers are willing to pay for the cost of Israelis and corporate fat cats you should have no trouble in allowing poor Americans to get a piece of that pie as well.


Your term "works" is extremely relative.


Just so I understand, you are complaining the Fortune 500 companies that get deductions for providing health care for their employees and you are somehow complaining about such fat cats?  What have you against Fortune 500 employees?


Also remember that as Americans get health care they return to work rather than go on welfare. This will INCREASE tax payments and productivity.  Therefore, health care pays for itself.


So Americans dont work right now because they dont have health care?  Thats all it takes to create jobs?









Thank you for acknowledging that health care works everywhere it exists.



Fortune 500 employees get subsidized so should everyone else.


You really dont understand the difference between the private and public sectors, do you?



What have you got against the  51 million previously uninsured people?


Wow.  How do you get to that number?
Let me help you Rick.  Thats why I'm here.


The estimate of 46 million uninsured, which comes from a less-than-ideal government survey, has been the occasion of a fraud on the public.  For 20 years, the Church of Universal Coverage told us that 40-some million Americans are uninsured for the entire year.  Then, experts including the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that no, 40-some million is the number who are uninsured on any given day, and a lot of those people quickly regain coverage.  The number of Americans who are uninsured for the entire year is actually 20-30 million.  Yet the Church of Universal Coverage kept using that 40-some million estimate as if nothing had happened – even though the meaning of that estimate had completely changed.


The Congressional Budget Office also reports that as many as 15 percent of those 20-30 million chronically “uninsured” are eligible for government programs, so they’re effectively insured.


According to economists Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford, as many as three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but choose not to purchase it.  Again, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 60 percent of the uninsured are under age 35, and 86 percent are in good-to-excellent health.


Government intervention has made health insurance unnecessarily expensive for them, so these folks quite sensibly don’t want to be ripped off.  Mandating that they buy coverage is really about hunting them down and taxing them.



Create jobs?  Why don't Republicans pass the jobs bill?


Republican Jobs Bills Passed By The House of Representatives


The below bills were passed by the House as a way to help create jobs in America at a time when unemployment remain above 8% for more than 30 consecutive months.  Unfortunately these bills have stalled in the United States Senate.



Now who controls that US Senate that has yet to bring to the floor for discussion ANY of these bills passed by the House?  Why its the Democrats.





Rick, we conservatives are here to help you in anyway we can.

Flag Ricky August 22, 2013 10:07 AM EDT

Aug 21, 2013 -- 9:40PM, TENAC wrote:



Fortune 500 employees get subsidized so should everyone else.


You really dont understand the difference between the private and public sectors, do you?



Government intervention has made health insurance unnecessarily expensive for them, so these folks quite sensibly don’t want to be ripped off.  Mandating that they buy coverage is really about hunting them down and taxing them.




Now who controls that US Senate that has yet to bring to the floor for discussion ANY of these bills passed by the House?  Why its the Democrats.





Rick, we conservatives are here to help you in anyway we can.





----------



~ private sector v public ~



I worked for government in the tax field for many years and know the distinction far better than you do.  Fortune 500 employees have reaped the benefits of subsidization for decades. There is no earhtly reason why laws should give them subsidized welfare and all else go on without the same support.



~ government  intervention has made it more expensive ~


No such claim in Japan, Canada, Europe, or Israel where health care is paid for by your tax dollars.



~ Senate "obstruction"


As reported by the media the "jobs bill" that was ok'd by Republicans is one filled with components dealing with more tax reductions for the rich, fail to create jobs, and does not address specific needs.



~CONservatives here to help ~



HAHAHAHA!!!! Surely after 30+ years you cannot believe anyone is going to take that seriously.






Edit: resize picture

Flag Ricky August 22, 2013 10:08 AM EDT

Rick Perry Quietly Lobbies The White House For $100 Million In Obamacare Funding




By Sy Mukherjee

Politico reported Tuesday evening that Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) administration is in negotiations with the Obama White House to accept about $100 million in federal money to implement an Obamacare Medicaid program to help elderly and disabled Americans.

Perry has been a heated opponent of the health law. He refused to accept $100 billion in federal funding to expand Texas’ Medicaid program under Obamacare, which could have helped 1.5 million poor Texans afford basic health benefits. As recently as April, Perry essentially called the expansion a joke. “Seems to me April Fool’s Day is the perfect day to discuss something as foolish as Medicaid expansion, and to remind everyone that Texas will not be held hostage by the Obama administration’s attempt to force us into the fool’s errand of adding more than a million Texans to a broken system,” said Perry.

Now, Perry is seeking federal dollars for Texas’ Medicaid program anyway.

The Affordable Care Act grants state funding to expand a program called Community First Choice, which aims to improve the community-based medical services available to disabled and elderly Americans. The wildly popular program is administered through Medicaid and could prevent thousands of disabled and older Americans from being uprooted from their homes and into a long-term care facility for their treatments. Approximately 12,000 Texans could take advantage of it in the first year alone.

Perry spokespeople emphasized to Politico that the governor’s support for the program — and the Medicaid funds that make it possible — shouldn’t come as a surprise and doesn’t change his position on the Affordable Care Act.

- more -



thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/21/2501...


Edit: font size

Flag Bodean August 22, 2013 6:11 PM EDT

Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:14PM, Ricky wrote:


Universal health care works in Canada, Japan, Europe, and Israel where it is paid for by USA dollars. 





There is absolutely NO PROOF that it would work in the US.  Totally different demographics.


Further, as you noted, their systems work, because of our dollar ... how well will their systems work when our dollars are all spent on our own?? ....


This country is going to hell in a handbasket.  There is just no way that the United States of America will survive the stupidity of people who look North and across the Atlantic for solutions to an American Problem. ... and unfortunately, the number of the those people is growing.

Flag Ricky August 23, 2013 9:43 AM EDT

Aug 22, 2013 -- 6:11PM, Bodean wrote:


Aug 20, 2013 -- 6:14PM, Ricky wrote:


Universal health care works in Canada, Japan, Europe, and Israel where it is paid for by USA dollars. 





There is absolutely NO PROOF that it would work in the US.  Totally different demographics.


Further, as you noted, their systems work, because of our dollar ... how well will their systems work when our dollars are all spent on our own?? ....


This country is going to hell in a handbasket.  There is just no way that the United States of America will survive the stupidity of people who look North and across the Atlantic for solutions to an American Problem. ... and unfortunately, the number of the those people is growing.






Google the face of Obamacare then try to prove it is not working.

Flag Stardove August 23, 2013 2:58 PM EDT

GOP in Fantasyland


"No matter how contemptuous they may be about Obamacare, opponents have only two viable options: Repeal it or get over it."  ACA is now a law.  I think it's time to get over it and for Congress to do do their jobs.

Washington - The make-believe crusade by publicity hound Republicans to somehow stop Obamacare is one of the most cynical political exercises we've seen in many years. And that, my friends, is saying something.

Charlatans are peddling the fantasy that somehow they can prevent the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from becoming what it already is: the law of the land. Congress passed it, President Obama signed it, the Supreme Court upheld it, and many of its provisions are already in force and others will soon take effect.

No matter how contemptuous they may be about Obamacare, opponents have only two viable options: Repeal it or get over it.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, the Canadian-American who appears to be running for president, has grabbed headlines and airtime by being the loudest advocate of an alleged third option: Congress could refuse to fund Obamacare, thereby starving it and effectively killing it. This is a ridiculous fantasy, as Cruz, who has brains beneath all that bombast, surely knows.

Congress needs to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government beyond Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. The idea, if you can call it one, is that Republicans can refuse to pass any funding bill that contains money for implementing Obamacare.

Theoretically, Republicans could pull this off in the House, where they hold the majority. But the chance that a bill stripped of money for the Affordable Care Act could make it through the Senate, where Democrats hold power, is precisely zero. The chance that a House-Senate conference would starve Obamacare to death, while Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., remains the majority leader, is also zero.


Continued at the link.

Flag TENAC August 23, 2013 10:15 PM EDT

How pathetic is it when obama continues, this late in the game, not only having to sell and resell this worthless insurance program to the American people but now invokes the name of MITT ROMNEY in order to do so.



Obama invokes Romney on Obamacare

Flag Ricky August 24, 2013 9:42 AM EDT

While delusional right wingers continue to pretend that Obamacare doesn't work, lives and money are being saved becuse of health car reform.


Furthermore, it is Republicans who are signing up for it in BIGGER numbers:




www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/21/123284...


Over the last few weeks, Republicans have been waging a very determined—and even more deceptive—campaign to scare the bejesus out of uninsured young adults so important to the success of the Affordable Care Act. But while the conservative commentariat has been issuing dire warnings about the so-called "Young Invincibles," their parents have quietly added millions of them to their family insurance plans, all thanks to Obamacare. And as it turns out, Republican parents are signing up in greater numbers than Democrats.


It is time for the right wingers to end their campaign of hate and lies.


Edit: resize picture and font

Flag TENAC August 24, 2013 9:54 AM EDT

Aug 24, 2013 -- 9:42AM, Ricky wrote:


While delusional right wingers continue to pretend that Obamacare doesn't work, lives and money are being saved becuse of health car reform.


Furthermore, it is Republicans who are signing up for it in BIGGER numbers


www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/21/123284...


Over the last few weeks, Republicans have been waging a very determined—and even more deceptive—campaign to scare the bejesus out of uninsured young adults so important to the success of the Affordable Care Act. But while the conservative commentariat has been issuing dire warnings about the so-called "Young Invincibles," their parents have quietly added millions of them to their family insurance plans, all thanks to Obamacare. And as it turns out, Republican parents are signing up in greater numbers than Democrats.


It is time for the right wingers to end their campaign of hate and lies.




lol....now this is interesting.


Ricky I have to admit, our views are such polar opposites on things.  I can see your point though.



I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day over this very thing.  He is a paramedic/firefighter.  A chief in fact.


We were talking about obama and obamacare and he doesnt think much of obama as a president, but added "well, he did extend health beneftis to keep our children on our health plans until 26,  thats a good thing, " he said smiling.


Then he stopped and said, "oh wow, but you wouldnt think so!"


I smiled back.



Does that make sense to you?  It is a very real divide and demonstrates specifically the difference between my views, and likely yours, but certainly the liberal left.


But why on earth would I think thats bad?


Edit: in quote

Flag Ricky August 24, 2013 11:11 AM EDT

Aug 24, 2013 -- 9:54AM, TENAC wrote:


Aug 24, 2013 -- 9:42AM, Ricky wrote:


While delusional right wingers continue to pretend that Obamacare doesn't work, lives and money are being saved becuse of health car reform.


Furthermore, it is Republicans who are signing up for it in BIGGER numbers:


www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/21/123284...


Over the last few weeks, Republicans have been waging a very determined—and even more deceptive—campaign to scare the bejesus out of uninsured young adults so important to the success of the Affordable Care Act. But while the conservative commentariat has been issuing dire warnings about the so-called "Young Invincibles," their parents have quietly added millions of them to their family insurance plans, all thanks to Obamacare. And as it turns out, Republican parents are signing up in greater numbers than Democrats.


It is time for the right wingers to end their campaign of hate and lies.




lol....now this is interesting.


Ricky I have to admit, our views are such polar opposites on things.  I can see your point though.



I was having a conversation with a friend of mine the other day over this very thing.  He is a paramedic/firefighter.  A chief in fact.


We were talking about obama and obamacare and he doesnt think much of obama as a president, but added "well, he did extend health beneftis to keep our children on our health plans until 26,  thats a good thing, " he said smiling.


Then he stopped and said, "oh wow, but you wouldnt think so!"


I smiled back.



Does that make sense to you?  It is a very real divide and demonstrates specifically the difference between my views, and likely yours, but certainly the liberal left.


But why on earth would I think thats bad?



Health care is not a matter of liberal left as you say but of common sense. Especially when you as an American citizen paid for Europe's coverage under the Marshall Plan while continuining to pay for Israel's coverage to this very day. Millions of lives have been saved through our tax dollars for them.  Millions of lives have been lost here because right wing delusionals fail to see that it is common sense to protect our own first and foremost:


www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/harvard...


Ironically, many of the delusional right wing call themselves "pro life" when pro death is far more accurate.


Edit: font size in quote

Flag Ricky August 27, 2013 11:16 AM EDT

right wingers complain about Obamacare but are the first ones on line to get its benefits:



upload.democraticunderground.com/imgs/20...

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook