Obamacare
Quote: rxwineYou must not have any medical bills, other than for aspirin and a routine checkup.
IMO, Insurance shouldn't be for a routine checkup. Do you bust out your automobile insurance policy for an oil change or to fill your tank? Could you imagine what your auto insurance policy would be if it covered those expenses for you? I think routine checkups should be paid for by the person getting the checkup. Many medications have generic options out there and those generic options still have the same active drugs and cost a fraction of the name brand medication. Having to actually pay OOP for these things would cause consumers to pick which one works best for them and their family. Now, what insurance should be for is the catastrophe. You bust out your homeowner's insurance when your house catches fire, not when you need to replace a light bulb, you bust out your auto insurance, when you get into a wreck, not when you need an oil change. If insurance covered the catastrophic stuff and not they every day stuff, rates would go down. Furthermore, people wouldn't go to the doctor as much for stuff they don't need to go for. If you have an itch in your throat, and just got it in your sleep last night, you don't need to go to the doctor. Many people nowadays do, because they don't have to pay for it.
Quote: rxwineYou must not have any medical bills, other than for aspirin and a routine checkup.
Actually I have. I also pay for my own insurance. Life is about choices
Why did the law get written as it did? Was it meant to only mean that state exchanges qualified for tax breaks and others didn't? Was it really supposed to mean that you could get the tax break for a federally run exchange? Why did they not word it correctly if that was the case?
This is the problem with shoving a law that is not even fully written through Congress and signing it into law as if it were a true 'emergency"...it was more important to get the law passed than it was to make sure what passed was what the voters who favored it intended to pass. These questions should have been resolved long before a Supreme Court case was even necessary--the law should have been written the way it was intended to be implemented, or we should have stuck with it as written.
It is simple and it comes down to one observation in Justice Scalia's dissent:
“Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges.”
http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/25/top-9-quotes-from-scalias-scathing-dissent-in-king-v-burwell/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thffacebook
Justice Scalia doesn't have anger issues; he has an issue with the Court fixing laws rather than ruling on how they are written.
Is this what we really want the Court to do? If you are in favor of Obamacare, it sounds great. Will it be so great when it happens and works against you? It is kind of like using the "Nuclear Option" in the Senate...it may work in your favor when you do it; but it will damned sure work against you when your opposition does it.
Quote: RonCJustice Scalia doesn't have anger issues; he has an issue with the Court fixing laws rather than ruling on how they are written.
Scalia only cares about the unbiased rulings--- ptooey in the spittoon on that.
Quote:The most pronounced in the data set is Scalia … Just in terms of the pure percentages, if it were a liberal speaker he’d support the free exercise claim in about 21 percent of the cases. But if it were a conservative speaker, [he'd support free exercise claims] in 65 percent of the cases.
Breyer is the counter example. At least in the raw data … he shows no bias. So he was 40 percent for expression if it were a liberal speaker, and 38 percent if it were a conservative speaker; and that wouldn’t be a significant difference.
Ginsberg, there’s more of a difference. She tends to support liberal speakers over conservative speakers. There was a 13 percentage point difference, but it’s not statistically significant. And we don’t have enough data yet for Kagan and Sotomayor.
Quote:We looked at all First Amendment cases involving expression … And what we did was we coded the outcome of the case, whether the courts then favored the First Amendment or not, and then we looked at the speaker — the nature of the speech — and looked at whether it was a liberal speaker or conservative speaker. Then we controlled for a whole bunch of other variables that could detect outcomes in First Amendment cases, but we were really interested in the ideology of the speaker.
The essential finding is that liberal justices tend to vote in favor of expression when it’s a liberal speaker and conservative justices tend to vote in favor of expression when it’s a conservative speaker.
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/15/scalias_free_speech_hypocrisy_what_a_new_study_proves_about_his_bias/
Quote: rxwineScalia only cares about the unbiased rulings--- ptooey in the spittoon on that.
Quote:The most pronounced in the data set is Scalia … Just in terms of the pure percentages, if it were a liberal speaker he’d support the free exercise claim in about 21 percent of the cases. But if it were a conservative speaker, [he'd support free exercise claims] in 65 percent of the cases.
Breyer is the counter example. At least in the raw data … he shows no bias. So he was 40 percent for expression if it were a liberal speaker, and 38 percent if it were a conservative speaker; and that wouldn’t be a significant difference.
Ginsberg, there’s more of a difference. She tends to support liberal speakers over conservative speakers. There was a 13 percentage point difference, but it’s not statistically significant. And we don’t have enough data yet for Kagan and Sotomayor.
Yes, I have full confidence in that study!!!
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/15/scalias_free_speech_hypocrisy_what_a_new_study_proves_about_his_bias/
Quote: RonCYes, I have full confidence in that study!!!
The non-amazing thing it claims is conservative judges aren't somehow inoculated against bias.
My daughter, who is a grad student with two part-time jobs living in a state with an exchange, just got notified that her portion of the bill for 2016 is going from $109 to $136. This is after the "tax subsidy" that she gets based on the current law, so it is likely that the entire rate is going up equally. She will graduate and, hopefully, make more money...which means she will be responsible for more of the bill at the new and higher rate.
This is a pretty large increase for a single person, age 23...what is everyone else seeing?
Quote: RonCHere we go again...an Obamacare rate increase for 2016!!
My daughter, who is a grad student with two part-time jobs living in a state with an exchange, just got notified that her portion of the bill for 2016 is going from $109 to $136. This is after the "tax subsidy" that she gets based on the current law, so it is likely that the entire rate is going up equally. She will graduate and, hopefully, make more money...which means she will be responsible for more of the bill at the new and higher rate.
This is a pretty large increase for a single person, age 23...what is everyone else seeing?
Before Obamacare, at the company I used to work for, after our two year contracts with the provider were up, we would regularly see rate increases of 30 to 50%. We answered that by changing providers every two years, resulting in 5-15% increases.
"Urgent notification: You have less than 48 hours until the deadline to avoid a premium increase in 2016. Our records show that the monthly health insurance premium you pay could increase 30-50% in 2016 if you don’t return to HealthCare.gov to update your information and shop for a new plan. For example, if your monthly bill is $50, your costs may increase $65 or more per month for the same plan starting in January. This is just an estimate of how your monthly costs will change. How much you’ll pay depends on changes to the financial help available to you, your premium, and your personal situation, like an increase in income or household size.
New, better, or more affordable plans may be available, but you must take action immediately.
Log in today and find the best plan for you in 2016."
The "better" plan won't likely be available at the same price as this year's plan, so we'll likely end up switching to a policy that covers less to keep the costs under control.
I know prices were going up before--but wasn't Obamacare supposed to make things better, not worse?
Quote: FinsRuleI can guarantee you the government doesn't require you to state your religion in order for doctors to receive payment. I'm sure there is a "prefer not to state" option.
We are about to ban muslims. But no possibilty of asking religion?
Quote: RonCObamacare is even telling us the prices may go up by 100% or more if we don't shop for a new plan. Yes, they are saying that KEEPING THE SAME PLAN that costs $50 a month may cost $115 a month next year...
"Urgent notification: You have less than 48 hours until the deadline to avoid a premium increase in 2016. Our records show that the monthly health insurance premium you pay could increase 30-50% in 2016 if you don’t return to HealthCare.gov to update your information and shop for a new plan. For example, if your monthly bill is $50, your costs may increase $65 or more per month for the same plan starting in January. This is just an estimate of how your monthly costs will change. How much you’ll pay depends on changes to the financial help available to you, your premium, and your personal situation, like an increase in income or household size.
New, better, or more affordable plans may be available, but you must take action immediately.
Log in today and find the best plan for you in 2016."
The "better" plan won't likely be available at the same price as this year's plan, so we'll likely end up switching to a policy that covers less to keep the costs under control.
I know prices were going up before--but wasn't Obamacare supposed to make things better, not worse?
Sounds to me like you could benefit from a strong Public Option.
Write your congressperson and let them know.
Hehehe
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf the government can force me to buy health insurance, than they can force the casinos to deal me a hand of blackjack even though they might not want to.
Don't know how many more casinos are in the US than say 30 years ago, but perhaps the drawback is they have/will be a powerful lobbying force. Do you think they will lobby for player's interest? I'm betting no.
Quote: ams288Sounds to me like you could benefit from a strong Public Option.
Write your congressperson and let them know.
Hehehe
Yeah, it is funny isn't it? What a pile of crap your statement is. Obama is a screw job, plain and simple. He took something bad and made it worse. His healthcare plan is sinking already under the stupidity and could sink the country.
Meanwhile, it is somehow all the conservative's fault.
Quote: RonCYeah, it is funny isn't it? What a pile of crap your statement is. Obama is a screw job, plain and simple. He took something bad and made it worse. His healthcare plan is sinking already under the stupidity and could sink the country.
Meanwhile, it is somehow all the conservative's fault.
Let me know when it "sinks the country."
Quote: ams288Let me know when it "sinks the country."
Everyone's insurance premiums are now going up faster than ever. Obama is a sad joke played out on America. Obamacare is a cruel hoax that is playing out as we are seeing. Perhaps we someday get the beloved single payer that Libs want. Then our health care will begin the slow descent from greatness to mediocrity.
I'll be long gone from here well before that--I have spoken about both sides being wrong but liberals don't care or get it.
I don't think that your statements reflect a desire to make anything better. There is no discourse. It is silly for me to keep trying to have reasonable conversations, so I will contribute less and less in anything here involving politics and focus my efforts on real life, where perhaps I can have conversations about how to make things better.
I'm breathing thru a snorkel tube now. How's everyone else doing?Quote: ams288Let me know when it "sinks the country."
Chicken.Quote: jjjooogggErased
Quote: TwoFeathersATLChicken.
I regret talking politics.
So I erased
Bac bac
Quote: RonCEveryone's insurance premiums are now going up faster than ever. Obama is a sad joke played out on America. Obamacare is a cruel hoax that is playing out as we are seeing.
It sounds like you have a severe case of ODS (Obama Derangement Sybdrome).
Unfortunately, whether you have Obamacare or not, there is no cure.
Quote: ams288It sounds like you have a severe case of ODS (Obama Derangement Sybdrome).
Unfortunately, whether you have Obamacare or not, there is no cure.
Not exactly. I am pissed off at any part of our government that puts together a crappy law or rule, passes it late at night, does not finish writing it before it is passed, and calls it an "emergency" to avoid their promised time for review of the law before passage. I'd be just as mad if the Republicans did it; and I have been at times. It isn't that we didn't need to do something; it is that the something we did will not work well and is causing prices to rise just as fast or faster than they were before. Many of the people he said he was trying to help will choose no coverage and pay the tax penalty.
Perhaps your Obama/Liberal blinders are a bit too tight and don't let in enough light to even care if one side does something crappy but that they amazingly see everything the other side does wrong.
I don't think Obama is a good President. I think he is weak when we need strength. I have said before that I don't root "against" a President once elected because that IS the President. However, after this long in office I do have a record to look at it and it is not stellar by any means. The standard Liberal answer to that is "Bush wasn't any good either", which is stupid.
Liberal policies aren't doing enough to help the people they say need help; how about working to do something about it?
Quote: RonCNot exactly. I am pissed off at any part of our government that puts together a crappy law or rule, passes it late at night, does not finish writing it before it is passed, and calls it an "emergency" to avoid their promised time for review of the law before passage. I'd be just as mad if the Republicans did it; and I have been at times. It isn't that we didn't need to do something; it is that the something we did will not work well and is causing prices to rise just as fast or faster than they were before. Many of the people he said he was trying to help will choose no coverage and pay the tax penalty.
Perhaps your Obama/Liberal blinders are a bit too tight and don't let in enough light to even care if one side does something crappy but that they amazingly see everything the other side does wrong.
I don't think Obama is a good President. I think he is weak when we need strength. I have said before that I don't root "against" a President once elected because that IS the President. However, after this long in office I do have a record to look at it and it is not stellar by any means. The standard Liberal answer to that is "Bush wasn't any good either", which is stupid.
Liberal policies aren't doing enough to help the people they say need help; how about working to do something about it?
You seem to be under the impression that liberals love Obamacare and think it's perfect.
It was the best thing that they could pass under the circumstances at the time.
Of course it is very flawed. There are things that could and should be fixed.
But all the politicians on the Right's heads are so far up their butts, they refuse to do anything but repeal. Which obviously is never going to happen under a Democratic president who won re-election in part campaigning on Obamacare.
So don't blame the left for every perceived failure of Obamacare that you have.
Blame the right. They are preventing it from becoming a better law.
"Dear Patients,
Your medical provider is participating in a government program that encourages the adoption of electronic health records. This technology will lead to reduced health care costs but it will also improve the quality of your care and our ability to communicate with you our patients.
As part of this program the government requires us to record the following demographic information about you:
preferred language, race, ethnicity, date of birth, gender."
I believe that Obamacare has more to do with corporations than politics, lobbying by health care companies.
Bottom line is we are now paying $850 a month compared to $571 this year with a slightly higher deductible.
And YES I do blame Obama because this entire program was designed to get more people free or discounted insurance and then cause the system not to work so he and his liberal pals can get more people to support the Public Option.
Quote: BozAnd YES I do blame Obama because this entire program was designed to get more people free or discounted insurance and then cause the system not to work so he and his liberal pals can get more people to support the Public Option.
The great thing about America is that you are free to hold and express this opinion (no matter how blatantly incorrect it is).
That's what they really mean.
In fact, the closest you can come to doing both (driving down costs and serving the public at large) is literally forcing more people who can to contribute.
Quote: ams288The great thing about America is that you are free to hold and express this opinion (no matter how blatantly incorrect it is).
So it it incorrect that his goal is a Public Option or that there are actually people getting discounted insurance off the higher rates of others?
Quote: BozSo it it incorrect that his goal is a Public Option or that there are actually people getting discounted insurance off the higher rates of others?
Blatantly incorrect that he purposefully "caused the system not to work" in order to achieve something else.
Also, are you confusing a Public Option with Single Payer?
In your mind, if he is causing the system not to work in order to achieve some other nefarious goal.... Wouldn't that goal be Single Payer over a Public Option?
Quote: ams288Blatantly incorrect that he purposefully "caused the system not to work" in order to achieve something else.
Also, are you confusing a Public Option with Single Payer?
In your mind, if he is causing the system not to work in order to achieve some other nefarious goal.... Wouldn't that goal be Single Payer over a Public Option?
Same thing as understand it, possibly wrong.
I am giving him credit for knowing it wouldn't work, he can't that stupid to think it would.
The "right" was intentionally not included in creating such a dumb law, as Gruber and the Supreme Court have attested.Quote: ams288So don't blame the left for every perceived failure of Obamacare that you have. Blame the right. They are preventing it from becoming a better law.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe "right" was intentionally not included in creating such a dumb law, as Gruber and the Supreme Court have attested.
If the "right" doesn't like it, then they need to find a Presidential candidate who can actually win a general election.
Cause it ain't going anywhere till then.
Quote: ams288If the "right" doesn't like it, then they need to find a Presidential candidate who can actually win a general election.
Cause it ain't going anywhere till then.
And that we agree on. As long as the left is offering more and the right is preaching hard work and personal responsibility, they cannot win.
It really is as simple as that and will stay the same until enough people decide they want more out of life and are willing to make the sacrifices to get it.
The large increases in premiums and the failures of the co-ops say otherwise.Quote: ams288If the "right" doesn't like it, then they need to find a Presidential candidate who can actually win a general election. Cause it ain't going anywhere till then.
I would much rather have a single payer system.
Quote: ams288I'd just like to chime back in and say while it may seem like I am some Obamacare apologist when going up the hardline righties on here, I don't think it is all that great.
I would much rather have a single payer system.
As would most far left extremists, who like the crazy far right are laughed at by most of the general public.
You have the occupy and single payer movement and we have the Westboro church and others like them.
Quote: BozYou have the occupy and singer payer movement and we have the Westboro church and others like them.
The "singer payer" movement.
There's an interesting idea! Let's force all singers to pay for everyone's health care.
I like the way you think, Boz!
Quote: ams288The "singer payer" movement.
There's an interesting idea! Let's force all singers to pay for everyone's health care.
I like the way you think, Boz!
Edited. I've starting to spell like Axel.
Why not, same theory. They can double the cost of every song download to pay for it. And if no one buys it, well liberals never think that far out. Like raising minimum wage to $15.00. Which just raises the expectation of EVERY employee to receive a $6-$9 wage. So the business owner just increases the cost of goods.....and if no one buys it.....well liberals never think that far out. Too busy patting themselves on the back for all the "good" they did for those not as smart as them that could never make it in this cruel world without their help.
About sums it all up.
Is it normal for Obamacare to be 10,000 pages long?
Then we check spelling and grammar,
Tied again, no progress......;-)
It's apparently a popular part of Obamacare. Not hard to understand why. You could be sailing along for years not covered, find out you have an expensive disease. So you're off to buy insurance to defray the cost.
You may not be barred, except the cost might be way out of your price range. Now you're not barred; you just can't afford it. What's the difference?
Am I missing something? Seems like an empty promise.
Due to Obamacare I can keep my insurance under my parents until I'm 26. But when December 2017 rolls around I will need to purchase it for myself.
When I put in my info into healthcare.gov, my coverage would be nearly $500/month. This is minimum coverage for a healthy 25 year old with a very low income (just started my business this year).
Although I don't trust him to do much of anything, here's to hoping Trump's plan will fix this mess.
Quote: ams288If the "right" doesn't like it, then they need to find a Presidential candidate who can actually win a general election.
Cause it ain't going anywhere till then.
Congratulations! Your wish has come true.
Behind closed doors, Republican lawmakers fret about how to repeal Obamacare
Quote: ams288Leaked audio has been released of GOP congressmen admitting they have no idea how to properly repeal Obamacare, and they know they're gonna own the mess they create.
Aren't they going to use Trump's plan?
(that's a joke, we know he had no real plan)
Quote: billryanA senator asked Trumps nominee if it was true that he and the President had a plan. The nominee responded by saying it was true that the President said it
Republicans working on repealing the ACA.
