The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[ALF]

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

So is the answer to give them more handouts, or give them opportunities to find a better-paying jobs?

 

opportunities to find a better-paying jobs?  of course

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, ALF said:

 

One problem is the working poor who earn too much to qualify for medicaid , who cannot afford medical and dental coverage if their job does not provide it. Barely living paycheck to paycheck with no savings is a real problem for too many.  

 

Can you please specify if you’re talking about wealth or income?

 

Also, in the example you just gave the problem was not disparity, it was the existence of the poor.

[unbillievable]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Also, in the example you just gave the problem was not disparity, it was the existence of the poor.

 

You have to understand that poor people only exist when compared to the rich.

 

If you remove rich people, then those previously poor will be considered middle class.  It's a good way to manipulate statistics.

 

Another good one is to hyper-inflate the cost of living where someone living in a studio apartment in California is considered rich, while owning a 10 acre ranch in Alabama is poor. ie, the poorest states are Red...

 

 

[/dev/null]

2 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

You have to understand that poor people only exist when compared to the rich.

 

If you remove rich people, then those previously poor will be considered middle class.  It's a good way to manipulate statistics.

 

Another good one is to hyper-inflate the cost of living where someone living in a studio apartment in California is considered rich, while owning a 10 acre ranch in Alabama is poor. ie, the poorest states are Red...

 

 

 

Maybe the $100k a year serf in Silicon Valley should #learntofarm

[B-Man]

 

 

[reddogblitz]

As I see it we could have single payer right now if the Ds in 2009 had wanted it.  All of the Senate votes for and all 219 HOR votes for were democrat and it passed. They could have passed whatever they wanted and chose to pass what we have.

 

There was talk of single payer going in and it seemed popular, until they let the insurance companies in to figure it all out.

[B-Man]

GOVERNMENT MEDICINE: 

I Was a Physician at a Federally Qualified Health Center. Here’s Why I No Longer Believe Government Health Care Can Work.

 

For example, one of the requirements for federally qualified health centers is that they must maintain a certain number of physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Rural health clinics were the first sites to receive a federal mandate to hire non-physician practitioners.

 

For me, this meant supervising a physician assistant from day one. And within a few months, a brand new nurse practitioner was added to my list of responsibilities. Despite this extra workload, there was no time allotted in my schedule to provide education, review charts or discuss cases—nor was I compensated for my extra duties.

 

Federal regulations also create massive amounts of paperwork. While the medical staff worked hard to move patients through the registration process, my schedule often ran hours behind as forms were signed and documents reviewed.

 

This bottleneck often led to me starting my day late and working into the evening. When I started coming in a bit later than my assigned start time, knowing that patients would not be ready for me, I was given a stern warning by administrators.

 

Medicine is going to get worse, as those best-qualified to become doctors decide the bureaucratic BS isn’t worth the bother.

 

 

 

And do read the whole thing.

 

.

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

17 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

As I see it we could have single payer right now if the Ds in 2009 had wanted it.  All of the Senate votes for and all 219 HOR votes for were democrat and it passed. They could have passed whatever they wanted and chose to pass what we have.

 

There was talk of single payer going in and it seemed popular, until they let the insurance companies in to figure it all out.

 

Actually, they probably couldn't, simply because of this concept of "states."  

 

States have regulatory responsibilities over health care and health insurance - the latter being one of the big reasons why the ACA was structured as it was, and why Medicaid programs are run by states with funding through federal block grants (yes, even the "single payer" examples used by its advocates aren't "single payer.") 

 

True "single payer" at the federal level introduces some very serious constitutional issues concerning separation of powers, and is unlikely to survive a court challenge.

[reddogblitz]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

True "single payer" at the federal level introduces some very serious constitutional issues concerning separation of powers, and is unlikely to survive a court challenge.

 

Perhaps. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have passed it.  They had the votes if that's really what they wanted.

[keepthefaith]

41 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Perhaps. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have passed it.  They had the votes if that's really what they wanted.

 

They had the bodies but I doubt enough votes if the rubber had met the road. 

[Taro T]

40 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Perhaps. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have passed it.  They had the votes if that's really what they wanted.

 

What would be the point of passing a law that would have been known to be unconstitutional at the time it was drafted and at the time it was signed into law?

 

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

What would be the point of passing a law that would have been known to be unconstitutional at the time it was drafted and at the time it was signed into law?

 

 

 

Oh...wait, you're serious?

[B-Man]

 

 

WEIRD, AND JUST AS WE’VE SPENT A DECADE OR MORE MAKING IT LESS ATTRACTIVE TO BE A DOCTOR: 

 

 

America’s aging population is leading to a doctor shortage cris.

[keepthefaith]

Well in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, we just got our company Blue Cross health insurance renewal for next year effect 12/1/19.  Coverage cost under the HMO plan for a single employee is dropping $80 a month.  That's never happened in our 15 year history. 

 

Question is, who gets credit, Trump?

[B-Man]

 

 

 

FROM CHRIS JACOBS: The Case Against Single Payer: How ‘Medicare for All’ Will Wreck America’s Health Care System―And Its Economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 Millions of Americans’ medical records are out in the open on the internet. 

 

“Some servers with medical data in the US aren’t even protected by a password.”

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

BETSY MCCAUGHEY: Democrats’ Health Care Whoppers.

Whopper 1: Obamacare is affordable. Joe Biden’s running a television ad in Iowa pledging to stand by Obamacare because “every American deserves affordable health care.” Iowans aren’t going to buy that. They’re not hayseeds.

 

Truth: In Iowa, 90% of Obamacare customers who paid their own way in 2014 have dropped their coverage. Obamacare is affordable only if you qualify for a subsidy. Middle-class people who earn too much to get taxpayer-funded help can’t afford to stay enrolled. They “have taken it on the chin,” reports Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Why is the number of uninsured in America suddenly rising again? Blame Obamacare for pricing the middle class out of insurance.

 

 

 

Much more at the link.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[billsfan89]

On 8/25/2019 at 2:06 PM, 3rdnlng said:

Our poor in this country would be considered rich in many other countries. Income inequality is a crockofshit.

 

Do you really think that the argument that your living conditions aren't as bad as third world countries is a compelling defense of wealth inequality? Shouldn't you aim a little bit higher and understand context?

 

Wealth inequality is a problem not just for the poor but for the health of the overall economy. The middle class is the engine of consumer demand in an economy. Rich people can consume more but there is an inherent limit to how much they can consume. A rich person and their family can only eat 3 meals a day, buy so many clothes, buy so much toilet paper and basics. They drive some levels of the consumer economy but they don't drive it anywhere near what the middle class does. Putting more money in the hands of the wealthy via tax cuts and subsidizing corporations leads to the rich buying more assets typically which inflates stock prices and assets prices things most middle class people don't own or don't own in any significant quantity. 

 

Simply put take one million dollars into the hands of someone who has 30 million in the bank and they aren't really spending it much at the consumer level. Most likely they peel 50-100 grand off the top and have some fun and then invest the rest into assets. Whereas if you put 1,000 dollars into the hands of 1,000 middle and working class people they will typically spend most of that money paying down debts, treating themselves to dinners and consumer products, or taking care of repairs and other services they need. In which scenario do you think the consumer economy benefits most from? The second scenario most likely results in 90% of that money getting spent at a consumer level. In the first scenario it results in less than 50% of that money circulating at the consumer level. 

 

Wealth inequality relates to the middle class shrinking. As we see more money going from the bottom to the top it stagnates the economy. You should be orienting your economy from the middle out as trickle down economics simply doesn't work. 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Do you really think that the argument that your living conditions aren't as bad as third world countries is a compelling defense of wealth inequality? Shouldn't you aim a little bit higher and understand context?

 

Wealth inequality is a problem not just for the poor but for the health of the overall economy. The middle class is the engine of consumer demand in an economy. Rich people can consume more but there is an inherent limit to how much they can consume. A rich person and their family can only eat 3 meals a day, buy so many clothes, buy so much toilet paper and basics. They drive some levels of the consumer economy but they don't drive it anywhere near what the middle class does. Putting more money in the hands of the wealthy via tax cuts and subsidizing corporations leads to the rich buying more assets typically which inflates stock prices and assets prices things most middle class people don't own or don't own in any significant quantity. 

 

Simply put take one million dollars into the hands of someone who has 30 million in the bank and they aren't really spending it much at the consumer level. Most likely they peel 50-100 grand off the top and have some fun and then invest the rest into assets. Whereas if you put 1,000 dollars into the hands of 1,000 middle and working class people they will typically spend most of that money paying down debts, treating themselves to dinners and consumer products, or taking care of repairs and other services they need. In which scenario do you think the consumer economy benefits most from? The second scenario most likely results in 90% of that money getting spent at a consumer level. In the first scenario it results in less than 50% of that money circulating at the consumer level. 

 

Wealth inequality relates to the middle class shrinking. As we see more money going from the bottom to the top it stagnates the economy. You should be orienting your economy from the middle out as trickle down economics simply doesn't work. 

Don't put words in my mouth.

[billsfan89]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Your argument came off to me as because you would be rich in a third world country income inequality isn't an economic issue, maybe I was brash in the way you stated it but that is the general gist of what you said?