We were all lied to. The affordable care act is not going to be affordable. I'm learning that my health insurance is going up by as much as 200-300%. Everyone else I've talked says the same thing. I won't be able to afford a 300% increase.
Welcome to the world of socialism, hon.
From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs.
- Barack Marx
I'm with you baby! It is set up like social security and we all know that's failing. I mean, using the young to finance the old is an exact copy of social security. How in the world are they going to fund both? By the way, good morning sister. :)
Quote from: Tatyana on October 05, 2013, 08:41:09 AM
We were all lied to. The affordable care act is not going to be affordable. I'm learning that my health insurance is going up by as much as 200-300%. Everyone else I've talked says the same thing. I won't be able to afford a 300% increase.
As in anything in life it cost money. But seems many fail to see it is the first time ever that the LGB and yes T are protected and can get insurance that will pay for things and not get discriminated against. Also there is the medicaid part that will help many, many transgender people being most of them are below the poverty level.
There is also subsidies to those of lower income tax brackets.
Is it the best. NO. can it be better, YES.
It could be like Canada/England health care and you could not find a PCP doctor and wait months for appointments for anything. Oh everyone says oh Canada is free, let me tell you it cost way more out of our pocket then what it would cost in the states. My endo is always 6-8 months out to get my appointments.
Maybe it is time for the american people to take the country back and make there own term limits. That is the trouble with our goverment, to many that have carte blanche on the senete and congress. Ever wonder why they will no put term limits in? Oh who is still getting a pay check through all this shut down stuff? Last on this point the republicans are still mad they never could get a AHA of there own and will do anything to see this fail.
Lots of luck. You need to really look into the policies and also see if you get help from the goverment in tax credits.
Izzy
What's wild is our Constitution tells us to throw off our non functioning government and place new vanguards for our future.
Quote from: Jessica Merriman on October 05, 2013, 09:57:28 AM
What's wild is our Constitution tells us to throw off our non functioning government and place new vanguards for our future.
We can go back in time even further ... to the founding of the country, based on these principle:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Oh dear.... this again.
I'm surprised that Barack Obummer hasn't been impeached yet, he sure seems to be making a mess of things and pissin' a lot of people off
As a person living in France where absolutely everyone has obligatory medical insurance with contribution levels directly linked to salary up to a certain maximum (a similar system exists in pretty well all the European countries) , and where poor people basically have completely free medical coverage, the debate on this subject in the US is something of a mystery.
How can a country that is as rich as the US think that it is OK for somewhere in the region of 20 million people to have no health insurance, people whose only "fault" most of the time is simply to have been born into poor circumstances or to find themselves stuck in low paying jobs that provide no medical insurance?
I am far from being a fan of Karl Marx but with health care representing about 12% of GNP here versus around 17% in the U.S. and waiting times for most things beyond really exceptional procedures generally very short, it is hard to conclude that the "free market" system as practised in the U.S. is providing anyone with better value for money than what we get here .
All down to differences in perception about fairness I guess...
Donna
Oh well, I'll go enjoy the fact that I have health care because of this evil socialist law and have everyone tell me what a terrible free loader I am, despite them not knowing what I have contributed to my society and government. I suppose I should of been more happy with 10,000 dollars in debt rather than getting on my parents insurance. At least, I wouldn't be a socialist. Besides, what would I know about healthcare given that almost my entire family has made their living in the medical field.
It's getting annoying. There is a more nuanced discussion to be had then evil law and president or amazing bill and perfect solutions. It's neither.
Quote from: V M on October 05, 2013, 10:10:57 AM
I'm surprised that Barack Obummer hasn't been impeached yet, he sure seems to be making a mess of things and pissin' a lot of people off
Why should he be impeached? If you want a parliamentary system with a vote of no confidence, perhaps, but I'd like to see why the Affordable Care Act is a sufficient reason for impeachment. Besides, he sort of won a huge mandate in the 2012 election and the bill passed democratically, even if everyone wants to get upset and call him a dictator. Seriously, there are midterm elections coming up and a presidential election in 2016 for you to take the power back. No need to overthrow democracy.
Quote from: Donna E on October 05, 2013, 10:18:50 AM
As a person living in France where absolutely everyone has obligatory medical insurance with contribution levels directly linked to salary up to a certain maximum (a similar system exists in pretty well all the European countries) , and where poor people basically have completely free medical coverage, the debate on this subject in the US is something of a mystery.
How can a country that is as rich as the US think that it is OK for somewhere in the region of 20 million people to have no health insurance, people whose only "fault" most of the time is simply to have been born into poor circumstances or to find themselves stuck in low paying jobs that provide no medical insurance?
I am far from being a fan of Karl Marx but with health care representing about 12% of GNP here versus around 17% in the U.S. and waiting times for most things beyond really exceptional procedures generally very short, it is hard to conclude that the "free market" system as practised in the U.S. is providing anyone with better value for money than what we get here .
All down to differences in perception about fairness I guess...
Donna
Even Sarkozy was at a loss when he heard the American reaction and he is no socialist.
Quote from: learningtolive on October 05, 2013, 10:09:30 AM
Oh dear.... this again.
Yes, when you finally get out on your own and become financially responsible you will learn to balk at the idea of supporting and army of willful deadbeats that refuse to support themselves and prefer to live as parasites off the hard won gains of others. Of course there is a need for a social safety net for the disabled and disadvantaged among us, but at the current rate of abuse this country is bound to collapse under the weight of it's economic obligations, and when that happens those who mindlessly parrot what their Marxist mentors at university have taught them will see the light and change their tune albeit too late.
Quote from: Shantel on October 05, 2013, 10:24:34 AM
Yes, when you finally get out on your own and become financially responsible you will learn to balk at the idea of supporting and army of willful deadbeats that refuse to support themselves and prefer to live as parasites off the hard won gains of others. Of course there is a need for a social safety net for the disabled and disadvantaged among us, but at the current rate of abuse this country is bound to collapse under the weight of it's economic obligations, and when that happens those who mindlessly parrot what their Marxist mentors at university have taught them will see the light and change their tune albeit too late.
Thanks for the compliment Shantel.
I am one of those who the ACA will actually help. I have no income despite having training in veterinary medicine. I am too young for Medicare or Medicaid. I have no healthcare, but I do have my medicine covered.
As the only industrialized country that does not have a national healthcare, the United States is behind the times. And why? Because the insurance and drug companies don't want it, because they will loss profits. Healthcare costs to the general public will go up, because these companies don't wish to loss money. They are punishing their customers for having to cover the ACA.
This country is in a mess because of the amount of money that corporations have spent to keep it that way. Yes it is time to take this country back and set it up as it was.
I'm a deadbeat who just got a job and is helping their mother save our childhood home. Thanks. And no my mentors aren't marxists. It's insulting that you make such terrible assumptions about me and also hurtful.
Quote from: Shantel on October 05, 2013, 10:24:34 AM
Yes, when you finally get out on your own and become financially responsible you will learn to balk at the idea of supporting and army of willful deadbeats that refuse to support themselves and prefer to live as parasites off the hard won gains of others. Of course there is a need for a social safety net for the disabled and disadvantaged among us, but at the current rate of abuse this country is bound to collapse under the weight of it's economic obligations, and when that happens those who mindlessly parrot what their Marxist mentors at university have taught them will see the light and change their tune albeit too late.
It amazes me that people think the government is still the right group for the job of deciding who gets social assistance and who doesn't. They follow simple, robotic, impersonal protocols and yet are still extremely inefficient at doing anything. Give bigger tax breaks to people and corporations who donate to NGOs that actually have the ability to do the job that the government is so useless at. Maybe I'm just crazy....
Quote from: Shantel on October 05, 2013, 10:24:34 AM
Yes, when you finally get out on your own and become financially responsible you will learn to balk at the idea of supporting and army of willful deadbeats that refuse to support themselves and prefer to live as parasites off the hard won gains of others. Of course there is a need for a social safety net for the disabled and disadvantaged among us, but at the current rate of abuse this country is bound to collapse under the weight of it's economic obligations, and when that happens those who mindlessly parrot what their Marxist mentors at university have taught them will see the light and change their tune albeit too late.
Well, that safety net exists. There is not a person in the United States that can be legally turned away from a public hospital.
The question in this case is whether another gigantic bureaucracy, and drain on a already bankrupt polity, is the essence of of good government, or whether the government has finally become destructive and despotic.
Each and every one of us already owes the creditors of the United States over $50,000. I would like it if the Federal government would no longer borrows money in my name.
Quote from: <3 on October 05, 2013, 10:36:16 AM
It amazes me that people think the government is still the right group for the job of deciding who gets social assistance and who doesn't. They follow simple, robotic, impersonal protocols and yet are still extremely inefficient at doing anything. Give bigger tax breaks to people and corporations who donate to NGOs that actually have the ability to do the job that the government is so useless at. Maybe I'm just crazy....
I think governments are just useless period. ;)
Quote from: learningtolive on October 05, 2013, 10:28:06 AM
Thanks for the compliment Shantel.
There was no intent to insult you LtL, you know I care for you as well as everyone else here, I'm just dealing with reality. Our nation's leadership on both sides of the political spectrum continues to squander the nation's wealth giving away billions in money borrowed from China and elsewhere to enemy nations that have vowed to destroy us, pissing away billions on grants for ridiculous studies and continues to print money with virtually nothing to back it like pre-war Germany. Perhaps once this trend stops then we might be solvent enough to consider a national health care program, but even that would require a much bigger slice of each individual's income. Personally I wouldn't care to have upwards of 70% of my income taxed the way they stick it to some people in Europe just so that some non-working person can have health care.
I'm leaving this topic. If you want the law overturned, win an election. Get control of both houses and the presidency. Show that you don't have the majority and enforce it. Instead of simply complaining about democracy and your lack of power, win the election next time. It's funny how people quote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence yet mock the entire principal of democratic elections.
I appreciate all views but I make a point to support everyone here without making it personal. I've made a point to be friends with everyone from different backgrounds. However, I ask those who are older to consider some things. Try being a recent college grad in this economy and tell me what it's like. Try having a degree in an oversaturated market that doesn't want to even hire people for entry level jobs. Try sending close to 1,000 resumes with few call backs. Don't insult what you haven't been through because it's no longer the same market. It's not easy getting a simple job nowadays and it isn't the fault of everyone young. We didn't make the mess, but we are the ones who suffer for the sins of our elders. I'm lucky to have found something and grateful because I know just how hard it is out there.
Quote from: learningtolive on October 05, 2013, 10:55:46 AM
I'm leaving this topic. If you want the law overturned, win an election. Get control of both houses and the presidency. Show that you don't have the majority and enforce it. Instead of simply complaining about democracy and your lack of power, win the election next time. It's funny how people quote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence yet mock the entire principal of democratic elections.
I appreciate all views but I make a point to support everyone here without making it personal. I've made a point to be friends with everyone from different backgrounds. However, I ask those who are older to consider some things. Try being a recent college grad in this economy and tell me what it's like. Try having a degree in an oversaturated market that doesn't want to even hire people for entry level jobs. Try sending close to 1,000 resumes with few call backs. Don't insult what you haven't been through because it's no longer the same market. It's not easy getting a simple job nowadays and it isn't the fault of everyone young. We didn't make the mess, but we are the ones who suffer for the sins of our elders. I'm lucky to have found something and grateful because I know just how hard it is out there.
That is exactly what happened in the Congressional elections of 2010. A reaction to the excesses of unchecked federal largesse.
What were the sins of your elders? I would say, excessive and unsustainable social spending. And that really has not been bipartisan, at least not for the past 80 or so years. The Federal Government has a remarkable limited role it should be playing.
1) form a more perfect Union,
2) establish Justice,
3) insure domestic Tranquility,
4) provide for the common defence,
5) promote the general Welfare, and
6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
That's about it. And I'll add ...
7) operate within its means
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 05, 2013, 10:42:22 AM
Well, that safety net exists. There is not a person in the United States that can be legally turned away from a public hospital.
Unless it is a life threatening condition, they tell you to see your family doctor and give you a speech about not using the ER as a clinic.
I had near emergency gall bladder surgery and am so grateful the hospital waved the bill. The doctors bill seperate, so now I am in debt and my credit is ruined.
Rosa
I'm leaving this topic too. I hate it when we try and have a conversation and everyone gets their panties in a wad over something that was said and take it as a personal affront. I'm not the most delicate person when it comes to wording my thoughts, but I really get upset thinking that I have hurt someone else's feelings being so blunt. My apologies to LtL, no personal insult was intended even if it was an insultingly honest line of thought on my part.
To be fair, the Affordable Care Act is not socialist - it isnt even a single payer system. One of the biggest problems with US healthcare is the ton of money that big business makes at our expense, especially insurance companies. If all that money went directly to healthcare ...
Just wanted to add one last thing.
I respect everyone's views. None of us will see one thing alike. I may have gotten to heated in the argument and apologize for that. I'm usually more level headed and don't attempt to cause any form of distress for anyone here. After all, this is like a family to me. So, please leave my past comments alone and don't reply to them. Some were to passionate and emotionally responsive.
Just please try to understand that things aren't quite the same for the youth of today. There is so much difficulties involved to just get a simple job, pay the rent, and afford the cost of living. These are bad times. We may disagree about the source of this, but we should all acknowledge that it is hard nowadays. My new job won't give me benefits and I'll have to remain on my mom's insurance until I find something better. However, the economy is hard and any job should be seen as a good investment until things improve. It's what we face and yet we are constantly seen as freeloaders because of something we didn't cause. That's why it's a bit upsetting.
In any event, I'm moving on.
P.S. Shantel, of course I accept your apology. And in turn I apologize to anyone I may or may not have offended or upset.
I so agree, LTL. I am in the same boat as you.
The facts of humans has always been the RICh get richer on the Backs of the poor. Always has been, always will. Most forget thats why there was a American Revolutionary War.
Special intrest groups spend lots of money for one reason only, they bet back 3 folds.
Izzy
Quote from: Jessica Merriman on October 05, 2013, 08:49:44 AM
I'm with you baby! It is set up like social security and we all know that's failing. I mean, using the young to finance the old is an exact copy of social security. How in the world are they going to fund both? By the way, good morning sister. :)
Good morning or afternoon now to you too. I'm really frightened for my future with this law. I just turned 25 and new to the work force so I don't make a lot of money right now. How am I and others in my situation suppose to pay for other peoples healthcare.
Quote from: mind is quiet now on October 05, 2013, 09:55:06 AM
As in anything in life it cost money. But seems many fail to see it is the first time ever that the LGB and yes T are protected and can get insurance that will pay for things and not get discriminated against. Also there is the medicaid part that will help many, many transgender people being most of them are below the poverty level.
There is also subsidies to those of lower income tax brackets.
Is it the best. NO. can it be better, YES.
It could be like Canada/England health care and you could not find a PCP doctor and wait months for appointments for anything. Oh everyone says oh Canada is free, let me tell you it cost way more out of our pocket then what it would cost in the states. My endo is always 6-8 months out to get my appointments.
Maybe it is time for the american people to take the country back and make there own term limits. That is the trouble with our goverment, to many that have carte blanche on the senete and congress. Ever wonder why they will no put term limits in? Oh who is still getting a pay check through all this shut down stuff? Last on this point the republicans are still mad they never could get a AHA of there own and will do anything to see this fail.
Lots of luck. You need to really look into the policies and also see if you get help from the goverment in tax credits.
Izzy
Give it time and we'll have the waiting lists and not enough doctors just like Canada and Europe. Doctors are getting out of healthcare because of this law and young people are not going into healthcare. All that equates to doctor shortage and long waits.
Quote from: learningtolive on October 05, 2013, 10:09:30 AM
Oh dear.... this again.
Sorry, I seemed to have opened a can of worms. But now that I have let the games begin.
Quote from: Donna E on October 05, 2013, 10:18:50 AM
As a person living in France where absolutely everyone has obligatory medical insurance with contribution levels directly linked to salary up to a certain maximum (a similar system exists in pretty well all the European countries) , and where poor people basically have completely free medical coverage, the debate on this subject in the US is something of a mystery.
How can a country that is as rich as the US think that it is OK for somewhere in the region of 20 million people to have no health insurance, people whose only "fault" most of the time is simply to have been born into poor circumstances or to find themselves stuck in low paying jobs that provide no medical insurance?
I am far from being a fan of Karl Marx but with health care representing about 12% of GNP here versus around 17% in the U.S. and waiting times for most things beyond really exceptional procedures generally very short, it is hard to conclude that the "free market" system as practised in the U.S. is providing anyone with better value for money than what we get here .
All down to differences in perception about fairness I guess...
Donna
Well rest assured the US will not be a wealthy and powerful nation for long. However China will and that's more frightening than Obamacare.
Quote from: Tatyana on October 05, 2013, 12:17:02 PM
Sorry, I seemed to have opened a can of worms. But now that I have let the games begin.
I responded quite emotionally in this thread, so I retract some of my past posts that were seen as combative or unfriendly, even if I was standing up for what I believe. Enjoy your discussion as it is your right to bring it up and sorry if I have caused anyone unintentional grief. I shouldn't have intruded like I did; it's not something I am proud of. Again, I would ask everyone to please leave my past statements in this thread out of the rest of the conversation this because I'd rather not be the source of any conflict on the site and don't like how I carried myself and the tone of my commentary. Thanks.
Tatyana, you are just giving voice to reason. You heard all of the propaganda touting how great this would be, and now you have seen the personal impact. Your standard of living is going to necessarily drop, because of strong arm politics. I have 3 kids, out own their own, +/- 3 years your age. I feel very bad for them and the burden you all are being asked to carry.
And it is a burden - an unfair inter-generational burden that will only get worse if it is not stopped dead in its tracks now.
The essence of slavery, Lincoln said, was expressed in the proposition "You work; I'll eat." Upon his election as president, he was besieged by office seekers who drove him to distraction. Lincoln was blunt in his judgment of the great majority of them: They wanted to eat without working. Lincoln saw the demand for the protection of slavery and the demand for government sinecures to be at bottom one and the same. The origin of all constitutional rights, according to Lincoln, was the right that a man had to own himself, and therefore to own the product of his own labor. Government exists to protect that right, and to regulate property only to make it more valuable to its possessors.
- Claremont Institute (https://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.485/pub_detail.asp)
This graph shows what I mean:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fea%2FCBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png%2F800px-CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png&hash=4620b6a034ad138ca6e3401aba83e66b371c2c5b)
We need the leadership that existed in 1997 to 2001. Federal spend of the levels of 2009 to 2012 can not be sustained. The madness must stop.
Quote from: learningtolive on October 05, 2013, 12:28:59 PM
I responded quite emotionally in this thread, so I retract some of my past posts that were seen as combative or unfriendly, even if I was standing up for what I believe. Enjoy your discussion as it is your right to bring it up and sorry if I have caused anyone unintentional grief. I shouldn't have intruded like I did; it's not something I am proud of. Again, I would ask everyone to please leave my past statements in this thread out of the rest of the conversation this because I'd rather not be the source of any conflict on the site and don't like how I carried myself and the tone of my commentary. Thanks.
LtL is such a sweetie, we all have different opinions based on our own experiences and understanding of the world and how things work or don't work, so it's easy to become passionate about things. Let me encourage all of us to tread lightly with each other because what we are discussing here will go on in spite of how we feel about it and there is little if anything we can say here that will change it. I for one don't want to be banned from Susan's for arguing about things that none of us have any control over.
I don't see you, Shantel, or anyone else getting banned for stating their opinion about this. Indeed, you and I are both old enough to remember these words ...
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself....
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.
I imagine John Kennedy is rolling in his grave today, at the antics of his successor. Our duty, as good citizens, is to make our feelings known.
Quote from: Shantel on October 05, 2013, 10:24:34 AM
Yes, when you finally get out on your own and become financially responsible you will learn to balk at the idea of supporting and army of willful deadbeats that refuse to support themselves and prefer to live as parasites off the hard won gains of others. Of course there is a need for a social safety net for the disabled and disadvantaged among us, but at the current rate of abuse this country is bound to collapse under the weight of it's economic obligations, and when that happens those who mindlessly parrot what their Marxist mentors at university have taught them will see the light and change their tune albeit too late.
Could not have said it better myself. Great reply!
Quote from: mind is quiet now on October 05, 2013, 11:44:01 AM
The facts of humans has always been the RICh get richer on the Backs of the poor.
Izzy
That's a lie that has been told so many times that people blindly accept it as the truth but it's simply not true. The poor have nothing. You can't get rich off people who have nothing to take. Further, the poor are mostly uneducated and unskilled. Pretty hard to exploit that. The truth is that wealth has done more for poor people than anything by providing jobs.
I feel like I have no problem paying extra for helping someone on the streets get better health care. The of good health care is preventative care, taking care of somebody before they get really sick, and if they are uninsured, it costs the hospitals to take care of them. As a health care worker, I see too many people who are insured going to the emergency room, using up all their resources, when it should be used for the critically ill. I feel that this country does have democrasy as pointed out by LTL, and I think that in the end we need to do something to fix this failing health care system.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 05, 2013, 12:36:58 PM
Tatyana, you are just giving voice to reason. You heard all of the propaganda touting how great this would be, and now you have seen the personal impact. Your standard of living is going to necessarily drop, because of strong arm politics. I have 3 kids, out own their own, +/- 3 years your age. I feel very bad for them and the burden you all are being asked to carry.
And it is a burden - an unfair inter-generational burden that will only get worse if it is not stopped dead in its tracks now.
The essence of slavery, Lincoln said, was expressed in the proposition "You work; I'll eat." Upon his election as president, he was besieged by office seekers who drove him to distraction. Lincoln was blunt in his judgment of the great majority of them: They wanted to eat without working. Lincoln saw the demand for the protection of slavery and the demand for government sinecures to be at bottom one and the same. The origin of all constitutional rights, according to Lincoln, was the right that a man had to own himself, and therefore to own the product of his own labor. Government exists to protect that right, and to regulate property only to make it more valuable to its possessors.
- Claremont Institute (https://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.485/pub_detail.asp)
This graph shows what I mean:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fea%2FCBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png%2F800px-CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png&hash=4620b6a034ad138ca6e3401aba83e66b371c2c5b)
We need the leadership that existed in 1997 to 2001. Federal spend of the levels of 2009 to 2012 can not be sustained. The madness must stop.
Oh yes I was in collage during his campaign and Obama was practically given God status. You didn't dare question him or you could expect the wrath. I admit I got caught up in all the hype and did vote for him. Now I regret that vote.
Quote from: Tatyana on October 05, 2013, 02:27:26 PM
That's a lie that has been told so many times that people blindly accept it as the truth but it's simply not true. The poor have nothing. You can't get rich off people who have nothing to take. Further, the poor are mostly uneducated and unskilled. Pretty hard to exploit that. The truth is that wealth has done more for poor people than anything by providing jobs.
Ok let me sloooww this down for you some. The Rich on the backs of the working poor get richer and the poor keeps getting more poor to pay for what the rich do not pay in fair taxes. It has been this way from the start. Normal people just keep working for the man, and the man does everything it can do to keep the person under there thumb.
I am sorry you do not like the AHA. It has already did so much help for our community and i am sorry how people wish to
>-bleeped-< in there own beds just because of lack in understanding the whole picture.
As i said earlier, is it the best, NO, but does it help our transgender community way more the the average Joe, YES.
I did not vote for obama, i have voted republican every election. But it does not stop me from looking at thing in there content. The republicans are so upset they could not ever get a health plan passed when they had control. Yes look back they had control of both the house and the senate. They left special interest rule the party and nothing ever happened to help the people. Now they went the legal route and tried to get it over turned by the US supreme court. That failed. Now they are holding everyone in the states hostage just to keep people who really need the help not get it.
Izzy
Thats my 2 cents worth and last i will post. Look at what this offers the community and i am for what will help others not suffer. I have compassion for those who are discriminated with every single day. This now gives them a little hope if the republicans do not yank the rug out from under them once again.
edit after thoughts
For those interested in looking at a dispassionate presentation of what the "Affordable Care Act" will and will not do, the following article from this week's edition of The Economist might be of interest:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587216-centrepiece-barack-obamas-health-reforms-opened-business-week-its-success (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587216-centrepiece-barack-obamas-health-reforms-opened-business-week-its-success)
The Economist, by the way, is not exactly a standardbearer of Marxist thinking.
Hugs
Donna
P.S. I got it wrong in my first contribution to this thread, it would appear nearly 50m American's are uninsured .... ???
The 50.7 million uninsured stat is somewhat misleading, as many of those are healthy young adults who would rather invest their earnings than waste it on unneeded health insurance premiums.
Obamacare's funding model relies on younger, healthier Americans overpaying for insurance in order to subsidize older, sicker people. One can make the argument that this form of generational redistribution is fair and moral, but that's not how the law was sold. Everyone -- including the young -- were promised that their coverage would be less expensive, and that if they were satisfied with their existing healthcare arrangement, it wouldn't change at all. Now that these promises are being laid to waste, many people in the "young invincibles" cohort may decide that it isn't worth signing up for the law's expensive coverage -- especially since they must be treated at hospitals if something goes wrong, then sold "insurance" if they develop a pre-existing condition. Paying the IRS-enforced Obamacare mandate tax would be far cheaper than voluntarily shelling out for Obamacare's rising premiums.
Uh Oh: 36 Percent of Uninsured Americans "Do Not Plan" to Seek Coverage Through Obamacare (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/10/03/uh-oh-36-percent-of-uninsured-americans-do-not-plan-to-seek-coverage-through-obamacare-n1715447)
Back to Tatyana's original point - we were lied to.
Can someone summaries the arguments for and against in a non-emotional way
I'm having problems getting to the root source of the argument.
I've lived all my life in countries that have universal health care so I'm a bit mystified by what is going on, but the impasse is affecting me through my investments.
Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 04:43:26 AM
Can someone summaries the arguments for and against in a non-emotional way
I'm having problems getting to the root source of the argument.
I've lived all my life in countries that have universal health care so I'm a bit mystified by what is going on, but the impasse is affecting me through my investments.
Cindy,
The difference between the two is that in universal health care it is funded by the government and they are the health care provider,whereas this is where people are mandated by law to have insurance,whether it is paid for by an individual or the work place.
Quote from: SarahM777 on October 06, 2013, 04:58:02 AM
Cindy,
The difference between the two is that in universal health care it is funded by the government and they are the health care provider,whereas this is where people are mandated by law to have insurance,whether it is paid for by an individual or the work place.
Ahh but most countries universal health care comes from compulsory contribution! I pay, I think 2.5% of my salary for 'free' health care. What is the difference?
Can we focus on something less controversial like abortion, capital punishment or politics? :icon_blink:
Whoops I shall disappear back to the Australian landscape!
Anyone know a bad boomerang joke?
Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 05:06:03 AM
Ahh but most countries universal health care comes from compulsory contribution! I pay, I think 2.5% of my salary for 'free' health care. What is the difference?
Cindy,
Living in another country with "free" universal health care, I also pay 2,25% of my salary on health insurance but my employer pays 12,8% so the total contribution amounts to 15% of my employment costs.
To get a non-partisan view of the the whole subject, the Economist article I posted the link to is excellent. It is well worth noting that the remarkable inefficiency of the existing system in the U.S. means that health care costs as a % of national wealth are much higher there than in any other comparable country around the world. However as a large part of the US population has no idea how this is managed in other parts of the world and that there are huge vested interests in keeping them ignorant or even deliberately misinformed on the subject , you arrrive at the situation described in the article, an undoubtedly messy reform.
However, the "antis" have so far proposed nothing rather than maintaining a status quo which is still very expensive yet excludes millions from anything other than emergency coverage.
Mind boggling stuff for a neutral observer but, since politics in the US has become pretty mind boggling anyway, I guess there is little hope of any sort of reasoned debate on the subject any time soon.
Hugs
Donna
P.S. To those who are against the idea of healthy young people paying into a common pot that insures coverage for all when it is required, the basic principle behind any sort of insurance system, are you against insurance in general?
Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 05:06:03 AM
Ahh but most countries universal health care comes from compulsory contribution! I pay, I think 2.5% of my salary for 'free' health care. What is the difference?
I never said that what you have is free. Is that 2.5% across the board for all? Is it more as a tax? Here we are being forced to BUT A PRODUCT. Here you also have to contend with state laws in how some of the federal programs are run. Insurance is one of them. Even within the same state you can have one county in which you will have multiple providers,the next county over you may have only one. One of the quirks in the law is how the state runs medicare. I live in WI. They are removing many people off of it. Once you hit 100% of the poverty level you will no longer be able to be on it (It's called Bagercare) but the law is written that you will only be able to be get help with paying the premiums when you hit 133% of the poverty level if you are under they it seems they assumed the states would expand or keep the people that are under the 133% on medicare. (I am on the border line in being in that doughnut hole only because they factor in that I am self employed and I pay ALL of the social security taxes)
Two if you have medicare it does not mean a doctor will see you. Many of the doctors here are no longer taking medicare patients. One of the quirks of insurance. If doctor A does not take insurance plans A,C and D they do not have see you unless it's an emergency. Some of the insurance companies will NOT cover certain procedures across state lines. There you have a single provider who sets what is covered and what is not,here we have multiple layers of red tape as to what is covered,when it is covered etc etc.
Sorry for an ignorant reply. Isn't it time the whole mess was federalised and a uniform policy put in place?
Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 05:56:11 AM
Sorry for an ignorant reply. Isn't it time the whole mess was federalised and a uniform policy put in place?
Cindy,
How you could possibly suggest such a thing, that is socialisssssmmmmmm! >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-) >:-)
Hugs
Donna
Oh dear!
I thought it was practicalism.
Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 06:24:05 AM
Oh dear!
I thought it was practicalism.
So do I but neither you nor I have been sufficiently exposed to the core values of the founding fathers of the nation to understand how profoundly un-American such practicalism would be and the fact that we live in a far more complex society now than they did back in the late 18th century has no bearing on any of this ... ;)
As you said, oh dear!!!
Donna
Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 05:56:11 AM
Sorry for an ignorant reply. Isn't it time the whole mess was federalised and a uniform policy put in place?
It's not a problem Cindy. It's just our system of government and it doesn't always make sense to us or let alone those looking from the outside.
See what most people never get is that it is the very insurance they have that is the cause of the high price of health care. They can trace the beginning of health care going up,the more that is covered that higher that the insurance costs,the higher the services cost,all because you have to have people to process the PAPER WORK. Complete coverage is the most expensive form of insurance coverage. Insurance is NOT really designed to do that. Insurance is really meant to cover the things that one can not. It cause office visits to be 3 to 4 times the cost WITHOUT insurance for those very same things. Major medical and catastrophic was designed to cover the things that are beyond the means of most people.
How to deal with those who can't afford doctors to begin with could be a simple fix.
Or to break it down another way is to look at it this way,when one has a-z coverage and submits a claim,one is asking the insurance co to PAY the bill. (Because it is covered) The doctor has to have someone to submit that claim to the insurance,the insurance Co has people to process that claim,the insurance also has offices and staff and share holders that all get a piece of that. So instead of a single person paying the bill you have multiple levels of people handling that very same bill. That all costs time,effort and money. It's a very inefficient and expensive way to pay a lower dollar bill. And it is no different with a single payer system. Even in a single payer system it's the paper work that is the killer on costs. The more people handling it,the more expensive it gets and at a must faster rate. It's the nature of having a-z coverage.
Quote from: SarahM777 on October 06, 2013, 06:32:45 AM
It's not a problem Cindy. It's just our system of government and it doesn't always make sense to us or let alone those looking from the outside.
See what most people never get is that it is the very insurance they have that is the cause of the high price of health care. They can trace the beginning of health care going up,the more that is covered that higher that the insurance costs,the higher the services cost,all because you have to have people to process the PAPER WORK. Complete coverage is the most expensive form of insurance coverage. Insurance is NOT really designed to do that. Insurance is really meant to cover the things that one can not. It cause office visits to be 3 to 4 times the cost WITHOUT insurance for those very same things. Major medical and catastrophic was designed to cover the things that are beyond the means of most people.
How to deal with those who can't afford doctors to begin with could be a simple fix.
All the outsiders looking in should just read "The Castle" by Franz Kafka and you'll have a clearer picture.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 06, 2013, 04:02:32 AM
The 50.7 million uninsured stat is somewhat misleading, as many of those are healthy young adults who would rather invest their earnings than waste it on unneeded health insurance premiums.
Obamacare's funding model relies on younger, healthier Americans overpaying for insurance in order to subsidize older, sicker people. One can make the argument that this form of generational redistribution is fair and moral, but that's not how the law was sold. Everyone -- including the young -- were promised that their coverage would be less expensive, and that if they were satisfied with their existing healthcare arrangement, it wouldn't change at all. Now that these promises are being laid to waste, many people in the "young invincibles" cohort may decide that it isn't worth signing up for the law's expensive coverage -- especially since they must be treated at hospitals if something goes wrong, then sold "insurance" if they develop a pre-existing condition. Paying the IRS-enforced Obamacare mandate tax would be far cheaper than voluntarily shelling out for Obamacare's rising premiums.
Uh Oh: 36 Percent of Uninsured Americans "Do Not Plan" to Seek Coverage Through Obamacare (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/10/03/uh-oh-36-percent-of-uninsured-americans-do-not-plan-to-seek-coverage-through-obamacare-n1715447)
Back to Tatyana's original point - we were lied to.
Yes that 50M number consists mostly of young adults. Being 25 I can tell you that I don't need to be wasting a lot of money on expensive insurance plans. I do have insurance through my employer but it's cheap due to my age. However if they didn't offer insurance I wouldn't feel the need for it. So yes that number is very misleading.
Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 04:43:26 AM
Can someone summaries the arguments for and against in a non-emotional way
I'm having problems getting to the root source of the argument.
I've lived all my life in countries that have universal health care so I'm a bit mystified by what is going on, but the impasse is affecting me through my investments.
The problem with the affordable care act is that they rushed it through so fast they didn't have enough time to think it through. They just through something together real quick and gave it a fancy name. That's why it's a disaster. Healthcare is complicated. They should have taken at least a year to design this law.
Quote from: Tatyana on October 06, 2013, 08:55:31 AM
The problem with the affordable care act is that they rushed it through so fast they didn't have enough time to think it through. They just through something together real quick and gave it a fancy name. That's why it's a disaster. Healthcare is complicated. They should have taken at least a year to design this law.
I can still hear Nancy Pelosi with that bizarro world look on her face saying, "Just sign it and we'll see what it says later!" I can't write what I'd really like to say about that kind of moronic mentality lest I bring down a host of alphabet agencies on myself and Susan's...MEH!
Quote from: Donna E on October 06, 2013, 03:38:47 AM
For those interested in looking at a dispassionate presentation of what the "Affordable Care Act" will and will not do, the following article from this week's edition of The Economist might be of interest:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587216-centrepiece-barack-obamas-health-reforms-opened-business-week-its-success (http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587216-centrepiece-barack-obamas-health-reforms-opened-business-week-its-success)
The Economist, by the way, is not exactly a standardbearer of Marxist thinking.
Hugs
Donna
P.S. I got it wrong in my first contribution to this thread, it would appear nearly 50m American's are uninsured .... ???
The sad truth is that health care is too expensive to provide to everyone who either can't afford it or who simply don't want it. It's a great idea but it's not practical. This is why socialism always fails.
When are people going to realize that if you keep voting for the same 2 parties over and over and over and over and over again nothing is going to change. Its just mental. You don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Well you do, but only because everyone else thinks exactly the same thing. It's just bizarre. How bad do things have to get before something really changes?
Quote from: Shantel on October 06, 2013, 09:03:18 AM
I can still hear Nancy Pelosi with that bizarro world look on her face saying, "Just sign it and we'll see what it says later!" I can't write what I'd really like to say about that kind of moronic mentality lest I bring down a host of alphabet agencies on myself and Susan's...MEH!
I feel for you Shantel if I had Nancy Pelosi's annoying voice inside my head I'd probably go insane. :icon_raving:
Quote from: Donna E on October 06, 2013, 05:37:16 AM
Cindy,
[SNIP]
Hugs
Donna
P.S. To those who are against the idea of healthy young people paying into a common pot that insures coverage for all when it is required, the basic principle behind any sort of insurance system, are you against insurance in general?
The principle behind insurance is shared risk of a payout among those who participate by paying premiums into the pool. Young people have a relatively low risk of health problems, relative to older people. They should be able to exercise their right to stay out of the insurance pool, and assume any risk on their own.
It turns out the so-called "Affordable Care Act," is neither affordable, nor will it provide quality care (especially if doctors refuse to provide service).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7dDSgbaQ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAt54NKsRRk
I certainly don't wish to comment on this specific act as it is way outside my jurisdiction.
Here the law came in that young people could opt out -BUT - they then would have to pay higher premiums when they joined.
But we also have a comprehensive private insurance market that many people use, but you still have to pay a % of income for the public system.
I'm more interested on a theoretical discussion of what would work world wide, rather than the possibly emotive present discussion.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 05, 2013, 10:42:22 AM
Well, that safety net exists. There is not a person in the United States that can be legally turned away from a public hospital.
The question in this case is whether another gigantic bureaucracy, and drain on a already bankrupt polity, is the essence of of good government, or whether the government has finally become destructive and despotic.
Each and every one of us already owes the creditors of the United States over $50,000. I would like it if the Federal government would no longer borrows money in my name.
Where do you get the idea that
no one can be turned away from a public hospital?! You are invoking the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985. It
does not say a patient cannot be turned away regardless of ability to pay.No one can be denied treatment in cases of where
life is threatened; however, politicians working contrary to public interest can be quite adept at redefining what is considered "life threatening".
Don't believe me, go visit the ER in an economically disadvantaged area. Watch someone
die with your own eyes of hyperkalemia brought on by Diabetic Renal Failure... You might change your mind on Universal Health Care.
The ACA is not perfect; but, I'll take it as a step in the correct direction. Eventually single-payer healthcare will be instituted in the US.
That's right, people can not be denied emergency care based on the ability to pay. Beyond the federal mandate, individual states may provide various levels of indigent care.
http://dls.state.va.us/GROUPS/COPN/meetings/111406/IndigentCare.pdf
COPN = Certification of Public Need
One of the biggest problems with socialized medicine is that it give individuals little impetus to take care of themselves. Diabetic renal failure is entirely preventable by lifestyle changes, especially for those with Type II (pre-)diabetes. A lot of this is about individual responsibility versus the nanny state.
The context of my statement, of course, was in reply to whether a social safety net existed. It does.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 07, 2013, 01:37:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7dDSgbaQ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAt54NKsRRk
All blatant lies perpetrated through outright deceit! There it is, what additional evidence does anyone need?
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 07, 2013, 04:04:42 AM
That's right, people can not be denied emergency care based on the ability to pay. Beyond the federal mandate, individual states may provide various levels of indigent care.
http://dls.state.va.us/GROUPS/COPN/meetings/111406/IndigentCare.pdf
COPN = Certification of Public Need
One of the biggest problems with socialized medicine is that it give individuals little impetus to take care of themselves. Diabetic renal failure is entirely preventable by lifestyle changes, especially for those with Type II (pre-)diabetes. A lot of this is about individual responsibility versus the nanny state.
The context of my statement, of course, was in reply to whether a social safety net existed. It does.
So the millions of people who are forced to subsist on highly processed food, or the segment of the population that is forced to combine multiple carbohydrates to construct a complete protein are
completely at fault for their Dx?! Or does genetics have no factor in the incidence of DM in the population...?
Nevermind that there are millions of people forced into unhealthy lifestyles because they are paid $7.25/hr. They are
free to starve but
not free to organize. If you are all about freedom, then every right-to-work-for-less-money law should be struck down so every worker would be free to form or join a union.
That's not a safety net, that is a joke... and a bad one at the expense of the working poor at that!
I think Soylent Green is the answer to nutrition.
Quote from: Antonia J on October 07, 2013, 09:39:14 AM
I think Soylent Green is the answer to nutrition.
+1 :icon_peace:
Here's what else I fear. The government taking premiums out of our pay checks when they figure out that people are just paying the tax or not paying the tax and going without insurance.
Quote from: Tatyana on October 07, 2013, 11:09:50 AM
Here's what else I fear. The government taking premiums out of our pay checks when they figure out that people are just paying the tax or not paying the tax and going without insurance.
UMM that is why they attached it the IRS. Next year if you don't have insurance the fine is about $95 or a percentage up to $285 which is greater. The next year the fine is greater and each year the fine will go up till it reaches $685 plus a percentage of income.
And there is a catch on that fine,it does NOT go towards your health care.
Quote from: SarahM777 on October 07, 2013, 12:26:08 PM
UMM that is why they attached it the IRS. Next year if you don't have insurance the fine is about $95 or a percentage up to $285 which is greater. The next year the fine is greater and each year the fine will go up till it reaches $685 plus a percentage of income.
Currently the fine has no teeth i,e, there is no criminal penalty so a lot of people will not even pay the fine. So the government will either have throw people in jail, not very likely, or take it out of our pay. I hope I'm wrong though.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 07, 2013, 01:37:35 AM
The principle behind insurance is shared risk of a payout among those who participate by paying premiums into the pool. Young people have a relatively low risk of health problems, relative to older people. They should be able to exercise their right to stay out of the insurance pool, and assume any risk on their own.
There is a major difference between health insurance and insurance against other forms of risk, just about everyone will need health care at some point in their lives. As it happens, about 80% of expenditure on health care occurs during the last 20 years of most poeple's lives.
If we took your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, the only people who would have a real incentive to pay for health insurance are those who are hitting their sixties or seventies but that wouldn't really work either, would it? Of course, pushing the utilitarian logic to the bitter end, we could also just let old people die as soon as their health starts to become an issue, no?
Also, just making another anology, do you think drivers should be allowed to have or not have car insurance based on their own evaluation of their needs?
Hugs
Donna
P.S. Last little detail, there is absolutely no evidence to support your idea that people are less careful about their life style choices and their impact on health in countries with universal health care than in the US. On the contrary as it happens, as you are probably aware, from enfant mortality rates to diabetes and heart disease (health issues closely related to obesity) , the US scores far worse than any comparable country in spite of a much higher proportion of national wealth being devoted to health expenditure. It does however beg questions on who really benefits from the existing system, the people in general or the health care "industry" ??
Quote from: Yukari-sensei on October 07, 2013, 09:09:32 AM
So the millions of people who are forced to subsist on highly processed food, or the segment of the population that is forced to combine multiple carbohydrates to construct a complete protein are completely at fault for their Dx?! Or does genetics have no factor in the incidence of DM in the population...?
Nevermind that there are millions of people forced into unhealthy lifestyles because they are paid $7.25/hr. They are free to starve but not free to organize. If you are all about freedom, then every right-to-work-for-less-money law should be struck down so every worker would be free to form or join a union.
That's not a safety net, that is a joke... and a bad one at the expense of the working poor at that!
I ask myself, what did my ancestors do? They worked to change their circumstances. No free person is "forced" into an unhealthy lifestyle, or "forced" to eat unhealthy food. Eating healthy is less expensive than eating unhealthy. Healthful recreation is free.
The difference, it seems, is some have the ability to exercise their free will and make positive changes. Sometimes those changes are hard. Sometimes they are inconvenient. But if you want to change your circumstances in life, I can't think of a better place to do it.
Quote from: Donna E on October 07, 2013, 05:32:36 PM
There is a major difference between health insurance and insurance against other forms of risk, just about everyone will need health care at some point in their lives. As it happens, about 80% of expenditure on health care occurs during the last 20 years of most poeple's lives.
If we took your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, the only people who would have a real incentive to pay for health insurance are those who are hitting their sixties or seventies but that wouldn't really work either, would it? Of course, pushing the utilitarian logic to the bitter end, we could also just let old people die as soon as their health starts to become an issue, no?
Also, just making another anology, do you think drivers should be allowed to have or not have car insurance based on their own evaluation of their needs?
Hugs
Donna
P.S. Last little detail, there is absolutely no evidence to support your idea that people are less careful about their life style choices and their impact on health in countries with universal health care than in the US. On the contrary as it happens, as you are probably aware, from enfant mortality rates to diabetes and heart disease (health issues closely related to obesity) , the US scores far worse than any comparable country in spite of a much higher proportion of national wealth being devoted to health expenditure. It does however beg questions on who really benefits from the existing system, the people in general or the health care "industry" ??
It is not necessarily an "either/or" proposition. Businesses realize it is to their benefit to have a healthy work force, which is why integrated managed care consortiums, such as Kaiser-Permanente, were formed. And Kaiser-Permanente, like similar organizations, is operated as a "non-profit," so that their outlays approximate their intake. And it is voluntary. One can opt out.
What is the profit motivation of a non-profit that negotiates payment rates with its member physicians?
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 05, 2013, 12:36:58 PM
Tatyana, you are just giving voice to reason. You heard all of the propaganda touting how great this would be, and now you have seen the personal impact. Your standard of living is going to necessarily drop, because of strong arm politics. I have 3 kids, out own their own, +/- 3 years your age. I feel very bad for them and the burden you all are being asked to carry.
And it is a burden - an unfair inter-generational burden that will only get worse if it is not stopped dead in its tracks now.
The essence of slavery, Lincoln said, was expressed in the proposition "You work; I'll eat." Upon his election as president, he was besieged by office seekers who drove him to distraction. Lincoln was blunt in his judgment of the great majority of them: They wanted to eat without working. Lincoln saw the demand for the protection of slavery and the demand for government sinecures to be at bottom one and the same. The origin of all constitutional rights, according to Lincoln, was the right that a man had to own himself, and therefore to own the product of his own labor. Government exists to protect that right, and to regulate property only to make it more valuable to its possessors.
- Claremont Institute (https://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.485/pub_detail.asp)
This graph shows what I mean:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Fea%2FCBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png%2F800px-CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP.png&hash=4620b6a034ad138ca6e3401aba83e66b371c2c5b)
We need the leadership that existed in 1997 to 2001. Federal spend of the levels of 2009 to 2012 can not be sustained. The madness must stop.
The Clermont Institute ...as if it was an unbiased source of facts...just look at their membership...
http://www.claremont.org/about/pageID.286/default.asp
For example the Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. experts at manipulating everything to the benefit of whoever pays them...
In their own words: "Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. has over twenty years of experience assisting clients facing complex civil litigation. Our firm is led by Ph.D. social scientists who specialize in the psychology of courtroom persuasion. Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. offers a variety of professional services in addition to trial strategy development, including jury selection, witness preparation, shadow juries and post-trial jury interviews. Our clients are primarily Fortune 500 companies, but we have also worked with government agencies and non-profit organizations."
http://www.mattsonsherrod.com/
Currently I think the rates are too high for people with low income to people and expecting to pay a fine is ridiculous too. And enforcing the rules is not practical at large scale
Quote from: peky on October 07, 2013, 07:22:14 PM
The Clermont Institute ...as if it was an unbiased source of facts...just look at their membership...
http://www.claremont.org/about/pageID.286/default.asp
For example the Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. experts at manipulating everything to the benefit of whoever pays them...
In their own words: "Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. has over twenty years of experience assisting clients facing complex civil litigation. Our firm is led by Ph.D. social scientists who specialize in the psychology of courtroom persuasion. Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. offers a variety of professional services in addition to trial strategy development, including jury selection, witness preparation, shadow juries and post-trial jury interviews. Our clients are primarily Fortune 500 companies, but we have also worked with government agencies and non-profit organizations."
http://www.mattsonsherrod.com/
Welcome back, Peky. The source of these data is clearly shown: historical data through 2012 and CBO estimates through 2021. There really isn't much that can be argued about these historical data. Nice try though.
Beyond Obamacare glitches, some consumers face dramatically higher rates (http://news.yahoo.com/beyond-obamacare-glitches-consumers-face-dramatically-higher-rates-212141638.html)
Christian Science Monitor | Linda Feldman
* As Obamacare begins to roll out, some people who already buy insurance on the individual market are getting cancellation notices – and offers for coverage at double and triple their old rates.
Problems with the main Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov, have dominated headlines since the site opened for business on Oct. 1.
But another problem is surfacing: Some consumers who have been buying their own insurance are getting cancellation notices – and offers for insurance at dramatically higher rates.
There are multiple reasons this is happening. First, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) sets minimum standards for benefits, including mental-health and substance-abuse treatment, maternity care, prescription drugs, and rehabilitative care, which were not included in many of the old plans. Also, insurance companies are now required to take all comers, regardless of their health status, and so rates are rising to cover their costs as well.
Not quite Nirvana, is it? We are seeing market forces come into play. And those who secretly wrote and politicked for this travesty of a law, left us out on purpose.
Full article at the link, above.
Hey there
So forgive me if this was already asked, but what specifically does the Affordable Care Act cover for trans people? I have been told by many people that apparently it will be harder to discriminate against trans folks, and that there will be coverage for trans related health care, but I have been having an extremely hard time finding out what exactly that means. Basically, is SRS covered by ACA and if only some aspects of this process are covered, what are they?
Links are also greatly appreciated!!
Quote from: mythy on October 08, 2013, 11:41:00 PM
Hey there
So forgive me if this was already asked, but what specifically does the Affordable Care Act cover for trans people? I have been told by many people that apparently it will be harder to discriminate against trans folks, and that there will be coverage for trans related health care, but I have been having an extremely hard time finding out what exactly that means. Basically, is SRS covered by ACA and if only some aspects of this process are covered, what are they?
Links are also greatly appreciated!!
I think it just means they can't deny you coverage based on your gender or gender identity. If I remember correctly their was no law saying that insurance companies couldn't deny your claim based on your gender. So insurance companies was using that loophole to deny all kinds of claims saying that transitioning was to blame. Like I heard a transwoman broke her leg and the insurance company used her being trans as to the reason why she broke her leg thus denying the claim. And actually I don't think ACA actually makes insurance companies cover SRS your kinda out of luck there.
DEMOCRATS TO AMERICA: WE OWN THE GOVERNMENT! (http://news.yahoo.com/democrats-america-own-government-223010441.html)
uexpress | Ann Coulter
In the current fight over the government shutdown, Republicans are simply representing the views of the American people.
Americans didn't ask for Obamacare, they don't want it, but now their insurance premiums are going through the roof, their doctors aren't accepting it, and their employers are moving them into part-time work -- or firing them -- to avoid the law's mandates.
Contrary to Obama's promises, it turns out: You can't keep your doctor, you can't keep your insurance -- you can't even keep your job. In other words, it's a typical government program, but this one wrecks your health care.
Also, the president did raise taxes on the middle class in defiance of his well-worn campaign promise not to. Indeed, Obamacare is the largest tax hike in U.S. history.
Full OpEd at the link
Quote from: mythy on October 08, 2013, 11:41:00 PM
Hey there
So forgive me if this was already asked, but what specifically does the Affordable Care Act cover for trans people? I have been told by many people that apparently it will be harder to discriminate against trans folks, and that there will be coverage for trans related health care, but I have been having an extremely hard time finding out what exactly that means. Basically, is SRS covered by ACA and if only some aspects of this process are covered, what are they?
Links are also greatly appreciated!!
SRS is not covered, but some states are
trying to make provisions to ensure HRT is covered. Unfortunately the right wing media picked up on it and has been blasting the idea. There were some horrible comments there about the transgendered community in the comments thread. >:(
There are some things it does ensure and here are the links...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-cahill/the-affordable-care-act-real-benefits-for-lgbt-people_b_3867921.html
http://www.thenation.com/article/169391/what-affordable-care-act-means-transgender-people#
http://cooperproject.org/lgbt-health-disparities-and-the-affordable-care-act/
http://transgenderequality.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/whats-in-the-health-care-marketplace-for-trans-people/
A side note on one of the positives that is not discussed very often by hospitals (I wonder why ;)) is under the ACA hospitals are graded on patient satisfaction. Green is best, yellow means improvement is necessary, and red means unacceptable. Hospitals will not only have their JCAHO certification downgraded/reviewed, but compensation for Medicare and Medicaid patients will be downgraded until their satisfaction reaches adequate levels...
In my geographic area only one hospital was green and two are yellow. The rest were red. I can name 13 hospitals off the top of my head... and if that is all of them, 77% are unacceptable :o No wonder the storm from hospitals about the ACA ::)
There is alot of room for improvement, don't you think?
I just heard that starting January 1, 2014 employer paid health insurance will be Federally taxed as ordinary income. I do not know this to be true or false. Does anyone know if employer paid health care will become ordinary income?
I pay $125.00 per week now toward health benefits and my employer pays about $250.00 per week (about $12,000 per year) is there a "Cadillac" plan that is taxable? What is that?
I pay $125.00 per week for therapy in addition to $125.00 per week for health care or about $12,000 per year. So my out of pocked now is $12,000 per year and employer is $12,000 per year. Will I pay an additional $4,000 per year if taxed on the employer contribution for a total of $16,000 per year my cost?
Quote from: Cynthia Michelle on October 13, 2013, 07:50:12 PM
I just heard that starting January 1, 2014 employer paid health insurance will be Federally taxed as ordinary income. I do not know this to be true or false. Does anyone know if employer paid health care will become ordinary income?
I pay $125.00 per week now toward health benefits and my employer pays about $250.00 per week (about $12,000 per year) is there a "Cadillac" plan that is taxable? What is that?
I pay $125.00 per week for therapy in addition to $125.00 per week for health care or about $12,000 per year. So my out of pocked now is $12,000 per year and employer is $12,000 per year. Will I pay an additional $4,000 per year if taxed on the employer contribution for a total of $16,000 per year my cost?
"Largest tax increase" in the history of the world. This is pathetic.
Quote from: Cynthia Michelle on October 13, 2013, 07:50:12 PM
I just heard that starting January 1, 2014 employer paid health insurance will be Federally taxed as ordinary income. I do not know this to be true or false. Does anyone know if employer paid health care will become ordinary income? ATM FALSE
I pay $125.00 per week now toward health benefits and my employer pays about $250.00 per week (about $12,000 per year) is there a "Cadillac" plan that is taxable? What is that?
I pay $125.00 per week for therapy in addition to $125.00 per week for health care or about $12,000 per year. So my out of pocked now is $12,000 per year and employer is $12,000 per year. Will I pay an additional $4,000 per year if taxed on the employer contribution for a total of $16,000 per year my cost?
If they ever change the law it will most likely be on higher wage earners. Its something that congress might do to get more money for them to .iss away.
Izzy
Thank you. I checked a few sources and the tax starts as ordinary income on employer plans over $25,000 per year.
I recently switched health plans and have $600 deductible in network and $800 out of network. However, they are supposed to cover Trans* therapy 80% after the deductible. I just submitted my 1st form for reimbursement. I hope I am covered.
This thread is fantastic! Jamie, Shantel, Tatyana and the rest of you girls, you bring a tear to my eye :'( *hugs*
Here is some news from my part of the country:
"Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.
Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.
Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four." San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area)
Or this tiny dose of reality from a Daily Kos "diarist":
"My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.
Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.
I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any
>-bleeped-<ing penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?
Oh, ok, if we qualify, we can get some government assistance. Great. So now I have to jump through another hoop to just chisel some of this off. And we don't qualify, anyway, so what's the point?
I never felt too good about how this was passed and what it entailed, but I figured if it saved Americans money, I could go along with it.
I don't know what to think now. This appears, in my experience, to not be a reform for the people.
What am I missing?
I realize I will probably get screamed at for posting this, but I can't imagine I am the only Californian who just received a rate increase from Kaiser based on these new laws." link (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/30/1242660/-Obamacare-will-double-my-monthly-premium#)
Quote from: Thatcher"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
All I can say to anyone who voted in favor of "Hope and Change" is how is it working for you? We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg so far, harsh reality is only just beginning to set in. It's no longer a single party blame game either, the entire system is totally corrupt leaving me with a feeling that we are like steerage class passengers aboard the Titanic!
Well we could have had single payer healthcare instead, but some people thought that wasn't star spangled"free" enough.
Compulsory consumption is a sign of capitalism btw, not socialism... If it actually were socialist (most people really don't understand what they mean when they use that term)or at least Republican (political philosophy not the political party!) it would have been much cheaper... but insurance companies are people too... or so some people claim, and it would have left them out in the cold if we went single payer...
No one has mentioned that the young and old with pre existing conditions can now get insurance. The excluding of sick people is a failure of our current health system. Even young healthy people can get a terrible disease.
Samantha
Quote from: Red Leicester on October 14, 2013, 05:32:56 PM
"Largest tax increase" in the history of the world. This is pathetic.
It is far worse than imaginable.
They are about to give amnesty to the estimated 11-30 million illegal aliens in the USA, and let them bring in their immediate and extended family so another 50 million of the poorest people from Mexico, Central and South America , and give them free health care.
None of this gets to the root of the problem, that doctors and hospitals charge way too much for just about everything they do. There's no reason SRS, for example, should cost anywhere near what it costs. There's also no reason why spending a night in the hospital should cost anymore than spending the night in a Holiday Inn. They justify this with stupid accounting tricks costing in the MRI machine and other expensive equipment, that are not even used or needed for most people. Why not just make that illegal, and maybe your hospital doesn't need an MRI machine, and maybe go after the manufacturer of MRI machines, because they are probably overcharging as well. The public good really would be served best with all health care companies being required to become non-profit agencies, and cutting out the insurance industry all together, because why should they get a cut at all?
Quote from: VeronicaLynn on October 21, 2013, 05:44:19 PM
None of this gets to the root of the problem, that doctors and hospitals charge way too much for just about everything they do. There's no reason SRS, for example, should cost anywhere near what it costs. There's also no reason why spending a night in the hospital should cost anymore than spending the night in a Holiday Inn. They justify this with stupid accounting tricks costing in the MRI machine and other expensive equipment, that are not even used or needed for most people. Why not just make that illegal, and maybe your hospital doesn't need an MRI machine, and maybe go after the manufacturer of MRI machines, because they are probably overcharging as well. The public good really would be served best with all health care companies being required to become non-profit agencies, and cutting out the insurance industry all together, because why should they get a cut at all?
I disagree. Competition and greed lead to improving technology, procedures, and better doctors.
Quote from: <3 on October 21, 2013, 05:47:15 PM
I disagree. Competition and greed lead to improving technology, procedures, and better doctors.
The inner libertarian in me agrees, but there is not competition in the current system, or under Obamacare. You go to what hospital the ambulance takes you to. For something less urgent, you go to whatever clinic your insurance has a contract with, or you have to pay with your own money. This is not competition. If you want true competition, health insurance would have to be banned entirely, then people would shop around somewhat, but would still have go to whatever hospital the ambulance takes you to if you have a medical emergency.
Quote from: VeronicaLynn on October 21, 2013, 05:57:16 PM
The inner libertarian in me agrees, but there is not competition in the current system, or under Obamacare. You go to what hospital the ambulance takes you to. For something less urgent, you go to whatever clinic your insurance has a contract with, or you have to pay with your own money. This is not competition. If you want true competition, health insurance would have to be banned entirely, then people would shop around somewhat, but would still have go to whatever hospital the ambulance takes you to if you have a medical emergency.
I mostly agree. What's wrong with privatized insurance though or private non-profit-help-the-people-that-can't-afford-better-healthcare organizations?
Mainly that you have to be in their network, rather than choose the doctor you think is best. Plus, why does there have to be some middle man that takes a cut? Healthcare, in general, would be cheaper if there was not a middle man. Doctors would also have to charge less, if most people just walked out of their offices when they saw the prices, just like what happens at a restaurant that tries to charge $100 for a hamburger.
Quote from: Yukari-sensei on October 17, 2013, 09:26:35 AM
Well we could have had single payer healthcare instead, but some people thought that wasn't star spangled"free" enough.
"If You Think Health Care is Expensive Now -- Just Wait Until it's Free." - P.J. O'Rourke
Quote from: amZo on October 21, 2013, 06:47:01 PM
"If You Think Health Care is Expensive Now -- Just Wait Until it's Free." - P.J. O'Rourke
I read PJ O'Rourke, he's funny, very witty, but not a doctor, a nurse, or an economist. He's a little too out of his depth to be basing policy on his opinion, regardless of how funny it is.
All things considered, given how much people lament the state of healthcare is in the US, I fail to see how government run health care could be any worse. Anything is a step up when you are at the bottom and don't delude yourself, among industrialized nations... that's where we are in healthcare... "Lions being led by asses".
Quote from: Yukari-sensei on October 21, 2013, 09:36:42 PM
I read PJ O'Rourke, he's funny, very witty, but not a doctor, a nurse, or an economist. He's a little too out of his depth to be basing policy on his opinion, regardless of how funny it is.
All things considered, given how much people lament the state of healthcare is in the US, I fail to see how government run health care could be any worse. Anything is a step up when you are at the bottom and don't delude yourself, among industrialized nations... that's where we are in healthcare... "Lions being led by asses".
So far government run anything has turned into a huge farce especially this healthcare debacle. Most people who aren't "proles" on the dole resent being forced by any government to buy into something or suffer consequences, it just doesn't happen in a free society. Some in other countries who are paying a 60 - 70% income tax rate may think they are still free, but that's their illusion, we don't want to go there.
Quote from: Yukari-sensei on October 21, 2013, 09:36:42 PM
All things considered, given how much people lament the state of healthcare is in the US, I fail to see how government run health care could be any worse. Anything is a step up when you are at the bottom and don't delude yourself, among industrialized nations... that's where we are in healthcare... "Lions being led by asses".
Actually, prior to obamacare, 80% of the American people were
happy with their current insurance plan. That's an amazingly high number.
I don't have a problem with obamacare or single payer as long as people are free to choose for themselves .... I'm pro-choice. ;) I would like to choose my old insurance plan which I'm losing January 1st with no affordable replacement as of yet.
The Affordable Care Act is the best thing that could happen to America. That's from someone living in the UK! You can't put a price on health.
Quote from: foreversarah on October 22, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
The Affordable Care Act is the best thing that could happen to America. That's from someone living in the UK! You can't put a price on health.
I disagree. I think an Affordable Education Act would be a much better investment.
We don't really know yet what Obamacare is or will be. We'll see.
Quote from: Gina_Z on October 22, 2013, 01:50:30 PM
We don't really know yet what Obamacare is or will be. We'll see.
We don't really know what jumping off a 100 story building is like either, but I still want the option to opt out.
Like the original poster, I've lost my current health plan (something that was 'promised' wouldn't happen) and currently don't have a replacement. I KNOW that much.
Quote from: Gina_Z on October 22, 2013, 01:50:30 PM
We don't really know yet what Obamacare is or will be. We'll see.
Gina are you really Nancy Pelosi incognito? ;D :D
LOL. Yes I still laugh at that Pelosi statement. And yes, most of us do not know exactly what the new system will be. Probably really good for cronies. One thing I'm sure of- I like the idea of covering people with pre-existing conditions. I fear that it will be organized and run by inept Washington bureaucrats.
Quote from: Gina_Z on October 22, 2013, 06:22:32 PM
LOL. Yes I still laugh at that Pelosi statement. And yes, most of us do not know exactly what the new system will be. Probably really good for cronies. One thing I'm sure of- I like the idea of covering people with pre-existing conditions. I fear that it will be organized and run by inept Washington bureaucrats.
I'm with you Gina!
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 05, 2013, 10:42:22 AM
Well, that safety net exists. There is not a person in the United States that can be legally turned away from a public hospital.
The question in this case is whether another gigantic bureaucracy, and drain on a already bankrupt polity, is the essence of of good government, or whether the government has finally become destructive and despotic.
Each and every one of us already owes the creditors of the United States over $50,000. I would like it if the Federal government would no longer borrows money in my name.
Once again, I reiterate.
You can be turned away from a public hospital if you do not have a "life-threatening" condition. Thanks to provisions passed under Bush II, "life-threatening" has been
narrowed in its definition.
The stupidity of this should be obvious to any fiscally concerned citizen... When a treatment becomes life threatening, it becomes VERY EXPENSIVE. For the sake of not providing a $5 anti-biotic and care to a person with a cold, taxpayers end up paying for a $14K case of pneumonia. How does failing to provide prophylactic outpatient care translate to fiscal or civic responsibility? Because the only group to come out ahead in this case are the shareholders in the hospital, who were able to charge more for not providing a much cheaper service earlier...
Quote from: foreversarah on October 22, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
The Affordable Care Act is the best thing that could happen to America. That's from someone living in the UK! You can't put a price on health.
Sadly, yes you can... And that's why the American people pay so much for healthcare while getting so little in return.
Strangely enough for living in a nation that prides itself on improving the ideas from elsewhere, I find it ironic my fellow citizens shy away from the challenge of creating a better public heath system, using as many ideas from demonstrably better systems, to create the best new system possible...
Of course it's easier to hang a few lipton bags from a hat and wave a flag (often times not the national one), than it is to engage in meaningful policy discourse.
Quote from: Yukari-sensei on October 22, 2013, 09:31:54 PM
Sadly, yes you can... And that's why the American people pay so much for healthcare while getting so little in return.
Strangely enough for living in a nation that prides itself on improving the ideas from elsewhere, I find it ironic my fellow citizens shy away from the challenge of creating a better public heath system, using as many ideas from demonstrably better systems, to create the best new system possible...
Of course it's easier to hang a few lipton bags from a hat and wave a flag (often times not the national one), than it is to engage in meaningful policy discourse.
Yet in order for your approach to work, all other options have to be banned. Why? I would think if socialized healthcare is so much better, i.e., cheaper and better care, its proponents would want them to go head to head with inferior systems. I propose an idea, let's put all blue states in socialized medicine and all red states in a private sector free market based system. Let's then see who's happiest as determined by who begins moving where. I like it and I have zero doubt the result. ;D
Quote from: amZo on October 22, 2013, 10:15:34 PM
Yet in order for your approach to work, all other options have to be banned. Why? I would think if socialized healthcare is so much better, i.e., cheaper and better care, its proponents would want them to go head to head with inferior systems. I propose an idea, let's put all blue states in socialized medicine and all red states in a private sector free market based system. Let's then see who's happiest as determined by who begins moving where. I like it and I have zero doubt the result. ;D
The rich move to the red states for better health care, the poor move to the blue states and their economy crashes?
Quote from: amZo on October 22, 2013, 10:15:34 PM
Yet in order for your approach to work, all other options have to be banned. Why? I would think if socialized healthcare is so much better, i.e., cheaper and better care, its proponents would want them to go head to head with inferior systems. I propose an idea, let's put all blue states in socialized medicine and all red states in a private sector free market based system. Let's then see who's happiest as determined by who begins moving where. I like it and I have zero doubt the result. ;D
OK and while we are at it, let's make certain all blue state money stays in blue states... Mississippi will be the first state economy to crash... and need to be bailed out by the Feds...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/11/states-federal-taxes-spending-charts-maps
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelpinto/2987025203/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union
Maybe we should find the best plan and all stick to it? No plan is a bad plan I might add...
Motherjones and the Economist? Really?
No plan is a bad plan? Did Detroit have a good plan?
I'm curious why the obsession over taking people's choices and freedoms away. It leads to the situation the original poster shared, she can't afford this. That makes me angry. All this is so unnecessary.
Forcing people into 'one-way' ultimately leads to building a fence around your nation to keep people in while giving freedom and many choices ultimately leads to building a fence around your nation to keep people out. Find you a good history book on the 20th century, it' very illuminating.
Oy vey........................
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme" - Mark Twain
Quote from: foreversarah on October 22, 2013, 01:31:57 PM
The Affordable Care Act is the best thing that could happen to America. That's from someone living in the UK! You can't put a price on health.
ACA will require electronic health records be maintained by a private firm.
I would be concerned if I was transitioning and planning to use ACA.
The federal government is not known for keeping its electronic records secure.
I have tried to stay out of this topic but I am compelled to say a few things.
I honestly fell that everyone should have access to affordable healthcare not just the priviledged.
Many like myself work hard everyday but simply cannot afford health ins. even though I am in excellent health.
The ACA (O'Bamacare) is far from perfect but could have been made better if republican's actually helped instead of derail it from the beginning. Afterall, it was the republicans' concept initially and remember Mitt Romney (a republican) did the same thing in Mass. while he was governor and to my knowledge worked/is working just fine.
Why many republican's even hate LGBT people and some even feel that we are sinners and will go to hell.
I am a lifelong democrat/liberal and have no shame whatsoever and IMHO O'Bama is doing a fine job considering the mess he was left after GWB screwed our country up and started 2 unfunded wars, (Iraq was never a threat to anybody) and lots of tax dollars were wasted) Halibuton (Cheneys' old company and others made out like bandits
GWB also responsible for Medicare part D (unfunded) and tax breaks for the wealthy (like the wealthy need breaks?). Large company's put a ghost office overseas just to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, how American is that?
People complain about those that abuse welfare but what about the rich who use every means possible to avoid paying taxes? Some are legal and some are questionable or even downright illegal.
Quote from: michelle gee on October 23, 2013, 06:28:30 PM
The ACA (O'Bamacare) is far from perfect but could have been made better if republican's actually helped instead of derail it from the beginning. Afterall, it was the republicans' concept initially and remember Mitt Romney (a republican) did the same thing in Mass. while he was governor and to my knowledge worked/is working just fine.
Why many republican's even hate LGBT people and some even feel that we are sinners and will go to hell.
I am a lifelong democrat/liberal and have no shame whatsoever and IMHO O'Bama is doing a fine job considering the mess he was left after GWB screwed our country up and started 2 unfunded wars, (Iraq was never a threat to anybody) and lots of tax dollars were wasted) Halibuton (Cheneys' old company and others made out like bandits
GWB also responsible for Medicare part D (unfunded) and tax breaks for the wealthy (like the wealthy need breaks?). Large company's put a ghost office overseas just to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, how American is that?
People complain about those that abuse welfare but what about the rich who use every means possible to avoid paying taxes? Some are legal and some are questionable or even downright illegal.
Your argument goes like this .. Republicans screwed up the economy and wasted money .. so what is wrong with the Democrats doing it too ... ? Hehe
It is virtuous to want to pay for the healthcare of the soon to be legal 11-30 million estimated "undocumented" illegal people, and the thereafter, the estimated 50 million family members in their immediate and extended families they will be allowed to bring in, and the 1-2 million of 3rd world people they bring into the U.S. every year.
However, the people that want ACA are not demanding tax increases to help pay for all this.
The people that want ACA want to run up the federal debt and declare bankruptcy later. :'(
Quote from: genderhell on October 23, 2013, 06:58:48 PM
The people that want ACA want to run up the federal debt and declare bankruptcy later. :'(
Be careful, some of us just want healthcare.
Quote from: genderhell on October 23, 2013, 06:58:48 PM
Your argument goes like this .. Republicans screwed up the economy and wasted money .. so what is wrong with the Democrats doing it too ... ? Hehe
The democrats have been trying to clean-up the mess left by the past republicans' administration. Its a slow process since those policy's put us in a recession. The AFC act will in the long run bring down healthcare costs since people will be getting preventative healthcare. http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/myths-and-facts
"The health policy experts and economists who have looked at this legislation have said we are pursuing every possible mechanism to reduce health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office found that health insurance reform will reduce the deficit by $210 billion in this decade and by more than $1 trillion over the following 10 years. And a family of four would save as much as $2,300 on their premiums in 2014 compared to what they would have paid without reform."
Quote from: genderhell on October 23, 2013, 06:58:48 PMIt is virtuous to want to pay for the healthcare of the soon to be legal 11-30 million estimated "undocumented" illegal people, and the thereafter, the estimated 50 million family members in their immediate and extended families they will be allowed to bring in, and the 1-2 million of 3rd world people they bring into the U.S. every year.
It will not be free why do so many people assume all will get free healthcare? Those people are already in the U.S. and can use the emergency rooms presently so we all are paying for it now may as well make them pay some. Besides many republican(hypocrites) owned businesses use Mexican labor!
Quote from: genderhell on October 23, 2013, 06:58:48 PMHowever, the people that want ACA are not demanding tax increases to help pay for all this.
The people that want ACA want to run up the federal debt and declare bankruptcy later. :'(
Bs!
The repubs shut down the govt. because of O'Bamacare how did they work out for them?
Is that good for our country because they obviously don't care about putting people out of work when they don't agree with the with the act that was passed by both houses and upheld by the SCOTUS?
Quote
It's gonna cost them dearly in upcoming elections as the majority of people are blaming republican's.
I don't see much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats. They differ on some social issues. When some Republicans lose then they join Democrats, and vice versa (search google "Democrats becomes Republicans" and "Republicans become Democrat", or even better Wikipedia for "party switching")
Quote from: michelle gee on October 23, 2013, 08:25:47 PM
The Congressional Budget Office found that health insurance reform will reduce the deficit by $210 billion in this decade and by more than $1 trillion over the following 10 years.
The former head of the CBO explained that all the CBO does is take assumptions from Congress, do the analysis, and determine the results. Congress can make wacky assumptions that make no sense, and CBO has to use them in their analysis. He called it, "garbage in, garbage out". Thus, the CBO cannot held as reliable.
I would hope that money could be saved.
However, it makes no sense to me. The federal government is incredibly inefficient. I know, I work for the federal government for that very reason, because they pay enormous salaries and require so little work.
You don't get something for nothing. That is the promise of ACA. Their hopes are pinned that the young people working at low wage, part time jobs will fund ACA by paying for insurance they don't use. That seems silly to me.
QuoteIt will not be free why do so many people assume all will get free healthcare? Those people are already in the U.S. and can use the emergency rooms presently so we all are paying for it now may as well make them pay some. Besides many republican(hypocrites) owned businesses use Mexican labor!
Why do you keep degrading Republicans? Who cares about Republicans. The concern is for the U.S. Republic and when it defaults on the debt.
Right now illegals get emergency services, not full-service health care. There is no comparison. I know Americans without insurance that are told, "don't come back without money".
QuoteThe repubs shut down the govt. because of O'Bamacare how did they work out for them?
Is that good for our country because they obviously don't care about putting people out of work when they don't agree with the with the act that was passed by both houses and upheld by the SCOTUS?
The debt marches on .. 17+ trillion now .. you deny at your own peril .. the correction will be swift when it happens, and brutal to the poor and those that are not ready. Americans will clearly vote themselves into poverty. This is not about political parties. This about the U.S. Republic failing.
Quote from: genderhell on October 23, 2013, 09:45:56 PM
I don't see much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats. They differ on some social issues. When some Republicans lose then they join Democrats, and vice versa (search google "Democrats becomes Republicans" and "Republicans become Democrat", or even better Wikipedia for "party switching")
A conservative is very different from a liberal ya might want to look up the differences.
Some will change parties just to be elected and those are the ones I would be most concerned about. Where does their priorities lie?
Quote from: genderhell on October 23, 2013, 09:45:56 PMThe former head of the CBO explained that all the CBO does is take assumptions from Congress, do the analysis, and determine the results. Congress can make wacky assumptions that make no sense, and CBO has to use them in their analysis. He called it, "garbage in, garbage out". Thus, the CBO cannot held as reliable.
I would hope that money could be saved.
However, it makes no sense to me. The federal government is incredibly inefficient. I know, I work for the federal government for that very reason, because they pay enormous salaries and require so little work.
You don't get something for nothing. That is the promise of ACA. Their hopes are pinned that the young people working at low wage, part time jobs will fund ACA by paying for insurance they don't use. That seems silly to me.
The ACA is not free some will get subsidized depending on income. Those low wage young people you speak of will still be on their parents ins. policy up to age 26 so obviously more wrong info.
I see so much mis-information and propaganda being spread by repubs that many people are believeing them.
The repubs are spending lots $$$ to deceive.
Quote from: genderhell on October 23, 2013, 09:45:56 PM
Why do you keep degrading Republicans? Who cares about Republicans. The concern is for the U.S. Republic and when it defaults on the debt.
Right now illegals get emergency services, not full-service health care. There is no comparison. I know Americans without insurance that are told, "don't come back without money".
I am not downgrading republican's I am speaking the truth....Most of them despise the LGBT (Yes that includes us).All people should be treated equally and lets leave religion out of politics.
Republican's scream about less govt. except when it concerns bringing home the bacon to their states .....the scream for less regualtions on banking, environment (EPA) insurance, consumer protections etc but if not for regualtions our air/water quality would rival China's.
Banking regulations are clearly needed as well as consumer protections.
Emergency care is quite expensive btw! By law noone can be turned away from medical care but that doesn't mean they or we are off the hook for bills...it ends up costing everyone in the long run.
Healthcare costs have been skyrocketeing much faster than the cost of living and something clearly must be done. The republican's had advocated repeal/replace but now its just repeal because they themselves offer no alternatives. Whats up with that?
Quote from: genderhell on October 23, 2013, 09:45:56 PM
The debt marches on .. 17+ trillion now .. you deny at your own peril .. the correction will be swift when it happens, and brutal to the poor and those that are not ready. Americans will clearly vote themselves into poverty. This is not about political parties. This about the U.S. Republic failing.
The debt will be taken care of and one of the first things we should do is take back the tax breaks for the wealthy they surely don't need them and continue to cut spending but not on the backs of the poor by cutting govt. progarms altogether.
It is most certainly about political parties because unless both cooperate together nothing will get done.
Repealing O'Bamacare 40 something times is wasting tax payers money also when it has NO chance of being passed!
What a joke!
If you only criticize Democrats, or if you only criticize Republicans, it means you're being very unobjective. Biased. Maybe brainwashed. :-\
As for the ACA, we do not even know what it is, exactly how it will work, what the costs will be. That's crazy, to implement a gigantic plan without knowing what it is, isn't it? Very dopey endeavor. Why not implement a health plan incrementally, so we can refine it? That would be sensible, but we're talking about the Fed govt., the people who raided our social security fund. There's a computer glitch that keeps people from signing up and I'm supposed to believe it's not something significant. Really? I think it is a foreshadowing of things to come. One last thing- the President does NOT have the POWER to pick and choose what portions of the ACA can be delayed in its implementation. Delaying any aspect of the act, is illegal.
No I am true to my liberal heritage and support a liberal agenda always have always will.
Are democrats perfect, no. Are republican's liberal (perfect)? NO!
That's vague.
I love fiscal Conservatives. I kiss them. :-*
Quote from: <3 on October 22, 2013, 10:18:30 PM
The rich move to the red states for better health care, the poor move to the blue states and their economy crashes?
Yes.... and then the poor move back to the red states for better health care. Just wanted to complete the outcome. ;)
People. Settle down now. No need to get personal. :police:
Quote from: amZo on October 24, 2013, 02:23:32 AM
Yes.... and then the poor move back to the red states for better health care. Just wanted to complete the outcome. ;)
They move back but they still can't afford it.
Quote from: <3 on October 24, 2013, 10:30:42 AM
They move back but they still can't afford it.
What I find fascinating' is, we have millions of Americans losing the health insurance plans that they can afford and like, but most of these very people are now unable to sign up for their replacement plans due to a typical government works website or it's too expensive. This is a mess, I feel like I'm living in an alternate reality were good is bad, right is wrong, and stupid is smart.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html)
Quote from: amZo on October 24, 2013, 01:38:32 PM
What I find fascinating' is, we have millions of Americans losing the health insurance plans that they can afford and like, but most of these very people are now unable to sign up for their replacement plans due to a typical government works website or it's too expensive. This is a mess, I feel like I'm living in an alternate reality were good is bad, right is wrong, and stupid is smart.
The people in government are not stupid. You can't please everyone, so they please the ones that they think will have the most positive effect on what's important to them. That could be power, money, or any number of things.
Quote from: <3 on October 24, 2013, 01:43:24 PM
The people in government are not stupid. You can't please everyone, so they please the ones that they think will have the most positive effect on what's important to them. That could be power, money, or any number of things.
Have you heard Nancy Pelosi? Hank Johnson?
Oh there are a lot of stupid folks at the top of federal government.
The reason this county is becoming more and more divided and citizens are turning on one another is, the government more than ever before is picking winners and losers.
I think the obamacare law and its disastrous implementation is just one example of how incredibly stupid some humans can be. I think voting for a person who has never done anything in their life is another great example.
Quote from: amZo on October 24, 2013, 04:06:43 PM
Have you heard Nancy Pelosi? Hank Johnson?
Oh there are a lot of stupid folks at the top of federal government.
The reason this county is becoming more and more divided and citizens are turning on one another is, the government more than ever before is picking winners and losers.
I think the obamacare law and its disastrous implementation is just one example of how incredibly stupid some humans can be. I think voting for a person who has never done anything in their life is another great example.
Maybe you have a different definition of stupid.
Quote from: amZo on October 24, 2013, 01:38:32 PM
What I find fascinating' is, we have millions of Americans losing the health insurance plans that they can afford and like, but most of these very people are now unable to sign up for their replacement plans due to a typical government works website or it's too expensive. This is a mess, I feel like I'm living in an alternate reality were good is bad, right is wrong, and stupid is smart.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html)
lol I can't argue with you on that assessment of current events.
Quote from: amZo on October 24, 2013, 04:06:43 PM
Have you heard Nancy Pelosi? Hank Johnson?
Oh there are a lot of stupid folks at the top of federal government.
The reason this county is becoming more and more divided and citizens are turning on one another is, the government more than ever before is picking winners and losers.
I think the obamacare law and its disastrous implementation is just one example of how incredibly stupid some humans can be. I think voting for a person who has never done anything in their life is another great example.
What do you mean, you don't fear Guam will tip over and capsize? ;)
Flimsy claims of "I will pay 3x as much" never actually hold up. Moving on.
Flimsy claims of You will pay much less, may never actually hold up. Oh well. It's one big experiment.
Quote from: TiffanyT on October 24, 2013, 11:31:58 PM
What do you mean, you don't fear Guam will tip over and capsize? ;)
Hah :D ;D :laugh: I recall that drug crazed moron congressman pretender saying that, I almost fell through the floor. A sure sign that the end is near!
Quote from: TiffanyT on October 24, 2013, 11:31:58 PM
What do you mean, you don't fear Guam will tip over and capsize? ;)
Not so much, I'm reasonably confident in Guam's buoyancy. ;)
Quote from: Gina_Z on October 25, 2013, 01:10:15 AM
Flimsy claims of You will pay much less, may never actually hold up. Oh well. It's one big experiment.
I hate when big experiments go bad... especially when two gone bad run into one another............. :icon_suspicious:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_CHT7E5NxlXA%2FS3Lm0L0nOaI%2FAAAAAAAAAp0%2FH025ygLJcf0%2Fs320%2Ffranw.bmp&hash=fb9b932d3e6a5840a06ad49e5d3fd250cd522bfc)
Quote from: michelle gee on October 23, 2013, 08:25:47 PM
The democrats have been trying to clean-up the mess left by the past republicans' administration. Its a slow process since those policy's put us in a recession. The AFC act will in the long run bring down healthcare costs since people will be getting preventative healthcare. http://www.whitehouse.gov/healthreform/myths-and-facts
"The health policy experts and economists who have looked at this legislation have said we are pursuing every possible mechanism to reduce health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office found that health insurance reform will reduce the deficit by $210 billion in this decade and by more than $1 trillion over the following 10 years. And a family of four would save as much as $2,300 on their premiums in 2014 compared to what they would have paid without reform."
It will not be free why do so many people assume all will get free healthcare? Those people are already in the U.S. and can use the emergency rooms presently so we all are paying for it now may as well make them pay some. Besides many republican(hypocrites) owned businesses use Mexican labor!
Bs!
The repubs shut down the govt. because of O'Bamacare how did they work out for them?
Is that good for our country because they obviously don't care about putting people out of work when they don't agree with the with the act that was passed by both houses and upheld by the SCOTUS?
What flavor was the Kool-Aid? ROTFLMAO
Let's be open minded. Let's see how Obamacare works out. So far, it looks really really bad. No doubt about that. It could turn around and work, but the administration currently looks inept.
Quote from: Gina_Z on October 27, 2013, 01:02:32 PM
Let's be open minded. Let's see how Obamacare works out. So far, it looks really really bad. No doubt about that. It could turn around and work, but the administration currently looks inept.
That was a most kind understatement Gina!
Kaiser Permanente just cancelled 160,000 policies in California. Another 300,000 policies have be cancelled by a Florida carrier, because they did not meet the Affordable (sic) Care Act guidelines.
In places like Kentucky, over 80% of the enrollees have signed up for Medicare coverage. Young, healthy people are staying away in droves.
What a disaster.
Jamie, Shantel,
While I know this is a debate that is internal to the US, for those of us coming from the vast majority of developed countries where universal obligatory health insurance has been the norm since the end of WWII, it is quite bewildering.
The first steps in setting up Obamacare do indeed look like a mess but rather than a return the status quo doesn't the answer that make the most sense be the imposition of obligatory health insurance for all at either the state or the ferderal level? Unless of course people in the US think it is OK for millions to have nothing other than emergency coverage simply because they had the misfortune to be poor. By the same reasoning, you could also exclude the poor from education and, pushing survival of the fittest to it's ultimate logic, elminate all mutualisation of risk ie. do away with the idea of society. But maybe I am simply misunderstanding something?
Hugs.
Donna
P.S. First time in my life I have felt like a left winger which just goes to show how relative such notions can be.. ;)
I have students who say they cannot afford to see a doctor. Yet they have low-cost (and, for some things, FREE) student health care, and they pay out gobs of money every month for cellular phones that do everything but wash the dirty dishes. Then there are the students who can afford to be seen.
The other week, I asked a FEW students why, when they had suffered injury or illness, they could not get a simple note from campus health services. One guy went into a lengthy and involved explanation that I never could follow, an explanation of why he sought the services of a massage therapist who happens to be a personal friend. These services were not free; he paid a fee. But he never saw a doctor. And why, I asked, did he not also go to campus health, just for the note? Another lengthy excuse.
Another student said that she didn't WANT to use campus health services, but she didn't bother to get a note from her doctor, who was yet another personal friend. She was surprised that I wanted documentation so that I could give her an extension. I told her no note, no extension. She said that she would ask, but she seemed doubtful. I haven't heard back yet.
Another gal told me a very involved story about her regular insurance, which had lapsed without her knowledge, so she couldn't see her regular doctor. She then drove down to Tijuana to a doctor who refused to write a note. When I asked her why she didn't just go to campus health services, she didn't even know what I was talking about. She had no idea that she was covered. She eventually went, but the note she got was useless because she was completely well by then.
Another student came back to school after getting the flu. I asked her if she knew about the free flu shots for students. She didn't get one because she doesn't like needles and is afraid--get this--that the shot will make her sick. Honey, that ship has sailed. Get the damned flu shot. It uses killed virus, for Pete's sake.
I used to work with people at my old job who COULD afford health insurance but chose not to pay for it. They would say that it was too expensive or whatever, but after talking to them, I discovered that they just didn't want to part with the money and were gambling that nothing bad would happen.
I guess my point is that there are a lot of ignorant people out there. My students are covered for some things but don't use the insurance they have. Many of my old coworkers simply chose not to be covered when they COULD afford it. I'm not saying that these two scenarios describe all of the insured or underinsured, but, jeez, get a clue, people.
Quote from: Donna E on October 27, 2013, 04:10:32 PM
Jamie, Shantel,
While I know this is a debate that is internal to the US, for those of us coming from the vast majority of developed countries where universal obligatory health insurance has been the norm since the end of WWII, it is quite bewildering.
The first steps in setting up Obamacare do indeed look like a mess but rather than a return the status quo doesn't the answer that make the most sense be the imposition of obligatory health insurance for all at either the state or the ferderal level? Unless of course people in the US think it is OK for millions to have nothing other than emergency coverage simply because they had the misfortune to be poor. By the same reasoning, you could also exclude the poor from education and, pushing survival of the fittest to it's ultimate logic, elminate all mutualisation of risk ie. do away with the idea of society. But maybe I am simply misunderstanding something?
Hugs.
Donna
P.S. First time in my life I have felt like a left winger which just goes to show how relative such notions can be.. ;)
The concept of anything obligatory and mandated by the government isn't a free world concept, we don't want to be forced to accept the European model. It flies in the face of the reason why people originally emigrated to this continent and continue to come here.
Anything managed by the Federal Government is bound to become bogged down by bureaucratic inefficiencies. The free market is always better suited to run things like health care, because of the principle of competition and the need to return a profit.
And, as a rule of thumb, government programs become increasingly bureaucratic, bloated, and burdensome on the economy. Part of the problems being that elected politicians like to make extravagant, unaffordable promises of government largesse, in hopes of conning enough voters to become elected, or re-elected.
The US federal government is broke. It should not be promising more spending on healthcare or any other social program, but instead, it should be cutting back on entitlements and pork barrel spending.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 27, 2013, 05:45:12 PM
Anything managed by the Federal Government is bound to become bogged down by bureaucratic inefficiencies. The free market is always better suited to run things like health care, because of the principle of competition and the need to return a profit.
And, as a rule of thumb, government programs become increasingly bureaucratic, bloated, and burdensome on the economy. Part of the problems being that elected politicians like to make extravagant, unaffordable promises of government largesse, in hopes of conning enough voters to become elected, or re-elected.
The US federal government is broke. It should not be promising more spending on healthcare or any other social program, but instead, it should be cutting back on entitlements and pork barrel spending.
Plus, one political party (for EXAMPLE the democrats) can't freeze private sector insurance payments via a government shutdown and blame it on the other party (i.e., republicans in this 'non-partisan' example ;) )
This is more than just a LGBTI travesty for those who are happy with their present insurance plan, as evidenced by this 1934 cartoon they have been at it for a long time and it goes way deeper than a nationalized healthcare plan.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fscaled%2Flarge%2F692%2Fhao8.jpg&hash=4f2a68254028a9a84e2d2a4e4382b7f7602f7047) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/692/hao8.jpg/)
Stalin is in the background, but the fellow in the front left I believe to be Trotsky. Henry Wallace, shoveling out the money from the wagon, was the "fellow traveler" Roosevelt chose to be his VP during the third term. America dodged a bullet to the head when Wallace was dumped in 1944 in favor of Truman.
Maybe the whole thing is just a conspiracy to make it look like the government tried to implement a universal health care system but it ended up failing. Its the thought that counts right? Then y'all can just go back to the old way and say hey at least we tried. This is obviously over-simplified, but I just refuse to believe that the government is really that horrible at doing things not on purpose. There's some hidden agenda behind it.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 27, 2013, 05:45:12 PM
Anything managed by the Federal Government is bound to become bogged down by bureaucratic inefficiencies. The free market is always better suited to run things like health care, because of the principle of competition and the need to return a profit.
You mean like the DMV, the postal service, the IRS, and social security? Broke, bureaucratic, incompetent, and subject to politics?
Nah, can't possibly happen! LOL.....
Quote from: <3 on October 27, 2013, 09:21:57 PM
Maybe the whole thing is just a conspiracy to make it look like the government tried to implement a universal health care system but it ended up failing. Its the thought that counts right? Then y'all can just go back to the old way and say hey at least we tried. This is obviously over-simplified, but I just refuse to believe that the government is really that horrible at doing things not on purpose. There's some hidden agenda behind it.
There's a growing chorus of people believing this debacle was on purpose to bring about single-payer. Ya see, it's not all that simple to go back to the 'old way' once it's dismantled.
But the burning question I have is... when our excellent health care system collapses, where will Canadians go in order to avoid those very long waiting lines for life saving medical procedures? Mexico maybe?
Quote from: amZo on October 27, 2013, 11:18:58 PM
There's a growing chorus of people believing this debacle was on purpose to bring about single-payer. Ya see, it's not all that simple to go back to the 'old way' once it's dismantled.
But the burning question I have is... when our excellent health care system collapses, where will Canadians go in order to avoid those very long waiting lines for life saving medical procedures? Mexico maybe?
A little more than half of all Canadians have some sort of private supplemental insurance.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 27, 2013, 11:28:58 PM
A little more than half of all Canadians have some sort of private supplemental insurance.
Unless there's something I don't know about, this is a little misleading. The private insurance that these Canadians have is to cover things not covered by Provincial Health Care, i.e. medications, dental, therapy, etc. There aren't private hospitals (at least that I know of)
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 27, 2013, 11:28:58 PM
A little more than half of all Canadians have some sort of private supplemental insurance.
Well thank goodness eh? Kind of like social security here in the U.S., no one of sound mind relies on it any longer.
Quote from: amZo on October 27, 2013, 11:38:29 PM
Well thank goodness eh? Kind of like social security here in the U.S., no one of sound mind relies on it any longer.
As I said, the health insurance that the majority of Canadians have is never used to replace the Provincial Health Care at all, only to cover what it does not cover itself. Also, Canadians have the same problem with our version of Social Security.
There are many Canadians pushing for a more American style of health care, public health care for everyone and private for those that can afford it. Right now all we have is public.
Interestingly, most people in this part of the world also have some private medical insurance which covers things that are not well covered by the the univeral scheme like "cosmetic" dental care, glasses, private hospital rooms...I think it also worth mentioning that about 30% of hospitals in France are private which means that for many types of medical care, you have a choice between public and private hospitals and, in my experience, waiting has never been an issue. The public insurance also covers the costs of the private hospitals, up to certain pre-set limits, the rest being paid for either out of pocket or through the private medical insurance I mentioned above.
I would yet again like to emphasize that in spite of there being no obvious difference in the quality of medical care provided in the US compared to Europe, the % of national wealth devoted to health care is much higher in the US (17% compared to about 12% on average in Europe) while still excluding millions of people. If this is a demonstation of market efficiency at it's best I think it can be compared to the market efficiency of Wall Street priori to 2008 and we all know where that brought us to. But, I guess for true believers, no counter evidence is ever too much to sway their convictions...
With that, I'm just a few hours away from a two week vacation so I'll leave it at that.
Hugs
Donna
Quote from: Donna E on October 28, 2013, 01:38:38 AM
Interestingly, most people in this part of the world also have some private medical insurance which covers things that are not well covered by the the univeral scheme like "cosmetic" dental care, glasses, private hospital rooms...I think it also worth mentioning that about 30% of hospitals in France are private which means that for many types of medical care, you have a choice between public and private hospitals and, in my experience, waiting has never been an issue. The public insurance also covers the costs of the private hospitals, up to certain pre-set limits, the rest being paid for either out of pocket or through the private medical insurance I mentioned above.
I would yet again like to emphasize that in spite of there being no obvious difference in the quality of medical care provided in the US compared to Europe, the % of national wealth devoted to health care is much higher in the US (17% compared to about 12% on average in Europe) while still excluding millions of people. If this is a demonstation of market efficiency at it's best I think it can be compared to the market efficiency of Wall Street priori to 2008 and we all know where that brought us to. But, I guess for true believers, no counter evidence is ever too much to sway their convictions...
With that, I'm just a few hours away from a two week vacation so I'll leave it at that.
Hugs
Donna
Ouch! Thank you for reminding us that we are the only industrialized nation without any mandatory paid vacation too!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2013/08/13/paid-time-off-forget-about-it-a-report-looks-at-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries/ (If you gripe about Forbes having a liberal bias... then you are delusional. :icon_weirdface:)
Some of us just can't seem to hear anything over the sound of their
"freedom"... :-\
:police:
Lets be nice and a bit careful of our emotions getting high!
BTW in the dysfunctional Australian system I only get 5 weeks paid leave pa (which is compulsory to take and includes extra holiday pay of $150/week while on leave), 12 months long service leave after 10 years (cumulative), and free medical care. So I am in no position to argue about good or bad systems ::).
Each country we are talking about have democratically elected governments and it is up to the people in those countries to make their minds up.
Quote from: Cindy on October 28, 2013, 05:00:15 AM
:police:
Lets be nice and a bit careful of our emotions getting high!
BTW in the dysfunctional Australian system I only get 5 weeks paid leave pa (which is compulsory to take and includes extra holiday pay of $150/week while on leave), 12 months long service leave after 10 years (cumulative), and free medical care. So I am in no position to argue about good or bad systems ::).
Each country we are talking about have democratically elected governments and it is up to the people in those countries to make their minds up.
Cindy,
I'm not even sure why the subject is being discussed on this forum but since it is and since a lot of what is being said seems to defy the facts, it is difficult to ignore. By the way, Australia sounds even better than France. First time I have ever heard of 12 months long service leave. Are you serious??
Hugs
Donna
"I'm not even sure why the subject is being discussed on this forum"
I'll second that.
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on October 28, 2013, 09:31:39 AM
"I'm not even sure why the subject is being discussed on this forum"
I'll second that.
"We were all lied to. The affordable care act is not going to be affordable. I'm learning that my health insurance is going up by as much as 200-300%. Everyone else I've talked says the same thing. I won't be able to afford a 300% increase. " - Tatiana
This seems like a very relevant topic to me. For one, I would think a 200-300% increase in health care insurance cost could derail many people's transition plans? I've seen reports in FL that some people have gotten 1000%+ increases (they've provided the proof BTW).
We have to agree to disagree, then.
I'll ask the obvious question: You're oZma, right?
Hugs, Devlyn
Quote from: Devlyn Marie on October 28, 2013, 12:48:18 PM
We have to agree to disagree, then.
I'll ask the obvious question: You're oZma, right?
Hugs, Devlyn
Just as we will have to disagree to agree... I'm not oZma (I hope dyslexia coverage is sneaked somewhere in those 2,500 pages of obamacare! ;) )
Quote from: <3 on October 27, 2013, 11:32:54 PM
Unless there's something I don't know about, this is a little misleading. The private insurance that these Canadians have is to cover things not covered by Provincial Health Care, i.e. medications, dental, therapy, etc. There aren't private hospitals (at least that I know of)
I am aware of the private Cambie Surgical Centre in Vancouver, BC. There are plans to open similar private hospitals in many of the large cities in Canada, for people who would prefer not to suffer while on a waiting list.
EDIT: link = http://www.cambiesurgery.com/
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 28, 2013, 06:51:30 PM
I am aware of the private Cambie Surgical Centre in Vancouver, BC. There are plans to open similar private hospitials in many of the large cities in Canada, for people who would prefer not to suffer while on a waiting list.
Interesting. Still I can pretty much guarantee that the majority of the private insurance that over half of Canadians have has nothing to do with private hospital care.
Over 96 Percent of Obamacare Enrollees in Maryland Signed Up for Medicaid (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362389/over-96-percent-obamacare-enrollees-maryland-signed-medicaid-sterling-beard)
Sterling Beard | National Review Online
According to a press release Friday, 85,659 people have enrolled through the exchange. However, 82,473 of those have signed up for Medicaid, accounting for just over 96 percent of sign ups....
[Both] Kentucky and New York are seeing the same phenomenon.
Disaster! People will come out of the woodwork to sign up for free government cheese, but pay for over-priced medical coverage? Not so much, evidently.
QuoteAccording to a press release Friday, 85,659 people have enrolled through the exchange....
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnetrightdaily.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2FCartoon-Huge-Train-Wreck-6001.jpg&hash=1c83d0b538805da163e5449c044dbb1dc76ae604)
This pretty much sums it up!
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304200804579163541180312658
::)
Quote from: DaniStarr on October 30, 2013, 10:19:17 AM
This pretty much sums it up!
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304200804579163541180312658
::)
Good article, I also noticed that it didn't originate from Fox News.
I've been reading some posts on a liberal website and those ardent defenders of Obama and the Democratic machine are indeed getting a rude awakening and are universally going, "WTF, I didn't vote for this
>-bleeped-<!" Too bad it took so long and had to be something that would affect them in their immediate comfort zone before they finally realized what was happening.
Quote from: Shantel on October 30, 2013, 12:14:36 PM
Good article, I also noticed that it didn't originate from Fox News.
The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News... Just an FYI
Quote from: Yukari-sensei on October 30, 2013, 03:33:46 PM
The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News... Just an FYI
Still it doesn't detract from the truth presented by the article in any way!
Quote from: Shantel on October 30, 2013, 12:14:36 PM
Good article, I also noticed that it didn't originate from Fox News.
I've been reading some posts on a liberal website and those ardent defenders of Obama and the Democratic machine are indeed getting a rude awakening and are universally going, "WTF, I didn't vote for this >-bleeped-<!" Too bad it took so long and had to be something that would affect them in their immediate comfort zone before they finally realized what was happening.
People are beginning to wake up to the "nanny state."
Quote from: Shantel on October 30, 2013, 12:14:36 PM
Good article, I also noticed that it didn't originate from Fox News.
I've been reading some posts on a liberal website and those ardent defenders of Obama and the Democratic machine are indeed getting a rude awakening and are universally going, "WTF, I didn't vote for this >-bleeped-<!" Too bad it took so long and had to be something that would affect them in their immediate comfort zone before they finally realized what was happening.
I noticed that this article is in the opinion section of the Wall Street and it is clearly the opinion of a conservative.
Only time will tell if the ACA will work.
Like I said previously the ACA concept was first proposed by republican's.
[Romney's signature legislative achievement served as the model for Obamacare. But as Romney said in a debate in Las Vegas last October, "we got the idea of an individual mandate...from [Newt Gingrich], and [Newt] got it from the Heritage Foundation."
It would seem that 1990s conservatives weren't concerned with the constitutional implications of allowing Congress to force people to buy a private product. "I don't remember that being raised at all," Mark Pauly told Ezra Klein last year. "The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax...So I've been surprised by that argument."]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/
I still believe it can work if we give it a fair shot. Is it perfect? No, nothing is or ever will be perfect but one thing certain, Healthcare costs will continue to skyrocket faster than the cost of living.
I also reiterate, republican's are not friends of LGBT people whether or not you are for or against O'Bamacare.
It baffles me how anyone of us can say we are republican's.
Quote from: Shantel on October 30, 2013, 03:43:25 PM
Still it doesn't detract from the truth presented by the article in any way!
Nevermind the fact that it's also from the
opinion section of the newspaper which is not bound at all by journalistic ethics or procedure.
Good example of this is my local paper's opinion section has a whole tirade that the US is going to have a day of reckoning if it doesn't abandon secularism and embrace Jesus Christ.... not exactly a piece of investigative journalism or reporting of verifiable facts...
But hey, its your choice if you want another's opinion to masquerade as
facts in your judgment. Just don't be surprised when other people disagree with your opinion that is
not based on verifiable facts.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 30, 2013, 03:45:11 PM
People are beginning to wake up to the "nanny state."
We hardly have a nanny state... unless you want to count those corporate subsidies and tax credits for the uberwealthy?
Like it or not, when people in red states start to see the cost of them fumbling the ball on state exchanges and medicare expansion, there will be a political reckoning...
I'm in Texas and in 2020, Texas will be blue... it may be even sooner than that. ;D
And without Texas, no Republican will be capable of winning the white house.... >:-)
Quote from: Yukari-sensei on October 30, 2013, 03:56:20 PM
And without Texas, no Republican will be capable of winning the white house.... >:-)
Yeah, present day Republicans are finished.
America will keep importing mostly poor 3rd world, non-white people and giving them housing, food stamps, and free health care in exchange for their allegiance to the Democratic party. Then they are told that America's economic problems are caused by selfish, racist white people (Republicans), so vote Democrat.
Republicans are even trying to hasten their demise by legalizing 10-20 million poor illegal aliens that will vote Democrat, if they vote at all.
Republicans will have to change to survive.
Quote from: genderhell on October 30, 2013, 04:27:56 PM
Yeah, present day Republicans are finished.
America will keep importing mostly poor 3rd world, non-white people and giving them housing, food stamps, and free health care in exchange for their allegiance to the Democratic party. Then they are told that America's economic problems are caused by selfish, racist white people (Republicans), so vote Democrat.
Republicans are even trying to hasten their demise by legalizing 10-20 million poor illegal aliens that will vote Democrat, if they vote at all.
Republicans will have to change to survive.
Yea the republican's will need to stop hating all people that are not like them but I don't see that happening.
Maybe if we give more tax breaks to the wealthy it will trickle down a little faster?
Quote from: genderhell on October 30, 2013, 04:27:56 PM
Yeah, present day Republicans are finished.
America will keep importing mostly poor 3rd world, non-white people and giving them housing, food stamps, and free health care in exchange for their allegiance to the Democratic party. Then they are told that America's economic problems are caused by selfish, racist white people (Republicans), so vote Democrat.
Republicans are even trying to hasten their demise by legalizing 10-20 million poor illegal aliens that will vote Democrat, if they vote at all.
Republicans will have to change to survive.
You know, I actually taught some of those
undocumented immigrants and they were some of my best students. They were not here for a handout, most of their parents were here to work and
avoid getting shot at because of our asinine drug war enriching the cartels!
This is their home now, they want to become Americans and many of them have already gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to prove this! Instead of belittling the circumstances they are coming from, maybe offering them a hand up and help in becoming better citizens of the republic would enrich our nation more than excluding them like vermin... or speaking of them in the same manner! >:(
Quote from: michelle gee on October 30, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
Yea the republican's will need to stop hating all people that are not like them but I don't see that happening.
Maybe if we give more tax breaks to the wealthy it will trickle down a little faster?
At some point, we all have to get past these type of platitudinous 'arguments'. We have more people receiving government assistance than people working to pay for it all. There's no real urgency to end the wasteful spending that WILL burden future generations for..... well, generations. When our country does crash, it is going to be a very hard landing, and it's coming soon.
Quote from: Yukari-sensei on October 30, 2013, 04:37:49 PM
This is their home now, they want to become Americans and many of them have already gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to prove this! Instead of belittling the circumstances they are coming from, maybe offering them a hand up and help in becoming better citizens of the republic would enrich our nation more than excluding them like vermin... or speaking of them in the same manner! >:(
*I* did not belittle anyone. As a trans person I live in a glass house, and I don't belittle. I could be crushed so easily. :embarrassed:
American has been bringing immigrants for a long time, and now we are near bankruptcy.
When do we get this "enrichment" you speak of ? The number of Americans on assistance is hitting records.
47 million on food stamps ...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/23/why-are-47-million-americans-on-food-stamps-its-the-recession-mostly/
101.76 million on some sort of assistance ...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2013/10/25/great-more-americans-on-welfare-than-working-full-time-n1731984
Note: this does not count social security people which is tens of millions more collecting money.
This article states: "More Americans are on welfare than working full-time, and In 35 states welfare pays better than an actual job."
This is only going to get worse as we bring in more poor people. We need to bring in college educated and/or rich and or business people. Instead we bring in the poor.
America cannot take care of the world.
Quote from: amZo on October 30, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
At some point, we all have to get past these type of platitudinous 'arguments'. We have more people receiving government assistance than people working to pay for it all. There's no real urgency to end the wasteful spending that WILL burden future generations for..... well, generations. When our country does crash, it is going to be a very hard landing, and it's coming soon.
Imagine Watts and LA riots on a national level, I think it's called anarchy and it isn't pretty, but let's face it experience is the best teacher. :icon_ballbounce:
Quote from: Shantel on October 30, 2013, 06:05:14 PM
Imagine Watts and LA riots on a national level, I think it's called anarchy and it isn't pretty, but let's face it experience is the best teacher. :icon_ballbounce:
That is the lesson of history... unfortunately it gets lost somehow from time to time.
The irony of this debacle called the 'Affordable (LOL) Healthcare Act' is... we all may start wishing for a terminal illness. I'm now catching myself not looking both ways before crossing the street. :D
http://icouldntkeepmyplan.com/
I don't see how ACA can possibly work in the long run.
You buy the insurance when you need it, and cancel it when you don't.
You need surgery, well schedule it, then buy the insurance the day before the surgery, get the surgery, then cancel it soon after. You need follow-up care a few months later? Then schedule it, buy the insurance the day before, and cancel as soon as possible.
You get a high-deductible HSA Health Savings Account (not effective to be actually used for insurance) for the IRS requirement of having insurance.
I have a HSA, and this is how I will use ACA, and I have a lot of medical expenses. I am looking forward to the free money.
Quote from: amZo on October 30, 2013, 05:08:23 PM
At some point, we all have to get past these type of platitudinous 'arguments'. We have more people receiving government assistance than people working to pay for it all. There's no real urgency to end the wasteful spending that WILL burden future generations for..... well, generations. When our country does crash, it is going to be a very hard landing, and it's coming soon.
We have more on govt. assistance now because 8 years of GWB and the repubs whom put us into a recession and double digit unemployment and now try to blame everything on O'Bama.
Funny I don't remember repubs complaining about spending then? We are still paying for that now.
America go bankrupt? Not gonna happen unless repubs get back in office.
Interestingly, the stock market is at all time highs.
Perhaps if employers paid their employees a decent wage instead of giving CEO'S exorbitant amounts of money things would be much better.
Most people do not choose to be poor and don't mind working for an honest days wage.
Most people would like to have health insurance if they could afford it also.
Unfortunately there are a number of factors that can't be blamed on any one party, probably one of the biggest is the fact that due to over regulation by the EPA and trade pacts creating a global economy a vast number of large manufacturers have moved their plants and jobs overseas in order to remain profitable. Those great profits recorded by the wizards at Wall Street are made outside the country and don't directly benefit the average person with no investments. Meanwhile all of the debt created under all of the US Presidents through GWB's administration combined don't even come close to matching what has been spent thus far by the Obama Administration alone. That being said, what is truly exacerbating the financial problems here and now is the misguided idea that somehow the government can spend our way out of this morass at the taxpayer's expense for many generations to come. The government does not create wealth and only spends it. These are immutable facts that cannot be argued away. So the probability of a national healthcare program becoming viable at this time is out of the question and most likely won't come to pass. Meanwhile it is sad to continue to read the polemic rants and shrill arguments going on here when in reality nothing good can come of it other than the same disunity and hatred we see in congress.
Things are getting so bad for 0bama and the Affordable (sic) Care Act, that even Kenyan T.V. is claiming he is 100% American! :o
Quote from: Shantel on October 31, 2013, 09:53:53 AM
Unfortunately there are a number of factors that can't be blamed on any one party, probably one of the biggest is the fact that due to over regulation by the EPA and trade pacts creating a global economy a vast number of large manufacturers have moved their plants and jobs overseas in order to remain profitable. Those great profits recorded by the wizards at Wall Street are made outside the country and don't directly benefit the average person with no investments.
Without the EPA and regulations our country would be like China. They are there to protect Americans and it is mostly greed that has drove company's overseas for cheap labor and No benefits.
Many company's setup a ghost office overseas just to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Hopefully in the near future this will change and we should tax them accordingly.
Quote from: Shantel on October 31, 2013, 09:53:53 AMMeanwhile all of the debt created under all of the US Presidents through GWB's administration combined don't even come close to matching what has been spent thus far by the Obama Administration alone.
"The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office."
"Ordinarily, an incoming president has little or no influence over spending that was approved under his predecessor. So in normal circumstances, all spending for fiscal year 2009 would have been rightly tied to Bush, and fiscal 2010 would be the first year for which Obama would have prepared a budget and signed the major spending bills. And for the most part, big spending programs that require no yearly appropriations, including Social Security and Medicare, did indeed continue to operate during fiscal 2009 under the policies in effect under Bush."http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
Most repubs conveniently avoid telling the real truth and they are masters of propaganda.
Quote from: Shantel on October 31, 2013, 09:53:53 AMThat being said, what is truly exacerbating the financial problems here and now is the misguided idea that somehow the government can spend our way out of this morass at the taxpayer's expense for many generations to come. The government does not create wealth and only spends it. These are immutable facts that cannot be argued away. So the probability of a national healthcare program becoming viable at this time is out of the question and most likely won't come to pass. Meanwhile it is sad to continue to read the polemic rants and shrill arguments going on here when in reality nothing good can come of it other than the same disunity and hatred we see in congress.
The same thing was basically said about Medicaid when the Demo's passed that. Many conservatives felt it was a socialist program but look how many people depend on it now.
The hatred was already in congress when McConell said he would do aeverything in his power to see that O'Bama would not get a second term (so much for that?) I truly believe many are in fact racist since they hate O'bama so much.
One thing is certain, not all repubs are racist but the ones that are mostly belong to the republican party.
One last thing, it is obvious we will never agree on anything so I leaving this topic for good. You repubs can argue over O'BamaCare all you want to. Bye.
Quote from: michelle gee on October 31, 2013, 04:26:46 PM
One last thing, it is obvious we will never agree on anything so I leaving this topic for good. You repubs can argue over O'BamaCare all you want to. Bye.
Gee you'll be missed dear we've had such a lively discussion, regardless of what any of us think time will reveal the truth concerning the future of the ACA.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 31, 2013, 01:22:36 PM
Things are getting so bad for 0bama and the Affordable (sic) Care Act, that even Kenyan T.V. is claiming he is 100% American! :o
That's pretty bad alright... but on the bright side, it lays to rest that whole 'Obama was born in Kenya' controversy... ;)
OK. ACA is the law. And calling each other names will not change that.
Locking topic for now.