|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,119
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,119 |
Stephanie Miller Thanks Obama For Health Care, Discusses Sister's Struggle With Cancer
Posted: 07/05/2012 7:30 pm Updated: 07/06/2012 8:31 am
President Barack Obama received a hug from a sobbing woman while working the rope after a campaign event in Sandusky, Ohio, on Thursday. Stephanie Miller, whose 37-year-old sister, Kelly Hines, died of colon cancer four years ago, got a chance to personally thank the president for passing the health care law that the Supreme Court upheld last week.
Soon to start a job as a corrections officer at a state prison in Ohio, Miller suddenly found herself in the national press, after a White House pool reporter spotted and wrote about her encounter with the president. The Huffington Post contacted Miller who shared her full story.
Miller recounted her brief exchange with the president, in which Obama told her he was sorry to hear about her sister's death, and that he would keep Hines in his thoughts.
"He said he would keep on fighting for us -- and that our fight is not over," Miller told HuffPost.
Miller said her sister was uninsured when she was diagnosed with colon cancer. Hines, a single mother working to support two young sons, applied for Medicaid but was told she did not meet the program's financial requirements. Hines soon began a new job where she was given employer-sponsored health care coverage, but as a new employee she needed to be present in the workplace, which ultimately interfered with her cancer treatment.
Hines clocked anywhere from 40 to 80 hours a week, despite her weakening condition. "She worked until she couldn't anymore so that she could provide for her kids," said Miller.
Following a 15-month struggle, Hines succumbed to the disease -- leaving behind her sons, 10 and 15, at the time.
According to Miller, the Affordable Care Act could have saved her sister's life. A working mother of three, Miller told HuffPost neither she nor her two younger daughters, ages 22 and 20, have health insurance. Her new employer will not provide coverage until she completes a one-year probationary period. Meanwhile, Miller said her medical bills are "racking up."
Miller now eagerly awaits the day when her insurance will kick in so that her daughters can stay on her health care plan until the age of 26, thanks to a provision under the president's health care law and last week's Supreme Court ruling.
Asked how she reacted to the news that the Affordable Care Act would be upheld, an emotional Miller recalled a roller coaster of emotions.
"Oh my God, I blew up my Facebook page congratulating President Obama [and] thanking him," she said. "It was a historic day for our country."
"We needed that desperately," Miller continued. "I know what it's like to watch somebody that you love die from a disease that had they been able to have health care [coverage], they could still be here. Nobody should ever have to go through that. Her sons should not have to suffer without their mother."
web page
For many Americans, it will not dawn on them that healthcare can and is, a life and death issue for some of our fellow Americans.
I realize some on this message board could give a damn if another American dies of cancer because they could not afford healthcare. For many, they would never "get it" until it smacked them right between eyes like a sledge hammer...only when a friend or family member dies, as Kelly Hines did in this example, would some understand the need for affordable healthcare for all Americans.
Hard to believe this country is so divided that some don't give a damn if a fellow American dies of cancer (or some other disease) because they could not afford healthcare...but it is.
I hope all will click the link to see the video and to take a look at how long the American government has tried to solve the problem of affordable health insurance for all Americans.
Here is a hint..it was a Republican President who first tried to solve the problem, 100 years ago. Since then, Republican and Democrat Presidents have tried and failed...until Obama.
my .02...
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400 |
Quote:
Quote:
Is there a candidate in this election who promises to implement Romneycare throught the entire country?
No - but if Obamacare was a terrible policy, wouldn't that also destroy your confidence in the man who first proposed it?
Yes...my confidence in Obama's cronies like Pelosi and Reid is so low it's not measurable. THEY are the ones who first proposed Obamacare.
Romneycare was/is bad policy...but was only for ONE state. It's "similarities" to Obamacare are meaningless when understood how far-reaching was the law. You know...states rights and all that jazz.
Not to mention the whole, far-reaching taxes to pay for it...or the fact that politicians voted for it before reading it and all.
Romneycare was/is a bad law...Obamacare is a bad law. One politician is all about implementing Obamacare and one is all about repealing it.
I think it's very simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,945
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,945 |
Wait a minute............hines didn't have insurance when she was diagnosed - but got a job that offered health insurance. But, despite logging 40 to 80 hours a week - what? The insurance quit?
I love the whole "single mother providing for 2 kids" aspect.
The sister says "health insurance COULD have saved her sister." She had health insurance. She got a job that offered health insurance, and, according to the article - she was working 40 to 80 hours a week.
And the sister - with a 22 and 20 year old daughter..........and none of them have health insurance..............what will this new ACA do for them? They still have to buy insurance, or get taxed.
Oh - Huffington Post. I get it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400 |
mac,
There is a better way to take care of people in your example than forcing Obamacare on the entire country.
To pretend that Obamacare is great because it works for a few people...even though it does not work for many more people...is typical liberal logic.
To accuse the anti-Obamacare crowd as not caring about cancer patients is yet more liberal babble and is downright offensive.
I think we should have a government sponsored plan/policy to help people in catastrophic conditions like the one you mentioned above....otherwise I think the government should stay OUT of everyone else's health care until invited to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
Quote:
Romneycare was/is bad policy...but was only for ONE state. It's "similarities" to Obamacare are meaningless when understood how far-reaching was the law. You know...states rights and all that jazz.
Wait, so the difference between Obamacare being good/bad is an issue of federalism?
Quote:
Romneycare was/is a bad law...Obamacare is a bad law. One politician is all about implementing Obamacare and one is all about repealing it.
Romney certainly wasn't interested in repealing Romneycare - why would he be interested in repealing Obamacare? Unless it was more likely to get him elected....
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400 |
Quote:
Since then, Republican and Democrat Presidents have tried and failed...until Obama.
I would consider Obamacare to be more of a failure than the inaction of the previous 100 years worth of Presidents.
It's a poorly constructed law and poorly crafted policy. It should be repealed and replaced.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Romney certainly wasn't interested in repealing Romneycare - why would he be interested in repealing Obamacare? Unless it was more likely to get him elected....
He won't repeal it. It's a campaign slogan. He's smart to promise it, but the GOP has no real intention of repealing it. Re-branding it, maybe, but there's too much money involved with too many high profile donors for this thing not to keep rolling on (which is a shame. The overwhelming majority of it should be repealed).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400 |
Quote:
Romneycare was/is bad policy...but was only for ONE state. It's "similarities" to Obamacare are meaningless when understood how far-reaching was the law. You know...states rights and all that jazz.
Quote:
Wait, so the difference between Obamacare being good/bad is an issue of federalism?
I don't know about federalism. I think what I said before sums it up perfectly...no need to make it complicated. It is what it is.
Quote:
Romneycare was/is a bad law...Obamacare is a bad law. One politician is all about implementing Obamacare and one is all about repealing it.
Quote:
Romney certainly wasn't interested in repealing Romneycare - why would he be interested in repealing Obamacare? Unless it was more likely to get him elected....
Romney wants to repeal Obamacare...Obamacare is a disaster and needs to be repealed...it's very simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
Quote:
Romney wants to repeal Obamacare...Obamacare is a disaster and needs to be repealed...it's very simple.
You still need to explain to me why he proposed nearly the exact same law as the one he wants to repeal.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400 |
Quote:
Quote:
Romney wants to repeal Obamacare...Obamacare is a disaster and needs to be repealed...it's very simple.
You still need to explain to me why he proposed nearly the exact same law as the one he wants to repeal.
I already explained to you why I see a difference in the two equally bad, poorly-crafted laws.
The mistakes Romney made with Romneycare as Governor is in the past. What he proposes to do today with Obamacare is what matters.
Why did Obama snort cocaine when he was younger? It doesn't matter. What he proposes to do with Obamacare today is all that matters.
I get it though...the previous guy did it (previously)...so...while agreed that it's awful...it's therefore ok for the new guy to do it too.
In the end...it will all be Bush's fault anyway. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
Quote:
The mistakes Romney made with Romneycare as Governor is in the past. What he proposes to do today with Obamacare is what matters.
It doesn't give you just a tiny bit of suspicion that he's changed his stance to be popular - since he was the one who originally proposed this system of healthcare?
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't vote for Romney if you hate Obamacare -- I'm arguing that if you don't like Obamacare, then Romney is a very very weak candidate.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400 |
Quote:
Quote:
The mistakes Romney made with Romneycare as Governor is in the past. What he proposes to do today with Obamacare is what matters.
It doesn't give you just a tiny bit of suspicion that he's changed his stance to be popular - since he was the one who originally proposed this system of healthcare?
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't vote for Romney if you hate Obamacare -- I'm arguing that if you don't like Obamacare, then Romney is a very very weak candidate.
I'm suspicious of all these types...I question all of their motives...I've learned that I cannot trust Obama's word.
I understand why one may think that way...in addition...I think Obama is a much-weaker candidate than is Romney.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
The mistakes Romney made with Romneycare as Governor is in the past. What he proposes to do today with Obamacare is what matters.
It doesn't give you just a tiny bit of suspicion that he's changed his stance to be popular - since he was the one who originally proposed this system of healthcare?
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't vote for Romney if you hate Obamacare -- I'm arguing that if you don't like Obamacare, then Romney is a very very weak candidate.
Romney's also argued in the past that the individual mandate was a truly conservative idea that he would like to see expanded.
He'll say what he has to to win, but he'll act on greater financial interests, and at this point, he's not going to pull the rug out from under. I could definitely see an attempt to re-brand what's being pushed through, but he's beholden to too many monied interests to say 'Thanks for the election money guys, but I'm turning off the spigot.
For one thing ... eliminating pre-existing conditions was the right thing to do. A vast majority believe that. If we took a nationwide vote on simply getting rid of it, it would pass overwhelmingly.That one's going to be hard to take away, and you can't just get rid of pre-existing conditions without crushing a lot of the industry. You're going to have to infuse and subsidize them. That's just one of the bells in the bill that can't be unrung. Beyond that ... too much money was promised to too many influential entities.
Romney won't overturn it. But to say he's going to is the right thing for him to say. It will get him votes. And he may try to overturn it, but there will be a similarly structured replacement right behind it. For the most part, we're stuck with this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
Cowan tends to agree with you: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalre...e-me-wrong.htmlQuote:
1. I expect Romney to claim he has repealed ACA, but in fact he will change five aspects of the law and cement the rest of it in place, albeit in a less progressive manner and with lower Medicaid expenditures. (Outright repeal actually would not be easy, not to mention filibuster issues.) He knows he doesn’t have any other “right-wing health care plan” in his back pocket, won’t be willing to restore the status quo ex ante, and he will be willing to take the “Tea Party knock on the chin” very early on in his term, hoping to repair the fence later. Ultimately letting the issue fester doesn’t help him, and he is smart enough to realize that.
An opposing view: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/can-mitt-romney-really-repeal-obamacare
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 07/06/12 04:20 PM.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
Now, in all seriousness - I thought originally this bill was to help those that didn't have insurance - help them to get it. The biggest problem was, those that didn't have insurance couldn't afford to buy insurance. How has this bill - now law - helped those that couldn't afford insurance before? If they couldn't afford it before, how has this bill lowered insurance costs for those that didn't have insurance.
Well, there were two major issues that this is supposed to have addressed:
1) Those who can't get insurance due to "preexisting conditions" (which has been eliminated by this law)
2) Those who couldn't afford health insurance
For number 2), I couldn't find much. Only things I saw were the parts about the a) employer penalties for not providing insurance and b) the "80/20" rule, which caps an insurance company's "take" (not profit) to 20% of your premium. (see below) I'm not saying I agree with the principle of this, but that's what I saw in the law.
There are also a number of other provisions, such as medicare providing free preventative care, reduced prescription costs for medicare recipients, caps on annual rate hikes by companies, public disclosure of costs per service by hospitals, etc which are meant to drive costs down.
Quote:
If they still can't afford it - they get taxed. Neat.
I'm still having trouble finding what the law says people can afford 
http://www.barackobama.com/health-care/ending-insurance-abuses
Quote:
Before the Affordable Care Act
Insurance companies used to spend as much as 40 percent of your premium on salaries, overhead, and other administrative costs, and they could raise your rates without warning or explanation.
Today
Tough new rules make sure your insurance company can't waste your money or deny you care.
80/20: Your insurance company is now required to spend at least 80 percent of your premium on your health care—and if it doesn't, it owes you a rebate. Starting this summer, nearly 12.8 million Americans and 7.3 million families will receive rebate checks averaging $151 per household—adding up to more than $1.1 billion back in consumers' hands.
Your insurance company has to publicly justify any rate hike of more than 10 percent to your state or federal rate review program.
If your insurance company denies you payment for a treatment or service, you now have the right to appeal their decision to a third party.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/title/i-quality-affordable-health-care.pdf
Quote:
20 ‘‘(2) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—
21 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan
22 and a health insurance issuer offering group or
23 individual health insurance coverage shall annu-
24 ally submit to the Secretary, and to enrollees
25 under the plan or coverage, a report on whether
32
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 the benefits under the plan or coverage satisfy
2 the elements described in subparagraphs (A)
3 through (D) of paragraph (1).
4 ‘‘(B) TIMING OF REPORTS.—A report under
5 subparagraph (A) shall be made available to an
6 enrollee under the plan or coverage during each
7 open enrollment period.
8 ‘‘(C) AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS.—The Sec-
9 retary shall make reports submitted under sub-
10 paragraph (A) available to the public through an
11 Internet website.
12 ‘‘Section (a)1(D) (D) PENALTIES.—In developing the re-
13 porting requirements under paragraph (1), the
14 Secretary may develop and impose appropriate
15 penalties for non-compliance with such require-
16 ments.
17 ‘‘(E) EXCEPTIONS.—In developing the re-
18 porting requirements under paragraph (1), the
19 Secretary may provide for exceptions to such re-
20 quirements for group health plans and health in-
21 surance issuers that substantially meet the goals
22 of this section.
23 ‘‘(b) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—For
24 purposes of subsection (a)(1)(D), wellness and health pro-
25 motion activities may include personalized wellness and
33
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 prevention services, which are coordinated, maintained or
2 delivered by a health care provider, a wellness and preven-
3 tion plan manager, or a health, wellness or prevention serv-
4 ices organization that conducts health risk assessments or
5 offers ongoing face-to-face, telephonic or web-based interven-
6 tion efforts for each of the program’s participants, and
7 which may include the following wellness and prevention
8 efforts:
9 ‘‘(1) Smoking cessation.
10 ‘‘(2) Weight management.
11 ‘‘(3) Stress management.
12 ‘‘(4) Physical fitness.
13 ‘‘(5) Nutrition.
14 ‘‘(6) Heart disease prevention.
15 ‘‘(7) Healthy lifestyle support.
16 ‘‘(8) Diabetes prevention.
um, does this mean there will be essentially "healthy-living telemarketing?" What does this mean?"
I like this part...
Quote:
7 ‘‘(c) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital
8 operating within the United States shall for each year es-
9 tablish (and update) and make public (in accordance with
10 guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s
11 standard charges for items and services provided by the hos-
12 pital, including for diagnosis-related groups established
13 under section 1886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,980
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,980 |
One of the major problems is that the government will decide who "can afford" to buy insurance, and who will be taxed if they don't.
One other problem is that this law was so badly written that it is actually being written and implemented now, by the bureaucrats. They, not the lawmakers nor public, will decide what form healthcare takes into the future.
I have heard numbers of 10,000 or more new federal employees associated with full implementation of this law. Shouldn't we be moving in the opposite direction?
Further, they could have done more in the savings area by standardizing paperwork, eliminating state borders when it comes to the sale of healthcare, and allowing more choices for people, as opposed to less choices.
Tort reform was completely ignored in this law. No meaningful reduction of healthcare costs can be truly effective until we eliminate lawsuit abuse.
The way this law is written, we will eventually have a single payer system. It is inevitable, Employers are already dropping expensive insurance programs and preparing to pay the smaller fine instead. It's far more cost effective. If a company pays $8000-$10,000 to insure and employee and his/her family, and can instead pay a $2000 fine ..... why wouldn't they pay the fine? The government program has exchange provisions, but without allowing open competition, this provision is useless. Premiums among private insurers can still rise at a rate of less than 10% without setting off oversight alarm bells .... so what has the rate of premium increase been?
Further, there are already doctors, especially specialists, who won't accept Medicare or Medicaid patients right now. Isn't it likely that this trend will increase into the future, with some doctors refusing all insurances, as the payments from insurances become so low that they no longer feel that they can afford to work under those rules,and then those who can afford to pay a doctor out of pocket will have one tier of healthcare, and the rest of us will have a lower tier.
Also ..... how will this affect kids going to school to become doctors? If you are going to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to become a doctor, and then go on to make $20-30/patient ... are people going to make that kind of investment? Will that pay the bills? Will it cover malpractice insurance?
One more thing ..... how long will you get with a doctor .... when you get to see one? As auxiliary costs have increased, and reimbursements have decreased, the time a patient spends with his/her doctor has decreased dramatically. Doctors already stack up patients like cord wood just to keep the doors open. What happens when they get less and less in the name of cost control?
There are so many problems with this law that it's got to be torn up and begun over. I'll pretend that it was a law created with the best of intentions, even though they had to bribe Democrats to get it passed ....... but like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions .......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400 |
You have read the law more in-depth than many of the sheep who "passed" it.
It is awful policy and was written by clueless politicians who were forced to comply or stand alone against a faux majority.
Any politician who voted in-favor should be voted out of office for deriliction of duty.
If there was EVER a case for a "do-over", this is it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
Obamacare still seems more conservative than Romneycare was?
My business partner lives in Haverhill Ma. He absolutly hates Obama, Obamacare and everything even remotely liberal.. Only one thing he dislikes more than all that.. Romneycare.
it litereally ruined his end of the business up there. We're ok now, because we found a plan that will allow us to place people in Ma again. but for a while, it was really ugly.
Coming from a former in-house attorney with an insurance company headquartered in Boston, let me just say there is NO form. Of insurance coverage in MA which makes any cognizable sense.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The mistakes Romney made with Romneycare as Governor is in the past. What he proposes to do today with Obamacare is what matters.
It doesn't give you just a tiny bit of suspicion that he's changed his stance to be popular - since he was the one who originally proposed this system of healthcare?
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't vote for Romney if you hate Obamacare -- I'm arguing that if you don't like Obamacare, then Romney is a very very weak candidate.
Romney's also argued in the past that the individual mandate was a truly conservative idea that he would like to see expanded.
He'll say what he has to to win, but he'll act on greater financial interests, and at this point, he's not going to pull the rug out from under. I could definitely see an attempt to re-brand what's being pushed through, but he's beholden to too many monied interests to say 'Thanks for the election money guys, but I'm turning off the spigot.
For one thing ... eliminating pre-existing conditions was the right thing to do. A vast majority believe that. If we took a nationwide vote on simply getting rid of it, it would pass overwhelmingly.That one's going to be hard to take away, and you can't just get rid of pre-existing conditions without crushing a lot of the industry. You're going to have to infuse and subsidize them. That's just one of the bells in the bill that can't be unrung. Beyond that ... too much money was promised to too many influential entities.
Romney won't overturn it. But to say he's going to is the right thing for him to say. It will get him votes. And he may try to overturn it, but there will be a similarly structured replacement right behind it. For the most part, we're stuck with this.
Wait are you saying insurance companies control politicians!?!? Preposterous!
Man, Washington needs a hero...
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,119
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,119 |
Quote:
Quote:
Since then, Republican and Democrat Presidents have tried and failed...until Obama.
I would consider Obamacare to be more of a failure than the inaction of the previous 100 years worth of Presidents.
It's a poorly constructed law and poorly crafted policy. It should be repealed and replaced.
willie...after both Republican and Democrat Presidents tried for over 100 years, to get a healthcare plan enacted, it's time to stop with the excuses for not getting something started.
While the two political parties squabble and make excuses for not enacting a healthcare plan for the USA, citizens in need were "left with nothing".
I believe most Americans have figured out, being "left with nothing" is exactly what Republicans want, preferring that those who can't afford healthcare, just die.
Romney and republicans spout "repeal and replace" the Obama plan, but when asked, what is the Republican Healthcare Plan, that will replace the Obama plan?...
Republicans struggle to come with a believable answer, preferring double talk rather than any specifics. In short, Repubs have no plan...other than keep things as they were...in other words, let the uninsured continue to die.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249 |
Quote:
I believe most Americans have figured out, being "left with nothing" is exactly what Republicans want, preferring that those who can't afford healthcare, just die.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,119
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,119 |
jfan...KOOL AID...that would be the name of the Healthcare plan the GOP is trying to sell to the American people to replace the Obama plan.
Suddenly, Republican claim, they have a plan...yet, for the last 100 years, Republicans had their opportunity to pass a health care plan for America and didn't do it.
Repubs say Repeal and Replace...but they have no plan to replace the present plan.
The GOP Healthcare Plan = LET THEM DIE !
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249 |
Quote:
jfan...KOOL AID...that would be the name of the Healthcare plan the GOP is trying to sell to the American people to replace the Obama plan.
Suddenly, Republican claim, they have a plan...yet, for the last 100 years, Republicans had their opportunity to pass a health care plan for America and didn't do it.
Repubs say Repeal and Replace...but they have no plan to replace the present plan.
The GOP Healthcare Plan = LET THEM DIE !
Lol. MacSNBC. Let's divert attention from this abomination of a healthcare plan and slam the republicans.
Quote:
for the last 100 years, Republicans had their opportunity to pass a health care plan for America and didn't do it.
So did the dems. What's your point? Kool-aid's here!
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,119
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,119 |
jfan...your responses prove how accurate my comments are about the Republican attitude of not giving a damn about those fellow Americans who have no healthcare...Republicans would rather let people like 37-year-old, Kelly Hines, just go die.
Republicans had a chance to join in the shaping of this healthcare plan and what did they do...what they always do, obstruct, stall and attempt to score political points.
Now Republicans say they will REPEAL and REPLACE the Obama healthcare plan...but when asked what the Republican healthcare plan is...they dance and lie like hell, never giving details of what the Republican REPLACEMENT plan is.
The Republicans are lying...THERE IS NO REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE PLAN...
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
jfan...your responses prove how accurate my comments are about the Republican attitude of not giving a damn about those fellow Americans who have no healthcare...Republicans would rather let people like 37-year-old, Kelly Hines, just go die.
Republicans had a chance to join in the shaping of this healthcare plan and what did they do...what they always do, obstruct, stall and attempt to score political points.
Now Republicans say they will REPEAL and REPLACE the Obama healthcare plan...but when asked what the Republican healthcare plan is...they dance and lie like hell, never giving details of what the Republican REPLACEMENT plan is.
The Republicans are lying...THERE IS NO REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE PLAN...
Your not wrong about the republicans..They don't have a clue about a health care reform bill that will do anything for the american people either. should it end up looking like Romneycare in MA.. it's not going to be one lick better than Obamacare.
But fact is, Obama and the Dems had no better idea at this point in the run up to the election in 2008. THERE WAS NO DEMOCRATIC HEALTHCARE PLAN either until Pelosi and Reid ran over the president (and he let them)
yes, the republicans obstructed every attempt and wouldn't sit down with Dems to work out an equitable arrangement. it wasn't and isn't in thier best interest.
But the President (obama) didnt exactly do much to work with the Republicans lik,e he promised to do.
THERE IS PLENTY OF BLAME TO GO AROUND..
What I want to know is, when are we gonna stop accepting excuses and petty squabbling and freakin make those elected Jerks get the job done right?
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,400 |
Quote:
fan...your responses prove how accurate my comments are about the Republican attitude of not giving a damn about those fellow Americans who have no healthcare...Republicans would rather let people like 37-year-old, Kelly Hines, just go die.
Ridiculous, typical, liberal babble and scare-tactics.
Quote:
Republicans had a chance to join in the shaping of this healthcare plan and what did they do...what they always do, obstruct, stall and attempt to score political points.
It appears that you have conveniently forgotten how Obama/Pelosi/Reid gave the R's one choice - sign exactly what we want or go home. They even had to resort to backroom tactics to pass the thing even WITH the majority they had.
Quote:
Now Republicans say they will REPEAL and REPLACE the Obama healthcare plan...but when asked what the Republican healthcare plan is...they dance and lie like hell, never giving details of what the Republican REPLACEMENT plan is.
The Republicans are lying...THERE IS NO REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE PLAN...
More liberal babble...this is on Romney's website.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
MITT'S PLAN
On his first day in office, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that paves the way for the federal government to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states. He will then work with Congress to repeal the full legislation as quickly as possible.
In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition.
Restore State Leadership and Flexibility
Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.
• Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
• Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
• Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
• Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
• Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution
Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition
Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost. It can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance to work.
• Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
• Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
• Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
• Facilitate IT interoperability
Empower Consumer Choice
For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the power to make decisions about their own care. Placing the patient at the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually want.
• End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
• Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
• Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
• Promote "co-insurance" products
• Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
• Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,249 |
Quote:
jfan...your responses prove how accurate my comments are about the Republican attitude of not giving a damn about those fellow Americans who have no healthcare...Republicans would rather let people like 37-year-old, Kelly Hines, just go die.
Republicans had a chance to join in the shaping of this healthcare plan and what did they do...what they always do, obstruct, stall and attempt to score political points.
Now Republicans say they will REPEAL and REPLACE the Obama healthcare plan...but when asked what the Republican healthcare plan is...they dance and lie like hell, never giving details of what the Republican REPLACEMENT plan is.
The Republicans are lying...THERE IS NO REPUBLICAN HEALTHCARE PLAN...
You're making the ass...umption that I'm a republican (I'm not), that I support the party (I don't) and that I'm a Romney supporter (I'm not). If you think the dems care any more than the republicans about the well being of the citizenry because of this POS health plan, you absolutely are drinking the Kool-Aid that Obama whipped up behind closed doors with insurance and pharmaceutical industry execs.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,664
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,664 |
Here is a summary on About.com of Obamacare. It addresses towards the bottom on the poor getting healthcare. http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/a/Obamacare-Summary.htmObamacare Summary How Obamacare Affects You By Kimberly Amadeo, About.com Guide . Obamacare is designed to lower health care costs for you and the economy. Photo: Jason Greenspan / Getty Images Updated July 04, 2012 Obamacare is the popular name for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Parts of it have already affected you, someone you know and the economy overall. The most controversial part, the mandate that everyone must purchase private health insurance or pay a fine, won't kick in until 2014. Despite all that has been written about it, many people are still confused or unaware of how it affects them and their family. Here's a quick summary, with links to further resources. If You Already Have Health Insurance Obamacare improved the benefits you already receive in eight ways. 1.It allows you to add your children up to age 26 to your health insurance plan. 2.Your insurance company can no longer drop you if you get really sick. 3.It can't limit the coverage you receive over your lifetime. 4.If you have a chronically ill child, you no longer have to worry about losing coverage if you change your insurance. That's because the new insurance plan can't deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. 5.If you have a pre-existing condition, and you get denied coverage by a new insurance company, you can get temporary health insurance coverage until 2014. That's when insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to adults. 6.You may receive a rebate this year from your insurance company. Obamacare requires that they spend at least 80% of premium payments on medical services, instead of advertising and executive salaries. If they can't, the money goes back to you. 7.Insurance companies must submit justification to the states for all rate hikes. Obamacare provides funding to the states to administer this. 8.You may not have to pay a co-pay for wellness or pregnancy exams. Only plans that were "grandfathered in" were exempt from this Obamacare law. Many people are concerned that their company will cancel their health insurance, forcing them to go on Obamacare. However, that probably won't happen. Companies offer health insurance as a benefit to attract good employees. They see it as cheaper than offering higher wages, because they don't have to contribute their share of payroll taxes. Since health care costs have been rising, many companies have been increasing your premiums to cut their costs. However, that has nothing to do with Obamacare. If anything, your premiums should decrease over time, as Obamacare is designed to lower health care costs. By allowing parents to add their children, more healthy people are paying premiums but not using the system as much. This adds to health insurance companies' profits, which should mean lower premiums over the long run. Similarly, Medicare recipients now have more of their prescription costs covered, allowing them to continue taking medications needed to prevent emergency room visits. By 2014, everyone will be required to have health insurance. This means that more people will use preventative medical care, instead of waiting until they have to go to the emergency room. The average emergency room visit is $1,265, and hospitals have to eat this cost for indigent patients. When these costs are transferred to insurance companies or prevented, hospital costs, and therefore overall health care costs, will drop. Note: All the above benefits apply to everyone once they get health insurance. If You Don't Have Health Insurance Starting in 2014, you will be required to purchase insurance or pay a penalty of as much as 2.5% of your income. You can shop for the insurance that meets your needs on a state-run exchange. If it's any consolation, members of Congress will also be mandated to get their health insurance through the same exchanges, instead of the government-provided health insurance they get now. (Source: Affordable Care Act) Exchanges will allow you to compare health plans before you buy one. The exchanges will also help you find out if you qualify for tax credits or other government health benefits. States are being given substantial Federal grants to fund the exchanges. Find out your state's status. If You Can't Afford Health Insurance In 2014, you may qualify for Medicaid if your income is under 133% of the poverty level (roughly $14,000 for an individual, or $29,000 for a family of four). This will be funded by the Federal government for the first three years, and 90% after that. Learn more about Medicaid. If you don't qualify for Medicaid, you may be eligible for a tax credit if your income is under 400% of the Federal poverty level (roughly under $43,000 for an individual, or $88,000 for a family of four). You get the tax credit each month, instead of waiting for you annual tax rebate. You may also qualify for reduced copayments and deductibles. If You Are on Medicare You now receive many wellness and preventative care visits for free. See Medicare Preventative Services for the full list. If you have Medicare Part D, you received $250 in 2010 to help pay for prescription drugs if you fell into the "donut hole." In 2011, you get a 50% discount on brand-name prescription drugs, and 7% on generic drugs if you fall into the donut hole. For more, see Drug Discounts. By 2020, the donut hole will be eliminated. If You Are a Small Business Owner Obamacare requires businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance. If you have fewer than 100 employees, you can shop for insurance in state-run exchanges in 2014 that should provide cheaper alternatives than are available now. If you refuse to provide insurance, you will be fined $2,000 per employee for all but the first 20 employees. However, businesses with 25 employees or less who provide insurance can qualify for a tax credit (35% now, 50% in 2014). If you have fewer than 50 employees, you don't have to pay a fine if your workers get tax credits through an exchange. If you offer health insurance as a benefit to early retirees 55-64, you can get Federal financial assistance. Find out how at ERRP. For more resources to help small businesses comply with Obamacare.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,980
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,980 |
Meh, that's a fairly upbeat and partisan evaluation of the healthcare law.
Right now, all of the "goodies" have taken effect, but none of the taxes. It's amazing that this law is so unpopular when all of the good stuff has taken effect, but none of the costs have yet taken effect.
Into the future, if a young person, just starting out, trying to make a living, pay off student loans, and put a roof over his/her head will be forced into buying insurance, or paying a penalty.
Imagine being 24 ...... making $40,000 .... single ....... paying $1200 for rent and utilities ..... $200-$300 to repay student loans ... maybe a $300 car payment ........ food, car insurance, and all of the other expenses that go into daily living ....... while taking home about $2300-$2400/month after taxes .... and then being told that you must also pay $300-$400/month for health insurance, or pay a penalty. How do you accomplish that? "Mom, Dad ... can I move back home ..........?" This example isn't for some poor person, and it's not for someone with extreme expenses.
What about when employers stop offering health insurance because it's cheaper to pay the fines?
This whole thing is a mess, and it contains very few common sense reforms. Tort reform, open competition across state lines, uniformity among paperwork, and other simple, (and free) reforms would help drive down healthcare expenses, which would drive down costs. However, none of these were addressed in the Obamacare law.
It's a mandate forcing insurance on all .... without addressing many of the factors that drive costs up and up and up ........
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
I found this article interesting today, specifically: Quote:
The [individual] mandate made its political début in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,” as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles. In the brief, Stuart Butler, the foundation’s health-care expert, argued, “Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat-belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement.” The mandate made its first legislative appearance in 1993, in the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act—the Republicans’ alternative to President Clinton’s health-reform bill—which was sponsored by John Chafee, of Rhode Island, and co-sponsored by eighteen Republicans, including Bob Dole, who was then the Senate Minority Leader.
After the Clinton bill, which called for an employer mandate, failed, Democrats came to recognize the opportunity that the Chafee bill had presented. In “The System,” David Broder and Haynes Johnson’s history of the health-care wars of the nineties, Bill Clinton concedes that it was the best chance he had of reaching a bipartisan compromise. “It should have been right then, or the day after they presented their bill, where I should have tried to have a direct understanding with Dole,” he said.
Ten years later, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, began picking his way back through the history—he read “The System” four times—and he, too, came to focus on the Chafee bill. He began building a proposal around the individual mandate, and tested it out on both Democrats and Republicans. “Between 2004 and 2008, I saw over eighty members of the Senate, and there were very few who objected,” Wyden says. In December, 2006, he unveiled the Healthy Americans Act. In May, 2007, Bob Bennett, a Utah Republican, who had been a sponsor of the Chafee bill, joined him. Wyden-Bennett was eventually co-sponsored by eleven Republicans and nine Democrats, receiving more bipartisan support than any universal health-care proposal in the history of the Senate. It even caught the eye of the Republican Presidential aspirants. In a June, 2009, interview on “Meet the Press,” Mitt Romney, who, as governor of Massachusetts, had signed a universal health-care bill with an individual mandate, said that Wyden-Bennett was a plan “that a number of Republicans think is a very good health-care plan—one that we support.”
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein#ixzz203gZhxK9
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
I think you cherry-picked some numbers:
1.) First - he's 24, so if his parents have insurance he's already covered.
2.) A 24yo will not pay 300-400/month in health insurance, my gf's (26yo) is currently about half that. I have insurance through work - but it's about $250/month including dental/vision/free care at the campus center.
3.) In this situation, they are living at less than 4x the federal poverty level, thus they get 50% of their health insurance money back in a tax break. So the total cost of health insurance is around $75/month
4.) The $75/month might be inconvenient (health insurance is always inconvenient if you don't get sick) - but he's nowhere as screwed as he is in this situation if he does get sick/ill/hurt. He could easily account for this by not grabbing a new car with a $300/month payment due.
Last edited by Lyuokdea; 07/08/12 03:44 PM.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
This whole using unpaid hospital bills as an excuse for forcing people to buy health ins is a load of crap. If hospitals charged what stuff actually costs, people would be able to pay their bill because it would be 90% less expensive. An IV bag of saline costs maybe 50 cents to make, but they charge you 280 bucks for it. It is like that for everything. 
No Craps Given
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
It depends on what exactly you need....
You are not only paying for the saline of course, but for the 10 min it takes a doctor to diagnose you as needing one, and the 10 minutes it takes nurses to diagnose it. Plus overhead.
That's way more expensive than you'd think.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,945
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,945 |
Quote:
I think you cherry-picked some numbers:
1.) First - he's 24, so if his parents have insurance he's already covered.
For free? Or is someone paying for it?
Quote:
2.) A 24yo will not pay 300-400/month in health insurance, my gf's (26yo) is currently about half that. I have insurance through work - but it's about $250/month including dental/vision/free care at the campus center.
Let's see, you have insurance through work, but it costs you $250 per month. But your g.f. doesn't have it through work, but it costs her about half of $400 per month? If you have it through work, and she doesn't - how does it cost you MORE per month than it does her? Maybe I'm not following along.
Quote:
3.) In this situation, they are living at less than 4x the federal poverty level, thus they get 50% of their health insurance money back in a tax break. So the total cost of health insurance is around $75/month
Neat. So, the insurance company is just going to be nice and pay the rest? Or will tax money go to pay for it. Oh, that's right - they get money back in a tax break.
I have an ex wife that got money back in a "tax break".......meaning she got back almost $5000 per year MORE than she paid in. That's not a tax break - that's welfare. That is money that comes from somewhere, namely, people that actually pay taxes.
Let me ask you this: The whole problem with health care is not who has it and who doesn't. Even if it was - this bill doesn't even address THAT - all it does is say 'you WILL have it or else'. Couldn't afford it before? CAn't afford it now? Well, now you'll pay a tax if you don't get it..........you can't afford it, so you pay a tax???? Makes no sense to me.
Oh, we'll give you tax breaks to get it. Most of the people that didn't have it to begin with weren't actually paying taxes. Sure, taxes may have come out of their check - but at the end of the year, they got most of it back - if not all of it and then some.
The problem with health care is the cost of it.
How, exactly, does this bill address the root of the problem?
It doesn't. Period. What it does do is increase taxes, adds penalties, and will hurt more people than it helps.
It won't be too terribly long before your job says "we can't afford to offer health insurance any longer".
There is a part in the bill that addresses this: The "offer insurance or pay $2000 per employee in taxes for not providing it." The bill further adds that that specific tax will increase in subsequent years.
Want a job? We won't have many here, as companies will be shipping jobs overseas pretty quickly when the fines/taxes start adding up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
Quote:
It depends on what exactly you need....
You are not only paying for the saline of course, but for the 10 min it takes a doctor to diagnose you as needing one, and the 10 minutes it takes nurses to diagnose it. Plus overhead.
That's way more expensive than you'd think.
Nope, if you get a line item list of your bill you will see how overpriced everything is. Paying for a doctors time is one thing, paying ten bucks for a bandaid is another. They price gouge everything then complain about people not paying.
No Craps Given
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,570 |
Quote:
For free? Or is someone paying for it?
The argument was that it was too much of a burden on him - he is not paying for it.
Quote:
Let's see, you have insurance through work, but it costs you $250 per month. But your g.f. doesn't have it through work, but it costs her about half of $400 per month? If you have it through work, and she doesn't - how does it cost you MORE per month than it does her? Maybe I'm not following along.
It doesn't cost me anything (through work) - but I know the amount that my work pays for it - because the money is paid out of a grant, which pays the university to pay my health care -- so I know what amount gets subtracted. I also have vision/dental, and she does not.
Quote:
Neat. So, the insurance company is just going to be nice and pay the rest? Or will tax money go to pay for it. Oh, that's right - they get money back in a tax break.
I have an ex wife that got money back in a "tax break".......meaning she got back almost $5000 per year MORE than she paid in. That's not a tax break - that's welfare. That is money that comes from somewhere, namely, people that actually pay taxes.
The last argument was that health care was too expensive for the individual, and now your argument is that it's too much welfare -- which is the story?
Quote:
Let me ask you this: The whole problem with health care is not who has it and who doesn't. Even if it was - this bill doesn't even address THAT - all it does is say 'you WILL have it or else'. Couldn't afford it before? CAn't afford it now? Well, now you'll pay a tax if you don't get it..........you can't afford it, so you pay a tax???? Makes no sense to me.
Oh, we'll give you tax breaks to get it. Most of the people that didn't have it to begin with weren't actually paying taxes. Sure, taxes may have come out of their check - but at the end of the year, they got most of it back - if not all of it and then some.
These two paragraphs contradict each other.
Quote:
It won't be too terribly long before your job says "we can't afford to offer health insurance any longer".
There is a part in the bill that addresses this: The "offer insurance or pay $2000 per employee in taxes for not providing it." The bill further adds that that specific tax will increase in subsequent years.
Again, these two paragraphs contradict each other - costs don't increase for employers who are already paying health insurance. Show me a cost/benefit curve that explains to me why adding a tax onto "not doing something" causes more people to "not do it". That's not how numbers work.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
well, if you take that article at face value, it suddenly doesn't sound nearly as daunting as it did before, but they don't talk about the costs in terms of increased taxes and there in lies the problem. I do like this part the best however... Quote:
If You Are a Small Business Owner
Obamacare requires businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health insurance. If you have fewer than 100 employees, you can shop for insurance in state-run exchanges in 2014 that should provide cheaper alternatives than are available now. If you refuse to provide insurance, you will be fined $2,000 per employee for all but the first 20 employees. However, businesses with 25 employees or less who provide insurance can qualify for a tax credit (35% now, 50% in 2014). If you have fewer than 50 employees, you don't have to pay a fine if your workers get tax credits through an exchange. If you offer health insurance as a benefit to early retirees 55-64, you can get Federal financial assistance. Find out how at ERRP. For more resources to help small businesses comply with Obamacare.
Now we are having a bad year and as such, we have under 50 employees in one company and under 5 in another.( oddly, the one with under 5 is way more profitable,, I know,, strange but true, (high pricing, low overhead will do that)
the plan we put in place last year should, unless things change, cover us if we go over 50 people, but I'd have no problem if we get big enough, raising my pricing and joining a state program. I might be (depending on details) Ok with that.
So much yet is unknown but for the moment, the thing I hate most about obamacare is the requirement that you have to buy insurance. they are making some help available to those that can't afford it as outlined by the article, but we all know, it's not free, the money has got to come from somewhere.. and you can bet that's were taxes come into play.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
If they want to fix the healthcare system they need to address the actual problem: costs are spiraling out of control. The answer is not to force consumers or employers to pay for these costs. The answer is to regulate the industry with regards to costs. Everyone with their hand in the pot. If you get sick, everyone involved in treating you wants to tack on their couple hundred dollars. The ins companies, the hospitals, the doctors, the drug companies, the pharmacies......everyone. And by the time it gets to the consumer the cost is so outrageous as to be unrealistic. All those people need to quit their price gouging and their excuses for doing it. One simple example.... One of my meds cost 500 bucks at walgreens, but at walmart it costs 130 for the exact same thing. Walmart doesnt need to price gouge so they dont. Why does walgreens get to jack up the bill by hundreds on one order?
No Craps Given
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,945
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,945 |
Quote:
Quote:
It won't be too terribly long before your job says "we can't afford to offer health insurance any longer".
There is a part in the bill that addresses this: The "offer insurance or pay $2000 per employee in taxes for not providing it." The bill further adds that that specific tax will increase in subsequent years.
Again, these two paragraphs contradict each other - costs don't increase for employers who are already paying health insurance. Show me a cost/benefit curve that explains to me why adding a tax onto "not doing something" causes more people to "not do it". That's not how numbers work.
Here's how numbers work - from a business standpoint: Using your example of the $250 per month for health insurance that a grant pays for you to be covered. (and by the way - $250 a month for health insurance is darn cheap.)
But, a business can pay your $250/month - or $3000 per year. OR, they can not offer insurance and pay the $2000 penalty.
What are they likely to do? They're likely to say "screw it - we'll pay the penalty/tax". You? Well, then you yourself have to go out and get coverage out of your pocket. And buying it yourself, you'll be lucky to get it for even $750 a month.
See - you HAVE to have health insurance now. If your employer doesn't pay it - they get fined/taxed - but you still have to get it, or you get taxed.
Next year, the penalty for the business goes up. To what, I don't know - say $3000 per employee. It's still a wash for the company, so they don't offer it.
The following year, the tax goes up even higher - and the jobs go............where? Over seas. Now, for you specifically, maybe your job won't - but for the avg working joe - their job disappears to Mexico - or Asia. But, the avg working joe still needs to have health insurance or get taxed.
Will that happen to everyone? No. But I have a feeling it will happen to enough people that we'll be screwed even more than we are now.
Taxes WILL go up - not just the "lack of health care tax", but the taxes on those that still have jobs.
Now - my understanding - and I may be wrong here - but the fed. gov't. is going to decrease medicare payments to the states. How do you suppose that money is going to be made up?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
If they want to fix the healthcare system they need to address the actual problem: costs are spiraling out of control. The answer is not to force consumers or employers to pay for these costs. The answer is to regulate the industry with regards to costs. Everyone with their hand in the pot.
OH NO YOU DIDN"T JUST SAY THAT LOL
You want the government to regulate the health industry? hell, it's already happening. Insurance companies negotiate rates that they will pay for various procedures..
I had a kidney removed,, My insurance company sent me the bill showing that it was for about 40k. I had to pay 2500 or something like that. The final total was 22k. meaning that the insurance company actually paid something like 19.5k
The insurance companies have taken over health care. they are dictating how long a person can stay in the hospital for each procedure..
I don't know about you, but if given the choice between the Doctor, Insurance company or the government telling me what I need... I'd want the doctor.
what so you suggest the hospitals do with the indigent that come in via the ER and pay nothing? how is that cost paid for?
Regulation isn't the answer by the Federal Govrnement
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Universal Healthcare Ruling at
10am Today
|
|
