Nanker Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Hey, anybody know where I go to sign up for my $2,500 healthcare premium savings this thing was supposed to provide EVERYBODY? I could use the cash this weekend. I want to restock my liquor cabinet. Anybody?
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 I guess it comes down to ethics then- are you truly hard up, or just don't want to pay for anything. Not different than people who collect welfare rather than trying to get a job and get out... just easier to work the system.. one of the same in my view. And that's yet another inherent flaw in the law - it requires on people not being !@#$s and being honest and forthright.
IDBillzFan Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Hey, anybody know where I go to sign up for my $2,500 healthcare premium savings this thing was supposed to provide EVERYBODY? I could use the cash this weekend. I want to restock my liquor cabinet. Anybody? I believe you call your current health care provider and they either cut you a check or wire the money directly to your account. They may balk at first, but just remind them who made the promise. They don't want to be called racist, so they'll do what you ask.
keepthefaith Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Hey, anybody know where I go to sign up for my $2,500 healthcare premium savings this thing was supposed to provide EVERYBODY? I could use the cash this weekend. I want to restock my liquor cabinet. Anybody? Just pencil it in at the bottom of your tax return.
Nanker Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Hey, sounds like paradise! Doctor's salaries doubled and the government set to take in $8 Billion! Wow! Made possible by slashing 100k+ people's jobs. FORWARD!
B-Man Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Government Can Follow Our Every Keystroke, Of Course They Know Enrollment Numbers The latest numbers released by the Obama administration indicate that 5 million people have signed up for insurance under Obamacare, but the administration won’t say how many enrollees are young, how many were previously uninsured, or how many have paid for their insurance. “They can follow every keystroke on our computers. We don’t think they know the facts on this?”Laura Ingraham said on Fox News Sunday. “Of course they do.” Ingraham argued that if the facts were good — if youth enrollment was up and people were paying their premiums — then “Jay Carney would be crowing.” Instead, enrollment is “lagging way behind what they want,” Ingraham said, which is why even in them midst of international crisis with Russia and Ukraine President Obama is making appearances with Ellen DeGeneres and on Between Two Ferns. “The fact that you can throw in some pop culture references and go on these cool comedy shows isn’t going to change the fact that most young people want choice, they want freedom, and they don’t want to be told what to do on health care
Doc Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 One more week to go. I'm betting when the numbers are released, the key number is 1M: meaning those who were previously uninsured AND have paid their premiums. Which is still pathetic considering we were assured 50M people needed health care immediately or they'd die.
boyst Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 One more week to go. I'm betting when the numbers are released, the key number is 1M: meaning those who were previously uninsured AND have paid their premiums. Which is still pathetic considering we were assured 50M people needed health care immediately or they'd die. Thanks to the Government shut down the Republicans imposed they already died. 49mm already of them died because they didn't get it immediately.
IDBillzFan Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 One more week to go. I'm betting when the numbers are released, the key number is 1M: meaning those who were previously uninsured AND have paid their premiums. Which is still pathetic considering we were assured 50M people needed health care immediately or they'd die. The numbers don't matter any more because the WH essentially repealed its own law with the hardship clause. That's just the simple truth. Because again, only a progressive fool could force on the American people a law initially designed to reduce hardship, but ultimately designed to create hardship so you can avoid the new hardship and stick with your old hardship...all while spreading the wealth of trillions in taxpayer funds to their friends in states to create websites and policies that will never take place, never work, and never be held accountable. But hey...at least the president does't have a horse, ammiright?
OCinBuffalo Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 So you don't report your income for Federal taxes? So you work the system and then when you need a couple of hundred thousand in care, you pass it onto everybody else because you were above contribution to risk pools? Thats come perosnal responsibility for ya. If you think stealing money from others and getting a free ride is ok, then that is your choice, you have to look in your own mirror. I don't live my life that way, I pay my share, I am glad I did when I ran up 50K in Medical Bills last year- you don't have to thank me, I pay my own way, always have always will. and yes, I get it. Its all about YOU, even if it is on the back of others. Oh, I get it. Of course "I" report my Federal Income Taxes.(I meaning, I pay this lady to do all that stuff) But, hold the F on for second...what exactly do you think is happening here? The young the old, and many in between, were on the verge of being scammed. Period. They've seen through it, and they won't sign up. And you dare talk about morality? Show me the morality in overcharging legions of 27-year-old healthy males for care they will NEVER use... ...because the fact that they are young, means they aren't old, and charging old people more is.....discrimination? ...because the fact that they are male, means they aren't female(well, mostly, right? Nowadays...?), and charging women more is...discrimination? ...because the fact that they are healthy, means they make wise life choices, don't self-induce diabetes, and charging those who smoke/drink/overdose on heroin/eat poorly more is...discrimination? You know health care. Old people, women, and problem people use more of it. Overcharging young, healthy men, for using less? That's generational/gender/assclown theft. Period. And, again, you want to talk to me about morality or ethics? Blow it out your ass. Blow it right the F out your ass...clown. Who the F does any Obamacare suppoter think they are to lecture anyone on ethics or morality, when the ENTIRE history of this law has been a study in self-interest, BS, unabashed pandering, corruption, influence peddling, and what happens when the unqualified bribe their way into doing my job, so that they can sell "consulting" on the terrible mess they created. Obamacare is THE definitive modern example of bad ideology-->bad policy, being endlessly protected by obfuscation, double dealing, double talk and Joe F'ing Biden. Obamacare supporters cashed in the moral high ground on this issue 4 damn years ago. You will NEVER get it back. That's why this law has NEVER had majority support, and that's why this law will NEVER have majority support. IT IS A F'ING SCAM! And by the way? NONE of this has anything to do with me. You on the other hand, have a TON to answer for when it comes to morality, ethics and your continued support of the polar opposite that is contained in, and has consistently been displayed by, the supporters of this law. Finally, your answer shows what this ALL comes down to, doesn't it? You can't win on the content, you can't win the argument. You know this. ALL you are left with is: emoting and personal attacks. I will leave it to the board to determine who is right, and who is being a dumbass(tell me again about how you "know" how much every MRI costs). I will leave it to posters to decide who is being moral here, and who refuses to admit they are dead wrong on the design, and is therefore, lamely, trying to introduce morality as his last ditch argument...for a law that's been delayed purely for political gain, 13 times. You make me because you aren't worth taking seriously.
Dorkington Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) As a liberal, given the default liberal understanding of business and economics in general, and creating and selling health insurance products specifically, you being baffled is hardly a shocker. You know what else isn't shocking? That you are blissfully ignorant of how universal health care actually works in places where it exists(meaning: it's not universal, and largely relies on Soviet-style bribery and "side-payments" to actually get to see the doctor now, and not in 6 months). You guys love to show graphs and charts of per capita spending....that don't even come close to showing the actually $ spent per capita, because they only show government spending, and not the "side payments", which in almost every country, EXCEED the government payments. You never understand, therefore cannot explain, what "universal" actually means. It means: the government is a deadbeat, who legislates their way into not paying full price for any health care service, and calls that "cost cutting". Real health care cost cutters, like myself, laugh at this assertion, because not only do these governments not cut cost, they aren't even aware of what the costs actually are. They just set arbitrary reimbursement rates based on fudged data, that is based on nothing other than some tool's machinations on a whimsical spreadsheet. It's never based on real data, because they can't be bothered to collect the real data. To be fair: almost every provider sucks at this too, and then they lie about it. So none of these groups, not the insurance companies, not the government, not the providers, and certainly not the surveyors, are operating on the truth. I know this: because I have objectively observed it now in over 100 health care facilities. If universal health care works as designed and promised, why does private insurance exist in every single country where it has been deployed? What is "universal" about doling out health care on a 100% class-based system? With the 4 classes, in order of who gets the best health care, being: 1. Government employees, or those associated with them 2. The wealthy, and those associated with them 3. People who work for big corporations/professionals who can afford to pay for private insurance 4. Everybody else(EDIT: otherwise known as the F'ed class, who get the "universal" insurance) You say you want universal health care, but, you are completely uninformed as to its practical applications in the real world. Where did you get idea that universal health care actually accomplished its stated purpose? Where exactly? What experience does that source have in the systems and processes involved in health care delivery? Have they spent any time in a health care facility, objectively observing anything? No. They talk out their ass, about something they have 0 experience with, and their "reasoning" is actually: emoting. I've spent time in Canada and the UK, and have good friends in both. They've spent time over here, and also have many good American friends. I don't have first hand experience myself, but what they describe lines up with all the "graphs and charts" as being better than our current solution. They call the doctor, set an appointment, usually a week or two out for non emergency appointments. Which, lines up exactly with what I deal with. Never have I heard from actual people who use these systems that they have to bribe doctors in order to get an appointment within six months. Regarding healthcare costs... This is a good read, from Time: http://livingwithmcl.../BitterPill.pdf Also, I should state, that I support a universal *base*, whether that's single payer, or a national healthcare system, either works. But if rich people want to buy super fancy healthcare/insurance, they should be free to do that as well. A universal system of some sort is the best way to make sure the lower and middle classes have access to proper preventative healthcare. It's not necessarily the best for rich people, that much is obvious. Regarding the other rants, I'm not sure where you got all the assumptions about me. But please stop putting opinions into my mouth (or fingers, in this case, heh). Edited March 24, 2014 by Dorkington
Dorkington Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 A double down on a convoluted, adminstratvely inneffient mess that costs way more and delivers the same or less than comparative systems in advanced nations. Whats not too like? What will be great is when the GOP unveils its replacement, and it is essentially the exact same after special interests gets their cuts again, but it will be completely different and free market because the legislation will have the word Freedom or Choice in it... Its a circus- and expensive one that fails to meets Americans needs in many respects, but still fund to watch. Different Circus, Same Clowns. IIRC, the super initial proposals involved some sort of expansion of medicare to all, no? In fact, I think it was conservatives way back when (late '80s? early 90s?) who came up with the idea of the mandate instead of a single payer system. Theoretically it was to lower prices, since lots of healthy people would be buying insurance. But the reality is, people can't afford the prices because on the other end, services and products are entirely too expensive. The original goal for Obama was universal healthcare, but it quickly became apparent that he wouldn't get the support needed, and the result is this mandate mess. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act has been pushed a few times, but has quickly been thrown out, because people are so scared of "government takeover". Personally I think the government is exactly for these sorts of services. Defense and emergency services, infrastructure, basic education, basic healthcare.
Doc Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 IIRC, the super initial proposals involved some sort of expansion of medicare to all, no? In fact, I think it was conservatives way back when (late '80s? early 90s?) who came up with the idea of the mandate instead of a single payer system. Theoretically it was to lower prices, since lots of healthy people would be buying insurance. But the reality is, people can't afford the prices because on the other end, services and products are entirely too expensive. The original goal for Obama was universal healthcare, but it quickly became apparent that he wouldn't get the support needed, and the result is this mandate mess. http://en.wikipedia....Health_Care_Act has been pushed a few times, but has quickly been thrown out, because people are so scared of "government takeover". Personally I think the government is exactly for these sorts of services. Defense and emergency services, infrastructure, basic education, basic healthcare. If the botched creation, implementation and rollout of Obamacaid doesn't scare you away from a "government takeover" of medicine, nothing will. And the services you mentioned are poster children for how government involvement only makes costs worse.
Dorkington Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Our dependence on contractors doesn't help. There are some government services that work just fine. There are others that don't.
TH3 Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) I haven't read all the way thru this thread....but has ANYONE on here had personal actual experience with the ACA - either on a personal or corporate/business level? I know opinions are great and all.... I have my own business to small < 50 employees and my small staff is all covered on their spouses plan. Additonal - I simply don't know anyone that can relate an ACA story....anyone? Edited March 24, 2014 by baskin
Dorkington Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 All I know is, the subsidies aren't cutting it for a great many people in many places. I have some friends who simply cannot afford insurance still, while others, in other states, got really good deals. The mandate, good in theory, only works if we can get everyone into the system. Unfortunately we can't get everyone into the system the way things are. My personal insurance, through my company, hasn't changed a whole lot for me personally. Some of my coworkers' plans got changed though.
B-Man Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 The ACA’s Heavy Burden FTA: Similarly, the fact that the Supreme Court is being asked to review the manner in which Hobby Lobby manages its employee-benefits program might seem to some like the inflation of the trivial to absurd proportions, but there is a fundamental issue in question: Do Americans enjoy religious-liberty protections when they are at church, or do Americans enjoy religious-liberty protections when they are Americans? Hobby Lobby is owned by a trust controlled by the Green family, observant Christians who make a point of carrying their faith into the marketplace, stocking Christian products and closing their stores on Sundays. They refuse to comply with parts of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, specifically the provision of products that they regard as actual or potential abortifacients, including intrauterine devices and the so-called morning-after pill, both of which can function to prevent an embryo from implanting in the uterus and thus surviving. As it stands, exemptions for moral objectors to the ACA’s contraception mandate are in effect restricted to houses of worship. What that means is that the First Baptist Church of Anytown, USA, may be corporately exempted from the mandate while each of its members is subject to it in their roles as business owners or members of employer-provided group-insurance programs. That situation is not only perverse, it is at odds with settled federal law. While the issue is at heart a constitutional one, Hobby Lobby is not in this instance appealing to the First Amendment but rather to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed by a unanimous House, a near-unanimous Senate, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and certified as constitutional as applied to the federal government in a 2006 Supreme Court decision. The act sets a high standard that the federal government must meet when it burdens the free exercise of religion and was enacted in response to court decisions that had narrowed First Amendment protections. more at the link
IDBillzFan Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I have my own business to small < 50 employees and my small staff is all covered on their spouses plan. Additonal - I simply don't know anyone that can relate an ACA story....anyone? Magox is essentially a health care insurance broker and he has a few stories in this thread of getting people signed up for ACA. Find his posts...all of them...because he initially was optimistic about ACA but now sees it for the clusterphuck of an abortion that progressives have made it to be.
TH3 Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) The ACA’s Heavy Burden While the issue is at heart a constitutional one, Hobby Lobby is not in this instance appealing to the First Amendment but rather to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was passed by a unanimous House, a near-unanimous Senate, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and certified as constitutional as applied to the federal government in a 2006 Supreme Court decision. The act sets a high standard that the federal government must meet when it burdens the free exercise of religion and was enacted in response to court decisions that had narrowed First Amendment protections. more at the link Am I missing something here? Why can't HL's insurance carrier just let the individual purchase an additional rider for contraception? HL doesn't carry it and every insurance company wants their members to have contraception for a multitude of reasons - the Insurance Carrier would probably sell the rider for minimal cost....or does HL prohibit this? Edited March 24, 2014 by baskin
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I haven't read all the way thru this thread....but has ANYONE on here had personal actual experience with the ACA - either on a personal or corporate/business level? I know opinions are great and all.... I have my own business to small < 50 employees and my small staff is all covered on their spouses plan. Additonal - I simply don't know anyone that can relate an ACA story....anyone? Speak to Magox and OC. This is what they do for a living, both on different sides of the business.
Recommended Posts