# Interesting take article on the ACA



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hca-king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare-amicus-brief

America's Largest Health Care Company Tells Supreme Court That Anti-Obamacare Argument Is "Absurd"

Still rereading and researching but this article has some interesting facts and opinions. Not what I would have expected.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Snake oil. Sorry pro choice should not limited to the uterus but the whole body of all persons. 

Here is a clued for those who need it


Health care COMPANIES have and economic vested interest in profit from increase in services. Services....that are redundant and excessive are great for a bottom line.

Drug dealers push and promote the used of drugs and in for weak willed person that it is ABSURD to not to chill out.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Sorry, but Mother Jones mag is so far left-learning as to border on radical.

But I will argue that while some parts of ACA _are_ beneficial and working, it's the individual mandate that most opponents are fighting against. It's unconstitutional, socialist and unAmerican.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> ]Sorry, but Mother Jones mag is so far left-learning as to border on radical.[/B]
> 
> But I will argue that while some parts of ACA _are_ beneficial and working, it's the individual mandate that most opponents are fighting against. It's unconstitutional, socialist and unAmerican.


For that very reason I mentioned having to do more homework. The interesting part is the legal documents submitted.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Legal doc are simply doc submitted for a court process ......hardly impressive. Photos of a house not involved with my home are now legal court docs in the case.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Legal doc are simply doc submitted for a court process ......hardly impressive. Photos of a house not involved with my home are now legal court docs in the case.


Who said they were impressive? I said it was interesting and worth looking for more information.

I get you are pulling a Nevada and just shooting down everything you disagree with or think is against what you believe but it might hold more weight if you actual did some homework instead of machine gunning everything first.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

If Heath Insurance companies are happy with the ACA ( so it might seem) and this lawsuit gets stuck down will our elected official on both sides be lobbied for state exchanges to be set up in those states?

Will Dems and Republicans both vote for these echanges because the Heath Insurance Companies put pressure on them?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20141108/MAGAZINE/311089987

Another article on this.

"It's anyone's guess whether the U.S. Supreme Court will invalidate or uphold federal premium subsidies in 36 states when it hears King v. Burwell next year. Loss of those subsidies almost certainly would cause several million people to lose health coverage because they could no longer afford the premiums.

But experts are already speculating about what the justices will decideâand what it would mean for insurers, healthcare providers and millions of Americans in the individual insurance market. The case is widely expected to be a nail-biting replay of the court's bitterly divided 2012 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with Chief Justice John Roberts perhaps once again casting the deciding vote."


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I didn't read the actual brief, but the thing that came to mind while reading the article is, the argument shouldn't be whether ACA is working, but rather is it legal/constitutional. HCA's argument seems to be that the law should stand simply because it's 'working', which in itself is an arguable point. 

Yeah, it's working for hospitals and the insurance industry, but what about taxpayers?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

That is what I find interesting. Now the Heath Insurance Companies are pushing for something that makes them money in a case that questions whether the subsidies are constitutional for states that don't have their own exchanges.

They are now invested in the new business model and want it to stand.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Funny I read your link.

Duh.....I am an American I I darn well can will and do shoot down poor harmful stuff that some mother Jones reader find cool.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Funny I read your link.
> 
> Duh.....I am an American I I darn well can will and do shoot down poor harmful stuff that some mother Jones reader find cool.


Again you put words in peoples mouths. No one said cool or anything of the sort. It does not matter if the original article was by a left leaning news source. What matters is the facts of the story and how it will effect the Aca, the economy and how or who might get pressured into make new laws or state exchanges.

That is a topic worth discussing and not just shooting at. Being an American you can shoot all you want but you should know what the target is ahead of time.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sorry I am free to use the words I want.. 
Many of us want it gone.....we expect people to be responsible.

FYI it is negatively impacting the economy and will get even worse...Sweden has started to change because socialism doesn't work.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I can only assume from what you post is that you don't want to discuss the article and the court case and how it will effect everyone, you just want to rail against the ACA.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

The law seems to be ill written on the hope that the federal government could force all states the implement their own exchanges, dangerous wishful thinking and really, really messy. 

As to how it would effect me, not at all.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

Senator Grassley says this suit is rediculous.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...me-court-case-attacking-obamacare-ridiculous/

"Once Brill explained the suit to Grassley, the senator responded âoh, thatâs ridiculous. We obviously meant that the subsidies would go to the federal exchange and not just the state exchange,â according to Brill.
Nor was Grassley alone in this view. Rather, Brill says that when the suit was filed, he asked âall the Republican staffersâ who worked on the bill about this suit, and âthey laughed at it.â
Grassley and the Republican staffers interviewed by Brill join a wealth of Republican lawmakers and conservative operatives who once understood that the Affordable Care Act guarantees tax credits in all fifty states, although many of these individuals have since changed their view now that King gives them an incentive to say that the law says something else. A short list of Obamacare opponents who previously indicated that the law provides tax credits regardless of who operates a particular stateâs exchange includes Republican Governors Dave Heineman (R-NE), Nikki Haley (R-SC), Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and Scott Walker (R-WI), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-WI), and the conservative Heritage Foundation."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...Current-Obamacare-Challenge-That-s-Ridiculous

"Grassley was one of the leading obstacles to the passage of Obamacare in 2009 and 2010 and knew the inner details of the legislation. When he, as one of the most ardent opposers of Obamacare, says that this challenge to Obamacare is ridiculous, then it is ridiculous."


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Wlover said:


> http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...me-court-case-attacking-obamacare-ridiculous/
> 
> "Once Brill explained the suit to Grassley, the senator responded âoh, thatâs ridiculous. We obviously meant that the subsidies would go to the federal exchange and not just the state exchange,â according to Brill.
> Nor was Grassley alone in this view. Rather, Brill says that when the suit was filed, he asked âall the Republican staffersâ who worked on the bill about this suit, and âthey laughed at it.â
> Grassley and the Republican staffers interviewed by Brill join a wealth of Republican lawmakers and conservative operatives who once understood that the Affordable Care Act guarantees tax credits in all fifty states, although many of these individuals have since changed their view now that King gives them an incentive to say that the law says something else. A short list of Obamacare opponents who previously indicated that the law provides tax credits regardless of who operates a particular stateâs exchange includes Republican Governors Dave Heineman (R-NE), Nikki Haley (R-SC), Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and Scott Walker (R-WI), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-WI), and the conservative Heritage Foundation."


This bring up the interesting part of the case for me. Should the SCOTUS be trying to determine what Congress _meant_ to write into the law, or should they be judging on what was _actually written_. I side more with the latter. They should only judge based on the written word, if Congress didn't write it correctly then it is Congresses responsibility to amend it.

This creates a problem for the Democrats however. They lost control of Congress very shortly after the ACA passed. They do not wish to allow Congress to revise or amend the law in any way for fear of what may happen to it.

So the SCOTUS, a government body meant to be detached from any party politics, is now being used as a political battlefield between the parties. We are continuing to step further away from the intended roles of the 3 branches setup in the Constitution.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Wlover said:


> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...Current-Obamacare-Challenge-That-s-Ridiculous
> 
> "Grassley was one of the leading obstacles to the passage of Obamacare in 2009 and 2010 and knew the inner details of the legislation. When he, as one of the most ardent opposers of Obamacare, says that this challenge to Obamacare is ridiculous, then it is ridiculous."


Gonna just throw this out there, some of Grassley's largest campaign donors are insurance companies, healthcare, pharmaceuticals and lawyers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

no really said:


> Gonna just throw this out there, some of Grassley's largest campaign donors are insurance companies, healthcare, pharmaceuticals and lawyers.


So he wants the subsidies to stand, what will he do if they fall? How does a republican go about campaigning for the subsidies and campaigning against the ACA?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

If I had any idea how a politician thinks I would voluntarily commit myself for psychological evaluation. Basically opportunistic in all their actions.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well look in providing funding to residents in states not expanding medicaid violates aca as written.....thus it sorta kinda like wrong to support unlawful acts.


But who am I.


----------



## deb_rn (Apr 16, 2010)

What flavor of Kool-aid was that mixed with, anyway??

Debbie


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wlover said:


> That is what I find interesting. Now the Heath Insurance Companies are pushing for something that makes them money in a case that questions whether the subsidies are constitutional for states that don't have their own exchanges.
> 
> They are now invested in the new business model and want it to stand.


All you had to do was look at the picture of the insurance company's CEO's arriving at the White House before the ACA vote in Congress to know something had happened. The insurance companies got the guarantee of government cash in perpetuity for their acquiescence/silence about ACA.

The companies get to bill the government for their "Losses." Guess who gets to decide what those losses are? The next question to ponder is how effective do you think the government will be in weeding out exaggerated claims on the part of the insurance companies? The answer to that, when taking into account the billions of dollars in medicare fraud that goes on yearly, is zilch.

At least the CEO's weren't grinning like jackasses eating briers. They made the deal of their lives that will reap windfall profits for their companies as long as ACA exists. Yep! something stinks. 

You'd have more luck running a pack of starving wolves off a gut pile bare handed than getting insurance companies to publicly go against ACA now that they are mainlining an almost unlimited stream of government cash.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Read the following closely, and give it some logical thought:
_The company says that in 2014, uninsured patients visited the ER in its facilities 10 times for every one admission to the hospital&#8212;a sign that most of those ER visits weren't emergencies. People insured through the exchange are visiting the ER three times for every one admission. HCA estimates that "uninsured patients are 300% more likely than Exchange patients to rely on ER care."_

Without reading too much into their argument, it's fairly obvious their statistics inadvertently reinforce the plaintiff's case. It seems 9 of 10 weren't emergencies worth admission, but now that these people are insured they're admitting them at a 3X rate. Either they were booting truly sick people before, or they're admitting people who don't need admission now. 

In either case, their attorney should be embarrassed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Sorry, but Mother Jones mag is so far left-learning as to border on radical.
> 
> But I will argue that while some parts of ACA _are_ beneficial and working, it's the individual mandate that most opponents are fighting against. It's unconstitutional, socialist and unAmerican.


Yeah, we have a far left BFF who gets his news from Mother Jones. BWhahaha! How communist can you be?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Who said they were impressive? I said it was interesting and worth looking for more information.
> 
> I get you are pulling a Nevada and just shooting down everything you disagree with or think is against what you believe but it might hold more weight if you actual did some homework instead of machine gunning everything first.


Most folks who are not dems, & really many who ARE, have already done their homework. Its why 2/3 of the country doesn't want ObummerUNcare.

The rest, Gruber says, are stupid voters.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> If Heath Insurance companies are happy with the ACA ( so it might seem) and this lawsuit gets stuck down will our elected official on both sides be lobbied for state exchanges to be set up in those states?
> 
> Will Dems and Republicans both vote for these echanges because the Heath Insurance Companies put pressure on them?


No. No.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...me-court-case-attacking-obamacare-ridiculous/
> 
> "Once Brill explained the suit to Grassley, the senator responded &#8220;oh, that&#8217;s ridiculous. We obviously meant that the subsidies would go to the federal exchange and not just the state exchange,&#8221; according to Brill.
> Nor was Grassley alone in this view. Rather, Brill says that when the suit was filed, he asked &#8220;all the Republican staffers&#8221; who worked on the bill about this suit, and &#8220;they laughed at it.&#8221;
> Grassley and the Republican staffers interviewed by Brill join a wealth of Republican lawmakers and conservative operatives who once understood that the Affordable Care Act guarantees tax credits in all fifty states, although many of these individuals have since changed their view now that King gives them an incentive to say that the law says something else. A short list of Obamacare opponents who previously indicated that the law provides tax credits regardless of who operates a particular state&#8217;s exchange includes Republican Governors Dave Heineman (R-NE), Nikki Haley (R-SC), Bob McDonnell (R-VA) and Scott Walker (R-WI), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan (R-WI), and the conservative Heritage Foundation."


Good ol' Gruber says differently. Said they discussed this at lenght & thought all states would set up exchanges & this is a FACT of the law that ways the Feds can't, only states can.
BWhahaha! Doncha love it when they screw themselves!

PS, to the OP, we discussed this b/4. Links could prolly be found. Sorry if were sound a little cynical. Perhaps that thread was missed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Good ol' Gruber says differently. Said they discussed this at lenght & thought all states would set up exchanges & this is a FACT of the law that ways the Feds can't, only states can.
> BWhahaha! Doncha love it when the screw themselves!
> 
> PS, to the OP, we discussed this b/4. Links could prolly be found. Sorry if were sound a little cynical. Perhaps that thread was missed.


So it was discussed before that is really no excuse for treating relatively new forum members badly but that seems to be the norm here.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Wlover said:


> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hca-king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare-amicus-brief
> 
> America's Largest Health Care Company Tells Supreme Court That Anti-Obamacare Argument Is "Absurd"
> 
> Still rereading and researching but this article has some interesting facts and opinions. Not what I would have expected.


Mother Jones = toilet paper. Nough said.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Glade Runner said:


> Mother Jones = toilet paper. Nough said.


Did I say that the article or the news source was credible? No! I posted it as an article and a court case that was worth discussing no matter what political persuasion you might be.

I guess that is not possible on this forum. The posters are judged right off the bat if they post something that another poster assumes they support or are backing. Lots of closed judgmental views being expressed here without even bothering to talk or discuss the implications to our future.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Glade Runner said:


> Mother Jones = toilet paper. Nough said.


 Ya it isn't worth even taking the time to find out a one-sided view on things. Time is precious, and that thing is not worth the time.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Wlover said:


> Did I say that the article or the news source was credible? No! I posted it as an article and a court case that was worth discussing no matter what political persuasion you might be.
> 
> I guess that is not possible on this forum. The posters are judged right off the bat if they post something that another poster assumes they support or are backing. Lots of closed judgmental views being expressed here without even bothering to talk or discuss the implications to our future.


It's a natural assumption that when someone posts an article with no negative comment they're mostly in agreement with the contents and sentiment of the article. You'll find most people here have little respect for "news" organizations like Mother Jones, Russia Today, HuffPo, etc. 

After all, this is a homesteading site and you'll find few homesteaders who lean toward the radical left, being that it's the antithesis of self-reliance and personal responsibility.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ozarks Tom said:


> It's a natural assumption that when someone posts an article with no negative comment they're mostly in agreement with the contents and sentiment of the article. You'll find most people here have little respect for "news" organizations like Mother Jones, Russia Today, HuffPo, etc.
> 
> After all, this is a homesteading site and you'll find few homesteaders who lean toward the radical left, being that it's the antithesis of self-reliance and personal responsibility.


It should not be a natural assumption. Respecting or not respecting a news organization does not preclude discussion on the subject from both sides. Yes, we should consider the slant of the information depending where it comes from but that again does not mean that a good well rounded discussion about the information and the situation that the story is about is not warranted.

Who cares what a homesteaders leanings are. They are from all sides and positions. The discussion can still take place.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Wlover said:


> It should not be a natural assumption. Respecting or not respecting a news organization does not preclude discussion on the subject from both sides. Yes, we should consider the slant of the information depending where it comes from but that again does not mean that a good well rounded discussion about the information and the situation that the story is about is not warranted.
> 
> Who cares what a homesteaders leanings are. They are from all sides and positions. The discussion can still take place.


Ok in an effort to discuss some of the "facts" presented in the article.



> If getting rid of Obamacare is such a good idea, why isn't corporate America getting behind King v. Burwell,...


So what? Since when is corporate America the weather vane on constitutionality of law? I also doubt that "Corporate America" really has my best interests at heart either.



> HCA argues that the legal theory advanced by the plaintiffs is "absurd," but, more importantly, it presents detailed data drawn from its own operations that demonstrate that the health care law is helping patients and the company itself.


So because people who are given money show benfit from having received that money the whole thing is somehow deemed constitutional? Again this has no relevance on the case. Legally the ends does not justify the means.

I have not read the rest of the article. Is there another point made which you wish to discuss?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Delete noticed thedate


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Wlover said:


> Did I say that the article or the news source was credible? No! I posted it as an article and a court case that was worth discussing no matter what political persuasion you might be.
> 
> I guess that is not possible on this forum. The posters are judged right off the bat if they post something that another poster assumes they support or are backing. Lots of closed judgmental views being expressed here without even bothering to talk or discuss the implications to our future.


Most of us have been posting here a while and find it interesting and enjoyable. If you don't like it here, there's a simple solution. For future reference, condemnatory remarks when newly arrived are usually counter productive.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, you seek out a fourm that's main goal is old time self relent based. Yet your newbie post promote dependency and the crowd does not send out hi fives.

Americans have the right to speak their minds....all people have that right but some live under governments that so demanding that they, the government control every aspect of their lives that not only do they not have any right to enjoy the fruit of their personal labor but there have lost the ability to express their thoughts.


In studying the constitution, and declaration of independence, and the writings of that time......news flash it is clear to the blind that America was NOT set up to tax the workers for charitable needs.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> So, you seek out a fourm that's main goal is old time self relent based. Yet your newbie post promote dependency and the crowd does not send out hi fives.
> 
> Americans have the right to speak their minds....all people have that right but some live under governments that so demanding that they, the government control every aspect of their lives that not only do they not have any right to enjoy the fruit of their personal labor but there have lost the ability to express their thoughts.
> 
> ...


Where have I promoted dependency?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Have I mis understood your post .....limiting just to this thread alone to simplify the answer.....that you support Obama care and accept that it is the duty of government to provide health insurance to legal citizens buy over charging some, taxing others, and dictating what is the standard of coverage. While allowing illegal non us citizens get medical free by the sweat of those working... note the criminals get the care. 


See, to me that is creating dependency. Why work hard to earn if in working those gain what you no longer can afford.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Have I mis understood your post .....limiting just to this thread alone to simplify the answer.....that you support Obama care and accept that it is the duty of government to provide health insurance to legal citizens buy over charging some, taxing others, and dictating what is the standard of coverage. While allowing illegal non us citizens get medical free by the sweat of those working... note the criminals get the care.
> 
> 
> See, to me that is creating dependency. Why work hard to earn if in working those gain what you no longer can afford.


Have not supported the ACA. The article is about the court case and health Insurance companies saying that it is working for them.

I further asked if the health care companies are supporting it and this case strikes down the subsidies what do others think the Health insurance companies will do and will they then lobby for other states to set up their own exchanges.

Not ONCE did I advocate for the ACA.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> It should not be a natural assumption. Respecting or not respecting a news organization does not preclude discussion on the subject from both sides. Yes, we should consider the slant of the information depending where it comes from but that again does not mean that a good well rounded discussion about the information and the situation that the story is about is not warranted.
> 
> Who cares what a homesteaders leanings are. They are from all sides and positions. The discussion can still take place.


If you open a discussion but react with complaint towards individuals when you don't like the quality of response, then this is exactly where it will end up. 
Maybe something more useful is to discuss the parts you consider relevant, ignore the noise and don't try to moderate others because there is no such power unless you actually are- tah tah- a moderator. And even they get blow back.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Your push back seems not to support your current view.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Your push back seems not to support your current view.


Push back against being told I support something I don't? How would that lead you to believe what view?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

:bdh:

In reference to the article, it appears slanted, biased, selective, and ignores the wording of the law, which is the whole basis of the suit. Need more?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Frankly, although it is a tool that the Supreme Court to determine results, it's going to be very hard to determine intent in a bill that was voted through without being read most and not debated by any. But I suspect the Court will do so by consulting their personal prejudices anyway.
Long live Pelosi's vote on it then find out what's in it philosophy of government.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Gruber's tapes clearly shows the intent.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Rubbers tapes clearly shows the intent.


????????


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

where I want to said:


> ????????


Love auto correct.....sort puts the words they want in sometimes


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> So it was discussed before that is really no excuse for treating relatively new forum members badly but that seems to be the norm here.


I'm sorry you think new members are treated badly. Please tell me where. 
If someone here doesn't like the ObummerUNhealthcare , its no reflection on you, you didn't put it together. Remarks are made about the dislike of the law. Quotes are mostly from pundits, talking heads, polititians.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Frankly, although it is a tool that the Supreme Court to determine results, it's going to be very hard to determine intent in a bill that was voted through without being read most and not debated by any. But I suspect the Court will do so by consulting their personal prejudices anyway.
> Long live Pelosi's vote on it then find out what's in it philosophy of government.


Actually we do have Gruger's testimony that it WAS debated & decided to go w/not allowing the feds to set up exchanges, thusly forcing ALL states to do so. Backfired & now they're trying to get out of it. 
I'm wondering-anyone know why the Idioitincharge doesn't just do an EO on this?


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Interesting how those who live sub bridge can be so persistent.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

This is not funny anymore. So much for being affordable, cause it is far from it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It was obvious from the beginning that when the deductible was factored in, a lot of people were going to end up paying far more than before.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

We know that the ACA does not work for the middle class. It seems to be working for low wages earners and now hospitals and health insurance companies.

If this case gets subsidies thrown out for states that don't have their own exchanges what will the politicians do? Republicans will be hearing from those big business. Will they cave? Will they fight to have new exchanges set up because their local hospitals and heath insurance companies want them?

I think it is a very interesting situation.

We know Dems will fight for them because their supporters will want them to.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The mess made by it will be too big. The news agencies would flood their pages with sob stories of the devastating effect of nasty Republicans (who did not make the mess, but whatever) hitting poor people with bills for eliminated subsidies. And Congress will slip in a patch with Obama taking the credit for it, and blaming Republicans again for the mess he made and the Republicans fixed. 
The only hope is that Congress can use the opportunity of reopening the issue to fix the more egregious "unintended side effects" of Obamacare. But I doubt it- the fix is too easy for the subsidy issue and too hard for the other issues but I'm enjoy being pleasantly surprised.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> The mess made by it will be too big. The news agencies would flood their pages with sob stories of the devastating effect of nasty Republicans (who did not make the mess, but whatever) hitting poor people with bills for eliminated subsidies. And Congress will slip in a patch with Obama taking the credit for it, and blaming Republicans again for the mess he made and the Republicans fixed.
> The only hope is that Congress can use the opportunity of reopening the issue to fix the more egregious "unintended side effects" of Obamacare. But I doubt it- the fix is too easy for the subsidy issue and too hard for the other issues but I'm enjoy being pleasantly surprised.


Care to share your fixes?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

First step hold Nancy accountable for supporting Not reading the bill...
Support a bill like Ted Cruz...one issue one bill

Limit bills to less than five pages.

Public disgrace for any and who knowing ....which would mean each person who voted voted for it had a a legal responsibility to perform due diligence... many of those who voted for it are or were attorneys....they took an oath that to defend the constitution.....they voted for a monster bill without reading ....they have proven that they are not capable to lead.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> We know that the ACA does not work for the middle class. It seems to be working for low wages earners and now hospitals and health insurance companies.
> 
> If this case gets subsidies thrown out for states that don't have their own exchanges what will the politicians do? Republicans will be hearing from those big business. Will they cave? Will they fight to have new exchanges set up because their local hospitals and heath insurance companies want them?
> 
> ...


This admin was not really concerned when 6 million LOST the ins. they LIKED. So, I'd think, the 1/2 of who's on ObummerUNcare & are medicaid would get to remain. The other 2 mil perhaps could have a provision that gives 'em their old ins. back...and let the other 2 mill who never got ins after this Idioincharge took it away, get their old ins back also.
Problem solved.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> First step hold Nancy accountable for supporting Not reading the bill...
> Support a bill like Ted Cruz...one issue one bill
> 
> Limit bills to less than five pages.
> ...


Post of the decade award.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> THis admin was not really concerned when 6 million LOST the ins. they LIKED. So, I'd think, the 1/2 of who's on ObummerUNcare & are medicaid would get to remain. The other 2 mil perhaps could have a provision that gives 'em their old ins. back...and let the other 2 mill who never got ins after this Idioincharge took it away, get their old ins back also.
> Problem solved.


This thread is discussing what the politicians might do if the subsidies are struck down in states with no exchange. Your scenario seems unlikely as the republicans are not making a moves in that direction and are more likely to support the big businesses that are now happy with the money they are raking in.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Face time that is one thought
Become unemployed is another
Face the music yet another

My concern is NOT for those who accepted or offer bribes to pass a bill with out reading as a Christmas present to those lable as ....stupid by st. Grubber

Really this is not on those who said no or voted no this could have been prevent if greedy people empowered by low information voters.....grabber again were so willing to take.

It was a scam from day one 

It will hurt everyone but that bandaid has to be ripped of.

And all I can say is thank you. This is on the voters who voted for Obama..new slogan fear and nightmares.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Congress by creating subsidies was attempting to foster responsibility.....

The above is a line in the doc ....justifying Obama care.


Their real logic for you.....fails
When I wanted to foster responsibility in my son I did not make the neighbors child do his chores....nope I made my boy do them.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> This thread is discussing what the politicians might do if the subsidies are struck down in states with no exchange. Your scenario seems unlikely as the republicans are not making a moves in that direction and are more likely to support the big businesses that are now happy with the money they are raking in.


I think it's the "Ds" that gave the ins. biz the $$, don't you? What did the "Rs" have to do w/it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I think it's the "Ds" that gave the ins. biz the $$, don't you? What did the "Rs" have to do w/it?


Have you read some of the articles I posted?

The D's set up the system but the Heath Insurance companies and hospitals are now happy with it. They will be fighting for it. That means they will be lobbying the Republicans and filling their coffers pushing to keep the system going.

Will the Republicans fight for something they fought so hard against or was that all lip service now that the money is hitting the table?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> I think it's the "Ds" that gave the ins. biz the $$, don't you? What did the "Rs" have to do w/it?


 The R's had nothing to with it. And just because of one, one-sided magazine article tries to point out that one hospital does doesn't point out the fact the doctors love it, which they sure don't and the rest has nothing to with the fact that AMERICANS don't love it and that is the main thing here, what is good for America and the people that life within its border. When the R's get their teeth into this Uncare carp they will have to replace the bad and keep some of the good, that is the short and long of it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I did read it.....but i undertood it too.

This read your link you think is important.......

Why?


We are here today because a bill was passed with out reading it.

So, what do you think about elected people who Cortland made this mess and did not read the bill.....ps those folks are democrats. 

We ask them to read it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> I did read it.....but i undertood it too.
> 
> This read your link you think is important.......
> 
> ...


*What happened, happened. It no longer matters who did what.* I am no longer concerned with that. I am however concerned with what will happen in the future. I have read lots of articles from both sides of the aisle and lots of discussions. I think the Republicans are about to have a big hurdle to jump and I am betting that they will support the hospitals and Health Insurance companies. I think that how they fall will decide the next presidential election. If they back the new exchanges ( if this suit succeeds) then they have no hope in getting the presidency.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover said:


> *What happened, happened. It no longer matters who did what.[
> 
> It does...why because it was done with an understanding of the results .....the framers knew grubber knew..
> 
> ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I sure don't know why this fixation on what some insurance company thinks. That is NOT what this ObamaUncare is about it is however what the American People want, and what they are4 thinking.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> I sure don't know why this fixation on what some insurance company thinks. That is NOT what this ObamaUncare is about it is however what the American People want, and what they are4 thinking.


It is not about what the insurance companies think. It is about what the republicans will do if this lawsuit wins. Will they support the heath insurance companies and hospitals that will want state exchanges ? Will they follow the money that those companies toss at them? It is a very important discussion for the people to be having.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I think the Republicans are about to have a big hurdle to jump 


No, Americans have the mess ......



When you stop protecting the guilty 

Gratefully in two years the reign of destruction will be over..a
Like every people to survive a war we will have to face hardships.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Sure insurance companies like what is happing because of what Obama did. The Bailout. But that bailout may not be a goods thing after all. LOL
*Obamacare's Illegal Insurance Company Bailout*

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/10/01/obamacares-illegal-insurance-company-bailout-n1898635


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> It is not about what the insurance companies think. It is about what the republicans will do if this lawsuit wins. Will they support the heath insurance companies and hospitals that want it? Will they follow the money that those companies toss at them? It is a very important discussion for the people to be having.


Why is it important? I can't hold Republicans accountable for bending to insurance companies' agenda ahead of time. And there would be a bad case of he-said-she-said between R's and D's if the Court vacates that part of the law. 
And there are so many ways it could play out even if the Court renders an unambiguous decision, and the Presidential canditates could play it in many different ways.
In other words, the speculation is way too complex, has too many possibilities and way too far in the future to really talk about sensibly for me. And heaven knows I'm prone to what-ifs.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*Rubio, Ryan crafting Obamacare alternative* This is what is taking place. And I am sure other plans are also in the works as well should the SC strike it down which I hope they do for everyones sake in this county.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/rubio-ryan-obamacare-alternative/


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I happen to be an co-owner of a hospital. 
We built our hospital.
We, in a service area have been dealing with this mess since it was a dream.

We run a non profit hospital with a problem.. we, made 17 million dollars...now do to not supposed to making money the hospital...under very liberal leadership wants to dump the money on a......golf course. Owned buy liberal friends.

The payment structure caused a major grow to provide for future sustainability after Obama care would come. 

So, locally we have a mess that Jordon the street does not understand. Many of us seek to pay of bonds because..next will come the dry spell.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Why is it important? I can't hold Republicans accountable for bending to insurance companies' agenda ahead of time. And there would be a bad case of he-said-she-said between R's and D's if the Court vacates that part of the law.
> And there are so many ways it could play out even if the Court renders an unambiguous decision, and the Presidential canditates could play it in many different ways.
> In other words, the speculation is way too complex, has too many possibilities and way too far in the future to really talk about sensibly for me. And heaven knows I'm prone to what-ifs.


Speculation and being prepared for what I can is what I do as a homesteader. It is how I live my life.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> Speculation and being prepared for what I can is what I do as a homesteader. It is how I live my life.


So what prep would you have for what result you forsee?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> So what prep would you have for what result you forsee?


I am doing it in this thread. I am trying to ascertain how others feel about this possibility, is it a reality? Do we need to start organizing and talking to our representatives if it is.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> *Rubio, Ryan crafting Obamacare alternative* This is what is taking place. And I am sure other plans are also in the works as well should the SC strike it down which I hope they do for everyones sake in this county.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/11/politics/rubio-ryan-obamacare-alternative/


 But what happens if they don't....James


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

DEFUND the blasted thing~! And not put one cent toward that Uncare.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> DEFUND the blasted thing~! And not put one cent toward that Uncare.


That is the problem. I don't see the republicans doing that. The money will talk and they are going to grovel for it because of the next election.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wl. You will have to figure this one out yourself....
Right now some of us are working to clean up aisle 13.

I figured out ...I will only get what I can pay and not stick it to the unnamed citizens.
I accepted that I will die and Obama care gave me a new understanding of death with dignity. I love my son and I seek not to harm his future.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I was forced into this mess. I don't like a thing about it. My concern is IF/when it is changed. What do I do. I want many changes but I also know something had to be done. IF both sides had worked together before it came to this, things may/would have been better. I didn't see the republicans doing anything about heath care reform, fixing the problems. What we got was throw out the whole thing and bring in MORE Goobermutt. We needed to fix the corruption, not add more. This is now law, we the people need to change the law, but much more, we need to fix what is wrong with Goobermutt. Arguing about what WAS done will only bring more of THE problem. The people have to work together to get what WE the people need. If we learn anything from this it has to be we have to work together, not fight back and forth and let the BULLY win in the end....James


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Wl. You will have to figure this one out yourself....
> Right now some of us are working to clean up aisle 13.
> 
> I figured out ...I will only get what I can pay and not stick it to the unnamed citizens.
> I accepted that I will die and Obama care gave me a new understanding of death with dignity. I love my son and I seek not to harm his future.


Then don't bother posting in this thread. I would prefer that to the constant shooting down of everything I say. Some of us do want to discuss it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> DEFUND the blasted thing~! And not put one cent toward that Uncare.


If the medical & insurance lobby decide they want Obamacare, do you think republicans are strong enough to cross them?

Republicans oppose Obamacare more for political reasons than for what it does. This is Obama's signature achievement and they would like to reverse it, but not at the expense of crossing the medical & insurance lobbyists.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> DEFUND the blasted thing~! And not put one cent toward that Uncare.


 
I don't see that happening. Changes yes, throw it all out, no. It has gone too far now. Too many like some of what is going on right now. Even the Republicans see some good in it and are working towards fixing the things their people see as wrong.
The people standing around and just yelling will get run over, always do. Everyone needs to work together to fix what is wrong, make it right. I don't want Goobermutt in it more but they were already in it, lets do the right thing and make health care affordable. Everything in this country is a compromise....James


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No, people who can pay for health care but don't because they are selfish are not good citizens. The candy man did not give out his own candy. 

Charities work better.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

The only thing the Republicans have done is call it O un care. Yes, it is not affordable health care as it is. It is a Goobermutt grab. Now is the time to work together to let our representatives know what we want and for them to fix it. If nothing is done now, nothing may ever get done. There are good things happening with it, more than were happening before. Now we need the real reform that everyone wanted, not a goobermutt "fix". Real reform. It got people worked up and thinking, now work together and fix it, not stand around and argue, we see what that got us. More Goobermutt....James


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Good for WHO?
And where are those 45 to 50 MILLION uninsured now? Like there NEVER WAS THAT many in the first place~!
With ONLY a few million and more of them were ALREADY insured who the heck has this helped?
A SCANT few percent that is who, and the rest PAY for it. Not good for Anyone~!


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> No, people who can pay for health care but don't because they are selfish are not good citizens. The candy man did not give out his own candy.
> 
> Charities work better.


 It was the selfish citizens and more so noncitizens not paying but using the emergency care system, that was making the costs of "health care" go up so fast. That was the major problem. 

1. Preventative care and how to get people to do that instead of using emergency care. This is working on that, just not making them responsible for it. I see that as the big problem. That needed to be 
the focus. Make that affordable, for everyone, and make each pay for that, as a start.

2. Make "emergency care" true emergency care and focus on an equitable cost there, separate from "healthcare".

How were you that say o un care is wrong, going to get everyone "health care"?

....James


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jwal10 said:


> It was the selfish citizens and more so noncitizens not paying but using the emergency care system, that was making the costs of "health care" go up so fast. That was the major problem.


Indigent medical care represents only 6% of total medical costs. You can't blame it on indigents.

Most of it is due to expensive advancements in medical techniques. A lot of it is just plain greed on the part of both medical providers and insurance companies. The ACA will go a long way towards bringing uninsured medical costs under control, but that isn't going to fix the problem.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, I personally think that it is the duty of the individual to work to meet their needs.

Learning first aid and basic health care and having supplies on hand.

This stuff is not costly but for the supplies....the internet provides the source for education.

Triage at hospitals. Stiches..non life threatening..refuse and send them for profit 24-7

Care units. If alaska has them near, as in just about a shared parking lot.

Really hospitals, with authority to say no you do not meet the mins for the emergency services here go to one of three across the street.

Maintenance drugs....non pain... over the phone refills. Freeing up Dr.time

Provide community service for portion of the bill. Really wealth is created out of someone's sweat.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Well, I personally think that it is the duty of the individual to work to meet their needs.
> 
> Learning first aid and basic health care and having supplies on hand.
> 
> ...


While self-sufficiency is a good thing, and I practice it myself, it's not an answer. A lot of people aren't going to be able to do that.

Your other suggestions are good, and I expect to see some version of that happen eventually. The medical community won't like it but it has to happen. We need clinics for basic services that cost very little to operate, most likely supported by local, state and federal funds.

A lot of doctor visits are just to get prescription refills, and that needs to end. You suggest someone to call, but many countries have dealt with the problem by making common meds non-prescription. I think that' something we can explore. Nobody is going to get high in blood pressure meds and antibiotics.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Clinics for wellness care just like Drs. office of old. This should have been the focus of "affordable health care". Set price, dental included.

Labs for tests. Set price for each, everywhere. 

Increase $4.00 monthly meds list, everywhere.

All included in "wellness insurance".


Emergency, has to have ambulance ride or triage, no wellness care. Elective care at hospitals. Both charities/for profit hospitals....James


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Indigent medical care represents only 6% of total medical costs. You can't blame it on indigents.
> 
> Most of it is due to expensive advancements in medical techniques. A lot of it is just plain greed on the part of both medical providers and insurance companies. The ACA will go a long way towards bringing uninsured medical costs under control, but that isn't going to fix the problem.


Where do you get those numbers. It is the problem, indigents is a fancy word to make people feel good. High cost is EVERYONE that doesn't pay their fair share, how ever they get it. Way more than 6%
....James


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jwal10 said:


> Emergency, has to have ambulance ride or triage, no wellness care. Elective care at hospitals. Both charities/for profit hospitals....James


I don't see why they can't do both. The public hospital in Las Vegas sponsors clinics around town for walk-ins, called UMC Quick Care. However, at the main adult hospital ER all cases are welcome because a UMC Quick Care clinic operates along side of the ER. A nurse sees everyone when they sign-in, and the nurse determines where the patient is treated.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jwal10 said:


> Where do you get those numbers. It is the problem, indigents is a fancy word to make people feel good. High cost is EVERYONE that doesn't pay their fair share, how ever they get it. Way more than 6%
> ....James


_"U.S. hospitals reported that 5.93 percent of their total second quarter 2014 gross revenue was written off as charity care or bad debt"_
http://www.acainternational.org/products-healthcare-collection-statistics-5434.aspx

Where did you get your numbers?


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

We don't have that here, I would like to see how that works. I think if people know right up front the difference in wellness care (non emergency) and only at clinics it will go a long way to separate the problem. Like it used to be, Dr. office or emergency care. Why waste nurses time separating them. Clinic on site but separate all together would be OK....James


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> If the medical & insurance lobby decide they want Obamacare, do you think republicans are strong enough to cross them?
> 
> Republicans oppose Obamacare more for political reasons than for what it does. This is Obama's signature achievement and they would like to reverse it, but not at the expense of crossing the medical & insurance lobbyists.


They want money- it does not have to be in the form of the mess that Obamacare has made. All that has to be offered is a way to stablize their income. They know as well as anyone that the long term outlook for Obamacare profits as it stands are not good. It carries poison in the plenty.
And anytime the government makes the rules, the chance for political change to disrupt long term plans.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Remember, as for republicans only naming it Obama uncare...there was a stack of bills sitting on Harry's desk.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The issue is that just as a deer has the natural right to travel freely, to eat as they wish, make noise as the wish,there is no natural right for healthcare for them. I see as an American nothing that makes healthcare a right. It is wanted and usefully to have care but not a right.

Being that my view and yet we have a system that will not work because too many will not work and accept what they can afford.

Add in the fact that people have gotten to the point where they feel it a need to see a doctor for everything under the sun.

Many of these visits were not deemed necessary years a go.

Heck, stitches were done by moms...Really unless Joan ....former neighbor lady felt it was out of her league she sewed up many a child. One car families prevented multiple doctor visit.

The shock and horror when I took three days off when ill and never saw a doctor and the employer wanted a note....crazy....and in need waste.

We have grown to think only of seeing a doc. And if there us no appointments open...well dash to the emergency room of the hospital.

I remember women asking if they were going to have the baby in the hospital. 
I like the fact that here many babies are born at home.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The ACA will go a long way towards bringing uninsured medical costs under control, but that isn't going to fix the problem.


No no no no. That's not what the Dems said when they were passing the darn thing! They claimed it would _Reduce the cost of healthcare in America_.

OTOH I'm glad you realize it isn't going to fix the problem.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

I am talking about EVERYONE that doesn't pay their fair share for health care, that includes everyone on subsidized care. Not regular Medicare, Medicaid to elderly and/or disabled people. That would include me if I ever had to use this O-care. I do not know what I will do if I need to use this insurance this year. Right now I look at it just like the Catastrophic care insurance I had last year. Right now I figure I will give the care facility the same as what I was paying for service last year on that insurance. I do not know what I will do in the future, it would be hard to track real cost after a couple years. I will just have to see. Right now I am doing what I have to, to stay inside the law AND not waste MY money paying the penalty (tax). since I had no other way to afford it this year. New "health care" insurance was 70% more than I paid last year. Sure I could have bought catastrophic insurance but would have still had to pay the TAX BUT got nothing for it....James


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> *What happened, happened. It no longer matters who did what.* I am no longer concerned with that. I am however concerned with what will happen in the future. I have read lots of articles from both sides of the aisle and lots of discussions. I think the Republicans are about to have a big hurdle to jump and I am betting that they will support the hospitals and Health Insurance companies. I think that how they fall will decide the next presidential election. If they back the new exchanges ( if this suit succeeds) then they have no hope in getting the presidency.


It certainly does matter who did what. We need to remember who screws the American people to the wall, time & time again. Who repeatedly lies to get some socialistic-leaning bill passed that does no good for H.C. & is all about control. In spite of the FACT that majority of Americans DO NOT want it.
I'll take that bet w/you. I'm not a republican but the ones who are conservative will defund obummerUNcare.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> It certainly does matter who did what. We need to remember who screws the American people to the wall, time & time again. Who repeatedly lies to get some socialistic-leaning bill passed that does no good for H.C. & is all about control.
> I'll take that bet w/you. I'm not a republican but the ones who are conservative will defund obummerUNcare.


This conversation is about the future not the past. I will take that bet. Republicans and big business that is all that really needs to be said. The republicans want those deep pockets. Their holding pattern is really proof enough.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)




----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> _"U.S. hospitals reported that 5.93 percent of their total second quarter 2014 gross revenue was written off as charity care or bad debt"_
> http://www.acainternational.org/products-healthcare-collection-statistics-5434.aspx
> 
> Where did you get your numbers?


I got a lot of different numbers that are higher than your 5.93%.... from your own Link! You cherry picked and left out quite a bit of relevant information to boost your position.

Why?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Wlover said:


> This conversation is about the future not the past. I will take that bet. Republicans and big business that is all that really needs to be said. The republicans want those deep pockets. Their holding pattern is really proof enough.


Liberals have lots of business friends with deep pockets and they love giving taxpayers money to them...just look at Obamas bailouts and who they went to! 
That's all that anyone needs to know!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

jwal10 said:


> I don't see that happening. Changes yes, throw it all out, no. It has gone too far now. Too many like some of what is going on right now. Even the Republicans see some good in it and are working towards fixing the things their people see as wrong.
> The people standing around and just yelling will get run over, always do. Everyone needs to work together to fix what is wrong, make it right. I don't want Goobermutt in it more but they were already in it, lets do the right thing and make health care affordable. Everything in this country is a compromise....James


Seems to me of the nearly 3K pgs, 2580 are useless as far as H.C. goes. So, toss it.
Folks like 26 y/o on their ins.? Allow them to negotiate w/their ins. plans. Pre-existing conditions? Deal w/that. Special pool? Subsidies for them?
I have no earthly idea how to get costs down b/c from where I sit, INSURANCE costs have gone thru the roof since '10.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

jwal10 said:


> It was the selfish citizens and more so noncitizens not paying but using the emergency care system, that was making the costs of "health care" go up so fast. That was the major problem.
> 
> 1. Preventative care and how to get people to do that instead of using emergency care. This is working on that, just not making them responsible for it. I see that as the big problem. That needed to be
> the focus. Make that affordable, for everyone, and make each pay for that, as a start.
> ...


HMOs have proven that your #1 is not true. It's very expensive. 

I agree w/ER usage. Where did this come from in just a few decades? I'd no more take my child to the ER w/cold/flu/fever than I'd fly w/arms to my sides.
Maybe there needs to be more of a triage are in ER to tell people to go home & take an aspirin.
ERs are for EMERGENCIES!

Never will there be HC for all. ALL do not want it. Gov't has to realize they're not in place to fix everything. 

DH & I have been w/o ins off & on in our lives OUR CHOICE! If we didn't have it thru an employer we took our chances. When we COULD afford to pay we did. At one time DH needed lithotripsy- for a lodged kidney stone. I had just retired, not medicare age, he had ins thru work but not roe per-existing. We checked into paying cash. Nearly 1/2 the price charged w/ins. Thankfully he passed the stone & we kept our $11,400.

When it comes to ins. you could say I'm defintely pro-choice.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

jwal10 said:


>


Post of the decade award.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Jwal
No one HAS to pay the penalty or tax. Why, because of how it was written and regulated.

Please search out 

OMB No. 0938-1190

Structure your utility payment and you are legally exempt.

Now, cash pay for what you want in care. Self paying us cheaper. Put money aside vs paying for a disaster you do not want to happen but you lose money if it doesn't.

Yep, it is a risk but life is risky. Learn how to take charge of your health. Attack health issues right away. Clean wounds better, uses safety items.

Go to private sites, eat health. Accept that you nor the doctors or government is going to prevent your death.....that's life..


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> This conversation is about the future not the past. I will take that bet. Republicans and big business that is all that really needs to be said. The republicans want those deep pockets. Their holding pattern is really proof enough.


Along the same line of thought, you know "Ds" are richer than "Rs" contrary to what some believe.
And you know that ins co. are pretty big biz. Seems the "Ds" have the deep pockets full here. That is really all that needs to be said.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Jwal
> No one HAS to pay the penalty or tax. Why, because of how it was written and regulated.
> 
> Please search out
> ...


 I don't have a utility bill. I have had catastrophic insurance all my life, one way or another. I have never gotten a cent from it, but it was always there if needed. Luckily I had other insurance that covered all my big Dr. bills. Self employed insurance through our farm and State accident insurance fund. My decision. I will not lie to get anything. I am a law abiding citizen. Yes there are other ways but I will not go there. You do what you want, I will make my own decisions. Thank You....James


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Wlover said:


> deleted post was here.


If the lawsuit succeeds there is nothing they can do. That part of the law will be stricken. My guess is the Rs in congress will do nothing, they will leave it up to the states to choose to implement exchanges or not.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

jwal10 said:


> I don't have a utility bill. I have had catastrophic insurance all my life, one way or another. I have never gotten a cent from it, but it was always there if needed. Luckily I had other insurance that covered all my big Dr. bills. Self employed insurance through our farm and State accident insurance fund. My decision. I will not lie to get anything. I am a law abiding citizen. Yes there are other ways but I will not go there. You do what you want, I will make my own decisions. Thank You....James


It is all legal.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> deleted post was here


I think many of us have already said what we 'speculate' as to the "Rs" intent & nothing's been acknowledged. 
Now we're just waiting for the 'gotcha' moment...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> It is all legal.


 You bet it is and many do all they can within the law to make things work, so they can pay less in ANY government business, from getting taxes and money and figures to make it work the best for the tax payer not the government, all within the law, use every single thing that is available to them to pay in less, or get back the most all within the law as it is written~


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> You bet it is and many do all they can within the law to make things work, so they can pay less in ANY government business, from getting taxes and money and figures to make it work the best for the tax payer not the government, all within the law, use every single thing that is available to them to pay in less, or get back the most all within the law as it is written~


But you like your government insurance, don't you?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> It is all legal.


I did look it up and saw there were enough vaguely worded exemptions that it would be next to impossible to find someone who would not qualify for an exemption. Sheesh- what a sleazy law. The people who are going to pay a penalty are the ones not willing to jump through government hoops. Or don't know of them. It basically comes down to the government (or at least Obama's EOs) saying spin a rubber chicken around your head three times and say 'caw caw' and we'll let you off.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes the old argument is those on medicare like it. Well it isn't that great as it only pays around 80%.
But one good thing is you have CHOICE many many choices. Many different plans many different companies, like a 100 or more to CHOOSE from.
And the FREEDOM to CHOOSE just what the heck you want and configure it the way YOU WANT IT~!
Not the same at all when talking about this UNCARE carp that was shoved down the Americans throats behind Locked Closed doors burning the midnight oil.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

where i want to said:


> i did look it up and saw there were enough vaguely worded exemptions that it would be next to impossible to find someone who would not qualify for an exemption. Sheesh- what a sleazy law. The people who are going to pay a penalty are the ones not willing to jump through government hoops. Or don't know of them. It basically comes down to the government (or at least obama's eos) saying spin a rubber chicken around your head three times and say 'caw caw' and we'll let you off.




you have to read important docs ....gather info before you sign up, spend money....esp if the money is others or vote.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

There are a lot of things that are legal that I don't feel are right. Marijuana is legal here now but I will never use it. This country is still the best place to live and it is my moral obligation to pay my fair share, I have no problem doing that. I don't do things to get tax write offs. Sure, I live on the low side now, I don't pay taxes on "stuff". I don't keep up with the Jonses' so I am not boosting the economy. There is no sales tax here, my property taxes are very cheap. We gave the kids most everything, the next generation is paying the taxes now. I have lived well, used the short form, paid what was owed without "deductions". I don't pay interest to use as a deduction. I may have paid more than I had too but I feel good about that. Paying back for what I have earned, fairly. I will not be a cheat, now....James


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes the old argument is those on medicare like it.


The argument in your previous pose was that government involvement in health care insurance is bad, yet you don't see to mind it for yourself.



arabian knight said:


> But one good thing is you have CHOICE many many choices. Many different plans many different companies, like a 100 or more to CHOOSE from.
> And the FREEDOM to CHOOSE just what the heck you want and configure it the way YOU WANT IT~!
> Not the same at all when talking about this UNCARE carp that was shoved down the Americans throats behind Locked Closed doors burning the midnight oil.


Actually, I had a lot of Obamacare plans to choose from. In fact, I'm looking at Medicare Advantage plans for when I go on Medicare this summer. The choices in plans are a lot better with Obamacare than Medicare Advantage in my area.

Obamacare subscribers have the freedom to choose. I have no idea where you got the idea that they didn't.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

where I want to said:


> I did look it up and saw there were enough vaguely worded exemptions that it would be next to impossible to find someone who would not qualify for an exemption. Sheesh- what a sleazy law. The people who are going to pay a penalty are the ones not willing to jump through government hoops. Or don't know of them. It basically comes down to the government (or at least Obama's EOs) saying spin a rubber chicken around your head three times and say 'caw caw' and we'll let you off.


GET THE WORD OUT why because it may help someone

My income gives me an out.....I can afford my own care as I see fit. If I sign up even with out care I will cause debt to the workers.

My father died.....another out....I could not pay my property taxes timely enough to avoid the threatening letter, we suffered a flood. See each of these are on there own exempt me. Now, I paid cash for medical care with out reaching in anyone's pocket. My bills and late fees were paid. Repairs to my car were a priority. Without a car in the summer I would pay 150 % more for feed. Without the animals our food is in jeopardy.

Long term planning to avoid tragedy.

I will not use the care not do I wish to add debt to for others to pay.

I see this as a win win.


----------



## jwal10 (Jun 5, 2010)

OH and for the record I am an American Indian, never gotten a cent, never will, never used it as an excuse, never will. Was I ever wronged, no. Were my ancestors? They were run all the way to Canada, many died, didn't work out and then were put on a Reservation. All because they wanted to keep their heritage. I am living through them. No hard feelings here. I have been blessed. I would like to see MY country go in a different direction but I am not the only one on this orb. I will work on changing the wrongs, legally, morally and with dignity in MY own way....James


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The argument in your previous pose was that government involvement in health care insurance is bad, yet you don't see to mind it for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Once again you think that the rest of the country is just like the State Of Nevada. You are so far out of reality in that thinking, you got to get out more often.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

where I want to said:


> It basically comes down to the government (or at least Obama's EOs) saying spin a rubber chicken around your head three times and say 'caw caw' and we'll let you off.


Which is going to make it real hard to bring those insurance costs down when the majority are exempt/getting subsidies.

Of course, as Gruber told us, that was all a lie anyway. 

Gotta wonder what the _real_ goal was.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

jwal10 said:


> There are a lot of things that are legal that I don't feel are right. Marijuana is legal here now but I will never use it. This country is still the best place to live and it is my moral obligation to pay my fair share, I have no problem doing that. I don't do things to get tax write offs. Sure, I live on the low side now, I don't pay taxes on "stuff". I don't keep up with the Jonses' so I am not boosting the economy. There is no sales tax here, my property taxes are very cheap. We gave the kids most everything, the next generation is paying the taxes now. I have lived well, used the short form, paid what was owed without "deductions". I don't pay interest to use as a deduction. I may have paid more than I had too but I feel good about that. Paying back for what I have earned, fairly. I will not be a cheat, now....James


And there is nothing wrong with that position determined by your sense of honor. I hate the ugly temptations of laws so bad they encourage people to disrespect them, aided by the law makers themselves.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Once again you think that the rest of the country is just like the State Of Nevada. You are so far out of reality in that thinking, you got to get out more often.


I've looked at your state's Obamacare offerings. You have a pretty wide range of plans available.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> No no no no. That's not what the Dems said when they were passing the darn thing! They claimed it would _Reduce the cost of healthcare in America_.
> 
> OTOH I'm glad you realize it isn't going to fix the problem.


Our medical system became dysfunctional. Americans pay twice what any other industrialized nation pays for healthcare per person and the results are unsatisfactory. By every measurable standard (life expectancy, infant mortality rate, cancer survival rate, access to care, etc.), the US does not rank well. On top of that, nearly 50 million people in America were uninsured.

In my view we couldn't have done worse than what we had. The ACA isn't perfect and needs a lot of work, but it's an improvement. We need to expand the ACA to become a single payer system.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> We need to expand the ACA to become a single payer system.


And that would be the absolutely the worst thing to take place in America. 
Government would be in complete control that way. Ya lets just take free enterprise completely out of the picture and while your at it might as well have the government step up their agenda and stop capitalism while their at it. Might as well have a complete dictatorship happening cause it isn;t too far for that right now by whom is in charge at the WH now.
Let insurance companies fight it out and let them sell across state lines and give everyone the option of what THEY WANT instead of what the government THINKS the want, and what is good for them. Take all responsibility out of it, let government THINK for everyone. Good luck at keeping a free America on that one~!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The law is written to follow the law as it is written and every reg as written is indeed the right thing to do. To have knowledge that could help another and to hide it and not help another might just be selfish, neglectful,cruel or apathy grandmothers trouble.

I see no honor in that. For evil to take hold good men must stay silent.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Arabian is right. Never do ones laundry in a cesspool and count on that to remove the stains.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62584/



Nevada said:


> . The ACA isn't perfect and needs a lot of work, but it's an improvement. .


No, I know this never penetrates past the Is It Good For Nevada criteria but it has made it worse for many more people than it has made it better. 
BTW the US does better than most in some catagories- for a more balanced look at the issue, the above link has more info. But I do think the progress made in over all health due to tobacco smoking reduction will soon be negated by pot smoking health issues.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And that would be the absolutely the worst thing to take place in America.
> Government would be in complete control that way.


But you don't have a problem with government health care insurance. Your problem is that other people might get government health care insurance.

As I said in my last post, free enterprise made health care very bad for us. It was expensive, millions were without insurance, and the medical results were unsatisfactory. What makes you think it will be any different if we go back to that?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Our medical system became dysfunctional. Americans pay twice what any other industrialized nation pays for healthcare per person and the results are unsatisfactory. By every measurable standard (life expectancy, infant mortality rate, cancer survival rate, access to care, etc.), the US does not rank well. On top of that, nearly 50 million people in America were uninsured.
> 
> In my view we couldn't have done worse than what we had. The ACA isn't perfect and needs a lot of work, but it's an improvement. We need to expand the ACA to become a single payer system.




OUR WORKERS RECIEVE HIGHER PAY ......wonder why care cost more...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> OUR WORKERS RECIEVE HIGHER PAY ......wonder why care cost more...


US pay compensation isn't that different from European countries, and we're actually below some.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But you don't have a problem with government health care insurance. Your problem is that other people might get government health care insurance.
> 
> As I said in my last post, free enterprise made health care very bad for us. It was expensive, millions were without insurance, and the medical results were unsatisfactory. What makes you think it will be any different if we go back to that?


I have said this before but the freedom to shop around for health insurance gave me the freedom to shop around for doctors. That saved my life. I now understand the virtues of freedom over paternalism.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

False. The average doc in the United kingdom is 50,000 euros...which converts to just less than 57,000 us dollars.


Now in use the average doctor gets 225,000 us dollars.

That is from payscale.com


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> I have said this before but the freedom to shop around for health insurance gave me the freedom to shop around for doctors. That saved my life. I now understand the virtues of freedom over paternalism.


You can shop around for both insurance and doctors with the ACA. I did.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada why not shop around for say alaska... here is a zip tell me how many companies 99610


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Nevada why not shop around for say alaska... here is a zip tell me how many companies 99610


I'm seeing dozens of plans.

https://www.healthsherpa.com/insurance_plans?zip_code=99610+#c02122/ppl35/cspremium/hhs1


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You can shop around for both insurance and doctors with the ACA. I did.


Again- no I can't because I never would qualify for it, no matter what. I now have medicare, which is not a coverage all doctors accept here, and it's coverage is limited, so I also have a non-obamacare supplemental policy that is quite expensive and not available for a subsidy either. 
Before Medicare, I did have access to an employer supplied policy so would not have received an Obamacare insurance at all, much less a subsidy. It was more expensive but much more flexible than medicare.
Obamacare has a limited applicability- very limited, which you never seem to believe. For those who get insurance without having to pay for it, it helps them. But more people by far have had their access to insurance they used either eliminated or changed for the worse due to Obamacare rules than have been helped. Some do not qualify for a subsidy yet can't afford the policies that Obamacare allows.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Again- no I can't because I never would qualify for it, no matter what. I now have medicare, which is not a coverage all doctors accept here, and it's coverage is limited, so I also have a non-obamacare supplemental policy that is quite expensive and not available for a subsidy either.


I go on Medicare in August, and I'm really looking forward to it. I'll be going on a Medicare Advantage HMO. No copay to see my primary, no copay to see a specialist, no copay for hospital stays, and my doctor is in the system.

Without a doubt, my new government sponsored insurance will be the best insurance I've ever had.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I go on Medicare in August, and I'm really looking forward to it. I'll be going on a Medicare Advantage HMO. No copay to see my primary, no copay to see a specialist, no copay for hospital stays, and my doctor is in the system.
> 
> Without a doubt, my new government sponsored insurance will be the best insurance I've ever had.


Ah but I had made it a point to work to have better but now it's lost.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Ok nevada
Income 18,000 two non smoking


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes go do your happy Dance in Aug. :banana::banana::banana: Once again it is all about you you you, And not what is good the America and Americans as a whole~!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Ok nevada
> Income 18,000 two non smoking


There are plenty of providers, but you won't qualify for a subsidy because your state did not expand Medicaid. Take it up with your republican leaders.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

13, 206 be for insurance kicks in
Leaving 2 people on 

18,000
-13,206
Leaving 4,704 for two to live on.
Prop tax 1200
3,504
Average ele 90x12= 1,080
2,424 
Script for dh. Co pay 48x12 =496
1,028

But nevada will be cover so I guess it will be good for someone.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> There are plenty of providers, but you won't qualify for a subsidy because your state did not expand Medicaid. Take it up with your republican leaders.


Thank God they did not. I get the exemption.
I can eat in a warm home and get medical care to boot.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> There are plenty of providers, but you won't qualify for a subsidy because your state did not expand Medicaid. Take it up with your republican leaders.


For Pete's sake- if everyone followed your advice for the good life, no one would be left to pay for the freebies. You should be blessing everyone that keeps chugging away to pay for them.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

where I want to said:


> For Pete's sake- if everyone followed your advice for the good life, no one would be left to pay for the freebies. You should be blessing everyone that keeps chugging away to pay for them.


 So true and thank goodness the majority of the States did not get 'taken in' by this scam.
And they won't have a bill coming up to pay for it either in the next few years. That will make those majority of states feel might good for the good of their states residents.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I go on Medicare in August, and I'm really looking forward to it. I'll be going on a Medicare Advantage HMO. No copay to see my primary, no copay to see a specialist, no copay for hospital stays, and my doctor is in the system.
> 
> Without a doubt, my new government sponsored insurance will be the best insurance I've ever had.


 Don't count your chickens you may just end up with egg all over your face.

*Medicare: Why You'll Pay More If This Proposal Becomes Law*



> Earlier this month, President Obama's budget proposed measures that would reduce the cost of Medicare, as well as Medicaid and other programs from the Department of Health and Human Services, by almost $400 billion during the next decade. Many of those measures centered on reducing reimbursements to a wide range of healthcare providers, including hospitals, nursing homes, and health maintenance organizations.





> The administration believes that those provisions alone would cut $66 billion from Medicare's budget during the next decade.


* Ya now who Hates Poor People~????*


> What you'd pay for Medicare under the proposed budget
> The budget's measures to boost its financial stability would lead to a host of new charges and price increases for Medicare participants. For instance, Medicare currently has a deductible for Part B medical insurance of $147 per year, and that amount automatically rises along with the costs of the Medicare program. Under the budget, that deductible would rise by $25 for new participants beginning in 2019, and further $25 increases would take effect in 2021 and 2023. Current participants wouldn't pay higher amounts, leaving future beneficiaries to bear the roughly $3.7 billion cost of the larger deductibles between now and 2025.



http://www.fool.com/retirement/general/2015/02/14/medicare-why-youll-pay-more-if-this-proposal-becom.aspx


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Don't count your chickens you may just end up with egg all over your face.
> 
> *Medicare: Why You'll Pay More If This Proposal Becomes Law*


But, like you, I won't have Medicare. I'll have Medicare Advantage.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The argument in your previous pose was that government involvement in health care insurance is bad, yet you don't see to mind it for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How 'bout DH chooses NOT to have maternity benefits or free b.c.?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Don't count your chickens you may just end up with egg all over your face.
> 
> *Medicare: Why You'll Pay More If This Proposal Becomes Law*
> 
> ...


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> For Pete's sake- if everyone followed your advice for the good life, no one would be left to pay for the freebies. You should be blessing everyone that keeps chugging away to pay for them.


It's only a matter of time before the Medicaid expansion gap is corrected. They have to. I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to give something to some states and not others, since that's not respecting equal protection under the law. If congress won't fix it the courts will.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Or....it will end it.

Delaying the refunds from the IRS will tick folks off THAT EXSPECT AND PLAN ON A REFUND but when the learn the impact Ocala then those who thought they're getting money back via the credit they will scream.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

where I want to said:


> For Pete's sake- if everyone followed your advice for the good life, no one would be left to pay for the freebies. You should be blessing everyone that keeps chugging away to pay for them.


That's the conclusion of the Cloward & Piven plan. Get everybody on the support to overwhelm the system.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's only a matter of time before the Medicaid expansion gap is corrected. They have to. I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to give something to some states and not others, since that's not respecting equal protection under the law. If congress won't fix it the courts will.


Why do you suppose the dems wrote the law that way? Purposely said the feds couldn't set up exchanges, only states? We have testimony that they did it w/intent.
Do you think the courts can re-write law?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://americanactionforum.org/rese...-in-the-affordable-care-act-april-2014-update



Nevada said:


> But, like you, I won't have Medicare. I'll have Medicare Advantage.


Stuff happens- it behooves a person not to count so much on it not happening to them. Medicare Advantage was on Obama's radar to cut before anything else.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

where I want to said:


> http://americanactionforum.org/rese...-in-the-affordable-care-act-april-2014-update
> 
> 
> 
> Stuff happens- it behooves a person not to count so much on it not happening to them. Medicare Advantage was on Obama's radar to cut before anything else.


 Ya thats for sure. My Advantage Program went up 27% this year, but my friend has the same level of coverage form the same company the only difference is he lives in a different county, and his went up 110%. So the individual counties have gotten LESS money to spread around for these Advantage Programs.
When he called and asked why they told him it was directly related to what Obama had done. And because of the LESS money the counties have gotten is a direct action that Obama has done when he CUT the amount of money going into the Advantage programs.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Stuff happens- it behooves a person not to count so much on it not happening to them. Medicare Advantage was on Obama's radar to cut before anything else.


I expect to see Medicare Advantage cuts called for. It's not fair for Medicare Advantage subscribers to get more from the government than Medicare gets. But cutting Medicare Advantage crosses a line into messing with insurance company compensation. Look for republicans to block it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ya thats for sure. My Advantage Program went up 27% this year, but my friend has the same level of coverage form the same company the only difference is he lives in a different county, and his went up 110%. So the individual counties have gotten LESS money to spread around for these Advantage Programs.
> When he called and asked why they told him it was directly related to what Obama had done. And because of the LESS money the counties have gotten is a direct action that Obama has done when he CUT the amount of money going into the Advantage programs.


No, they haven't cut Medicare Advantage contributions yet.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And the important......yet


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I expect to see Medicare Advantage cuts called for. It's not fair for Medicare Advantage subscribers to get more from the government than Medicare gets. But cutting Medicare Advantage crosses a line into messing with insurance company compensation. Look for republicans to block it.


Block it? It started lasted year after being put off for a year and is BUILT IN to this stupid ObamaUncare stuff~!!! And IS a 10 year built in Cuts each and every year, this is just the 2nd year of the CUTS~!!!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*ObamaCare Cuts Bite Medicare Advantage*


> Many seniors are, in fact, already losing access to their doc tors, and more than half a million are losing access to plans they liked this year, *as $200 billion in ObamaCare-mandated cuts* to the popular Medicare Advantage program start to take effect.


*To date, only about 10% of the cuts have been enacted, but are finally starting to ramp up.*


> Recognizing the political risk of deep cuts to a popular program in an election year, the administration *created a dubious *$8.3 billion "quality improvement" demonstration project, with the bulk of the money given to Medicare Advantage plans in 2012.
> 
> Not only did this project dwarf any previous federal demonstration project, it was so poorly designed that it was unlikely to "produce meaningful results," according to a Government Accountability Office audit.


And just LOOK at when this was written~!!!!

Business Daily* November 26, 2013 5:54 PM*

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-cuts-bite-medicare-advantage-225400802.html

So who is being dubbed now? The uninformed, the ones that listen to MSM outlets and only those that HEAR WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR, the good, and block out the bad cause they don't WANT TO KNOW the bad. Obama can do nothing wrong.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Obama may have delayed things due to midterm elections but they are now over. And he is here for 2 more years. And he has a long term supply of magic pens.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Block it? It started lasted year after being put off for a year and is BUILT IN to this stupid ObamaUncare stuff~!!! And IS a 10 year built in Cuts each and every year, this is just the 2nd year of the CUTS~!!!


OK, here's the deal on Medicare Advantage. When it was first setup they offered an incentive for insurance companies to participate. That incentive is still being paid, so it's costing the government a lot more to insure Medicare Advantage patients than regular Medicare patients.

One of the things the ACA does is eventually remove that incentive. That's fair, since you & I shouldn't get more from Medicare just about we live in a place where Medicare Advantage is attractive.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> OK, here's the deal on Medicare Advantage. When it was first setup they offered an incentive for insurance companies to participate. That incentive is still being paid, so it's costing the government a lot more to insure Medicare Advantage patients than regular Medicare patients.
> 
> One of the things the ACA does is eventually remove that incentive. That's fair, since you & I shouldn't get more from Medicare just about we live in a place where Medicare Advantage is attractive.


An amazing philosophy from a man that constantly announces pleasure in getting what other people pay for but can't get for themselves- a subsidy to pay for their health insurance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> An amazing philosophy from a man that constantly announces pleasure in getting what other people pay for but can't get for themselves- a subsidy to pay for their health insurance.


You're not seeing the opportunity here. After the ACA is fully operational Medicare Advantage patients will get the same funding as regular Medicare patients. The only difference is that Medicare Advantage will be administrated by private companies. This is your chance to show how much better private enterprise is over government programs.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You're not seeing the opportunity here. After the ACA is fully operational Medicare Advantage patients will get the same funding as regular Medicare patients. The only difference is that Medicare Advantage will be administrated by private companies. This is your chance to show how much better private enterprise is over government programs.


Well, Medicare is basically always administered by private companies- mostly Blue Cross Blue Shield. They are paid for doing what the government dictates. Now the dictation to Medicare Advantage will be more in line of regular Medicare when the insurance companies have squeezed as much as they can from their providers, who will find Medicare Advantage to be equally bad or worse than regular Medicare and drop out of the network. 
Choosing how to spend money is only helpful if you have the money to spend.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Well, Medicare is basically always administered by private companies- mostly Blue Cross Blue Shield. They are paid for doing what the government dictates. Now the dictation to Medicare Advantage will be more in line of regular Medicare when the insurance companies have squeezed as much as they can from their providers, who will find Medicare Advantage to be *equally bad or worse than regular Medicare* and drop out of the network.
> Choosing how to spend money is only helpful if you have the money to spend.


I didn't expect you to admit that private enterprise can't do any better than the government. That's a step in the right direction.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

A private business forced via mandated regs will become what the dictatorship wishes.....thus are not private business Really private in name only. An illusion of free enterprise.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I didn't expect you to admit that private enterprise can't do any better than the government. That's a step in the right direction.


Can't even get that out of what I said by twisting yourself into a pretzel. Don't listen to those voices in your head.


----------

