How does it feel to now be a taxpayer?

[apple0154]

But we implemented them because you said they would work! We have spent trillions of dollars over the years funding them, and you now want to reveal they didn't work? BUT... this NEW idea, it WILL work, right? But why would we believe you this time? You obviously didn't know what you were talking about the last time, because your idea didn't work. Right?

It's like this. Dix. The free clinics didn't go far enough. It's the same thing with ObamaCare. It's the best there is NOW but it still doesn't go far enough and that's because of Repub opposition. So when Obama starts to adjust ObamaCare towards a one payer system I'll say the same thing I'm saying about free clinics. The march is on to a one payer system. Full medical care. Period.

And see... here's the thing, I have not heard a thing in Obamacare that convinces me it would prevent people from dying. I think, even WITH Obamacare, people are still going to die and get sick, and it won't solve this problem. This will include poor people, but wealthy people too! And whether they have Cadillac health care plans or Obamacare, they may still not seek medical attention for their ailments, and subsequently, might die. I don't think this problem can ever really be solved, apple.

That's all true but people will be dying in a uniform way having all received the same treatment. It's about simplicity.

No we don't really have anything other than your typical long-winded examples of people who apparently never heard of a public health clinic. We already had unfettered access to doctors, hospitals and medication, covered by Medicaid for the poor, and either free or at low cost for those who don't qualify for Medicaid.

Riiiight, Dix. I'm sure the woman who kept working part time while she was trying to save money to pay for cancer treatments never heard of free clinics. What with working and dying at the same time who would ever think of alternative medical care, let alone free clinics. And I bet no one told her because, well, maybe they didn't like her. Is that what you think happened?

What about the 12 year old? Even if he did know about free clinics he would have died from having to wait. And then there's the guy who couldn't afford his medication. (RE: Msg 415) Are there free drug stores? ObamaCare could include insurance for meds, later on.

And I don't recall ever suggesting that we eliminate our "government health care" through state-run health clinics, and revert to the "pay or suffer" system.

Exactly and that's my point. Once Obamacare gets established no one will want to eliminate it either just as no other country has eliminated their government health run system. French and English and Austrailans and Germans and Swiss and Norwegians and the Italians and the Greeks and Canadians and........Dozens of countries have all gone the same route and the citizens in all those countries demand the goverment keep their respective systems. No exception, Dix. Not one.

Not only are you fighting against the tide but you're as wrong as wrong can be. Maybe when '16 rolls around you will have a different perspective and become a die hard Democrat.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's like this. Dix. The free clinics didn't go far enough.

Funny how liberal ideas never seem to quite go far enough, ain't it?

It's the same thing with ObamaCare.

Oh, no doubt! The $10 trillion cost estimated by the CBO over the next 10 years is a drop in the bucket!

It's the best there is NOW but it still doesn't go far enough and that's because...

It's because, with Liberalism... it's NEVER far enough!

So when Obama starts to adjust ObamaCare towards a one payer system I'll say the same thing I'm saying about free clinics.

What? That they haven't worked, haven't been enough? We need to do MORE? Wow... shocking revelation!

That's all true but people will be dying in a uniform way having all received the same treatment. It's about simplicity.

LMAO... So the purpose of Obamacare is not to save these people who are dying, but just so that everyone can die uniformly? LMFAoo, that's gotta go in the sig line, sorry!

Riiiight, Dix. I'm sure the woman who kept working part time while she was trying to save money to pay for cancer treatments never heard of free clinics. What with working and dying at the same time who would ever think of alternative medical care, let alone free clinics. And I bet no one told her because, well, maybe they didn't like her. Is that what you think happened?

Well something must have happened, because your example didn't mention why she didn't go to one... Why didn't she go before she got cancer? Maybe they could have screened her and caught it early? Your example lacks an explanation for that, but I think it's an important question to ask. Our tax dollars fund these health clinics, it's what we built them for... they should be used to help people like this, right?

What about the 12 year old? Even if he did know about free clinics he would have died from having to wait.

Well no, we don't KNOW that, apple. This was a speculation, the guys says "Sometimes the wait can be weeks..." but I have never been to a clinic where I waited weeks to be seen, hours maybe... but not weeks. So again, you don't have anything to show why he didn't go to the clinic, other than the afterthought that maybe he would have had to wait. Well, here's the deal... With Obamacare adding 40 million new 'patients' and no doctors... he would STILL have to wait!

Exactly and that's my point. Once Obamacare gets established...

No, once Obamacare is repealed. We ALREADY HAVE A PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!

 

[Taichiliberal]

OK. Pay attention. The following explains it.

Example one: The most poignant of all was this photo a a woman who’s sister died of cancer, because she didn’t have health insurance. The woman’s sister died of colon cancer and like so many cancer patients in America, they are removed from health insurance plans under the current system, that is before Obama’s health plan, the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.politicolnews.com/obama-comforts-woman-whos-siseter-died-of-cancer-without-healthcare/

Example two: Sept. 2, 2011: A 24-year-old Cincinnati father died from a tooth infection this week because he couldn't afford his medication, offering a sobering reminder of the importance of oral health and the number of people without access to dental or health care.

When his face started swelling and his head began to ache, Willis went to the emergency room, where he received prescriptions for antibiotics and pain medications. Willis couldn't afford both, so he chose the pain medications. The tooth infection spread, causing his brain to swell. He died Tuesday.

Example three: Willis' story is not unique. In 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver also died when a tooth infection spread to his brain. The Maryland boy underwent two operations and six weeks of hospital care, totaling $250,000. Doctors said a routine $80 tooth extraction could have saved his life. His family was uninsured and had recently lost its Medicaid benefits, keeping Deamonte from having dental surgery.

An August report by the Commonwealth Fund found that 72 percent of people who lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs said they skipped needed health care or did not fill prescriptions because of cost.

"People want to believe there's a safety net that catches all of these people, and there isn't," said Dr. Glenn Stream, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians. He noted that it is often young men who are the most likely to lack health coverage.

There are a number of free dental clinics in operation around the country, where dentists volunteer to provide care to those without health insurance. But even if Willis had access to a free dental clinic, Stream said he still may not have been able to get the care he needed for his infection. "The wait is often months at these clinics, and this young man died within two weeks of his problem," Stream said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171

As you can see the public health clinics never worked. People died. Not to mention the cost difference between $80 and $250,000. So let's not hear any more lies from the right wing, pro-life, anti-ObamaCare jackasses. Now you have the proof. Now you know why ObamaCare is needed and why it's a start towards a one payer/universal health care system where people have unfettered access to doctors and hospitals and medication is covered by insurance. And now you know why every country that implemented government health care never reverted to a "pay or suffer" system.

Is there anything else puzzling you?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Stop trying to duck the issue, my Dixie Dunce. If you add on 30 million new PAYING customers, then the vaunted "free market competition" would result in insurance companies lowering their rates in certain areas to compete for that business.

But you aren't adding "new paying customers" you are adding new "unpaying" customers... and ones who already have something wrong they need treatment for. Insurance makes a profit by insuring people who aren't sick, not by offering insurance for stuff that already happened. I'm sure, if a fire insurance company offered to give policies to people who had experienced a fire but didn't have insurance, the would have PLENTY of customers. They wouldn't be in business long, but customers would be no problem. Meanwhile, the cost of their premiums would be considerably higher than, say, an insurance company that didn't pay for fires that already happened.

The Dixie Dunce rides again!

Pay attention: A Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) provides new coverage options to individuals who have been uninsured for at least six months because of a pre-existing condition. States have the option of running this new program in their state. If a state has chosen not to do so, a plan has been established by the Department of Health and Human Services in that state. This program serves as a bridge to 2014, when all discrimination against pre-existing conditions will be prohibited.

The program doesn’t charge you a higher premium just because of your medical condition, and eligibility is not based on income.

Premiums will vary depending on the state you live in and the plan you choose. But as an example, if you live in a state where the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provides coverage, the premium for a 50-year-old enrollee may range from $214 to $559, depending on state of residence and plan option. Medical and drug deductibles vary by plan option. For an estimated premium range where you live, use the map above.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html#event7-pane

So there is no "offering" being done here, my Dixie Dunce...it's business, with people BUYING into a program. The insurance companies will be competing for that business! And pre-existing conditions is but ONE aspect of the ACA that will bring in an est. 30 million new customers (not all will be pre-existing, don't cha know!).

And your fire insurance analogy is just nonsense. Grow up, Dixie...you're just grasping at straws to avoid admitting you just don't know enough about the FACTS to make a viable argument against the ACA.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The program doesn’t charge you a higher premium just because of your medical condition

Oh, I know... the expense is passed on to others who carry the insurance, who aren't already sick. That's why I have a problem with it.

Premiums will vary depending on the state you live in and the plan you choose.

But they will all have to be considerably higher because they have to pay for everyone's pre-existing condition treatments.

Medical and drug deductibles vary by plan option.

Again... these will have to be higher to cover for the ones who can't afford it.

So there is no "offering" being done here, my Dixie Dunce...it's business, with people BUYING into a program. The insurance companies will be competing for that business!

Oh yes... I am sure the insurance companies are ready to bust down the door to add new non-paying customers who are already sick! Because insurance companies make their profit from having to pay out claims for the poor who are already sick before they have insurance! Right???

 

[Taichiliberal]

The program doesn’t charge you a higher premium just because of your medical condition

Oh, I know... the expense is passed on to others who carry the insurance, who aren't already sick. That's why I have a problem with it.


No, my Dixie Dunce, you don't know...you're just repeating the same wishful thinking that the actual law disproves (as the link provides...YOU REALLY SHOULD LEARN TO READ MORE, DIXIE.). The law states that insurance companiew work with the Stat and Fed to meet the requirements of those with pre-existing conditions....and those folk MUST QUALIFY!
YOU CANNOT PROVE WHAT YOU SAY, Dixie.....I can. Facts versus supposition and conjecture.

Premiums will vary depending on the state you live in and the plan you choose.

But they will all have to be considerably higher because they have to pay for everyone's pre-existing condition treatments.

You keep saying this, but you offer NO PROOF. But the link I provided contradicts your fantasy, as I pointe out above!

Medical and drug deductibles vary by plan option.

Again... these will have to be higher to cover for the ones who can't afford it.

Again, you're not paying attention! IF YOU CURRENTLY CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE AND YOUR JOB OFFERS NONE, THE FED GOV'T WILL OFFER ASSISTANCE! There is no need other than greed and a political agenda to raise the deductible. If a health insurance company wants your business, then they might lower their rates where they can to be out the competition!

So there is no "offering" being done here, my Dixie Dunce...it's business, with people BUYING into a program. The insurance companies will be competing for that business!

Oh yes... I am sure the insurance companies are ready to bust down the door to add new non-paying customers who are already sick! Because insurance companies make their profit from having to pay out claims for the poor who are already sick before they have insurance! Right???

You keep stubbornly sayin "non-paying" to the point of insipidness when the FACTS CLEARLY CONTRADICT YOU!

Let me dumb it down for you: The ACA penalty tax goes into effect for a person WHO IS DRAWING A PAYCHECK, but has no health insurance through their job. There will be financial assistance for either the individual or the comapny to purchase that insurance....IF THEY REFUSE, then they pay a penalty adjusted to their tax return. This is NOT a free ride, nor is it a policy for the poor.

So, my Dixie Dunce, either you're incapable of comprehending the information in th elink provided earlier or you're just a buffoonish flunkie for a bunch of insurance corporatist who wouldn't piss on you even if you're serving them.

 

[apple0154]

Funny how liberal ideas never seem to quite go far enough, ain't it?

Nothing funny about it, at all. Repubs consistently try to gut the ideas like they tried with ObamaCare.

(Apple) That's all true but people will be dying in a uniform way having all received the same treatment. It's about simplicity.

LMAO... So the purpose of Obamacare is not to save these people who are dying, but just so that everyone can die uniformly? LMFAoo, that's gotta go in the sig line, sorry!

No problem. People will realize it was a response to one of your smart ass remarks. Even new posters know you're whacko.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let me dumb it down for you, Chicklet... IF we cover the cost of insuring or caring for those who have no insurance or are too poor to afford insurance, the overall cost per paying individual HAS to increase. Hospitals and medical professionals do not work for free, it doesn't matter if the person they are working on is poor, black, white, or an asshole. Money does not simply materialize in order to pay for these things, it would be GREAT if that were the case, but it isn't. Cost doesn't remain the same in spite of expense... again, it would be GREAT if that were the case, I wish it WAS the case! But alas... it's NOT the case.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nothing funny about it, at all. Repubs consistently try to gut the ideas like they tried with ObamaCare.

But that's not true. Republicans were instrumental in passing the original 1935 Social Security Act, and also the Medicare Act of 1965, which provides the funding for Medicaid. I'm 52, and I can't recall a Republican politician in my lifetime, who has suggested we "gut" Medicaid or Medicare. I can't even think of an example where they've even suggested we make cuts in those programs...maybe someone did, but I don't recall it. Reagan called this the "third rail" in politics, and it has never been a winning political strategy to suggest such cuts.

Now, Republicans have often been opposed to expanding Medicare or Medicaid, but Bush expanded Medicare greater than it had ever been expanded, and he's a Republican... so again, you have no point here... it has vanished in the light of truth.

 

[apple0154]

Let me dumb it down for you, Chicklet... IF we cover the cost of insuring or caring for those who have no insurance or are too poor to afford insurance, the overall cost per paying individual HAS to increase. Hospitals and medical professionals do not work for free, it doesn't matter if the person they are working on is poor, black, white, or an asshole. Money does not simply materialize in order to pay for these things, it would be GREAT if that were the case, but it isn't. Cost doesn't remain the same in spite of expense... again, it would be GREAT if that were the case, I wish it WAS the case! But alas... it's NOT the case.

Please! Don't try to dumb it down any further. Everything you post is as dumb as it can get.

Here's what I posted in msg 415.

Willis' story is not unique. In 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver also died when a tooth infection spread to his brain. The Maryland boy underwent two operations and six weeks of hospital care, totaling $250,000. Doctors said a routine $80 tooth extraction could have saved his life. His family was uninsured and had recently lost its Medicaid benefits, keeping Deamonte from having dental surgery.

We're going to use subtraction. $250,000 - $80 = $249,920. $249,920 is what it cost the government/hospital/whomever when the actual cost to fix the problem would have been $80. Assuming the average check-up is $200 that money would have paid for 12,496 check-ups. You'll notice it says Deamonte's story is not unique.

Now, consider how many illnesses could be diagnosed by checking over 12,000 people. Diabetes. Cancer. High blood pressure. Heart problems. Lung problems. Vitamin deficiencies that could lead to serious illnesses. The list goes on. Then consider the amount of money that would be saved by people knowing they have a problem and attending to it early.

Let's say one pre-diabetic patient alters their diet and as a result does not suffer blindness or limb amputation. Consider the savings for that one patient. If a family breadwinner add the cost of welfare to the hospital bill. Those potential savings are then channelled into more check-ups.

One person with high blood pressure starts medication for 25 cents a day and prevents a stroke. Consider the cost to look after one stroke victim. Those savings are then channelled into more check-ups and on and on it goes. That's why countries with government medical spend at least 1/3 less than the US and longevity is equal to or greater than in the US.

It's not complicated to understand. You're assuming the rate of serious illness will remain the same but check-ups and early intervention drastically lower the cost. That's the benefit of government medical. Of course, the added benefit is people are healthier because they are treated earlier.

The citizens in every country that has government medical know all that. That's why they insist on keeping their respective plans. It's just basic common sense.

 

[apple0154]

But that's not true. Republicans were instrumental in passing the original 1935 Social Security Act, and also the Medicare Act of 1965, which provides the funding for Medicaid. I'm 52, and I can't recall a Republican politician in my lifetime, who has suggested we "gut" Medicaid or Medicare. I can't even think of an example where they've even suggested we make cuts in those programs...maybe someone did, but I don't recall it. Reagan called this the "third rail" in politics, and it has never been a winning political strategy to suggest such cuts.

Now, Republicans have often been opposed to expanding Medicare or Medicaid, but Bush expanded Medicare greater than it had ever been expanded, and he's a Republican... so again, you have no point here... it has vanished in the light of truth.

Think "public option".

 

[Althea]

But that's not true. Republicans were instrumental in passing the original 1935 Social Security Act, and also the Medicare Act of 1965, which provides the funding for Medicaid. I'm 52, and I can't recall a Republican politician in my lifetime, who has suggested we "gut" Medicaid or Medicare. I can't even think of an example where they've even suggested we make cuts in those programs...maybe someone did, but I don't recall it. Reagan called this the "third rail" in politics, and it has never been a winning political strategy to suggest such cuts.

Now, Republicans have often been opposed to expanding Medicare or Medicaid, but Bush expanded Medicare greater than it had ever been expanded, and he's a Republican... so again, you have no point here... it has vanished in the light of truth.

Last I checked, Ryan/Romney were republicans.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Last I checked, Ryan/Romney were republicans.

Well no, Althee.. that isn't so. You have redefined "cut" to include "cuts in amount of annual increase" and the reduction of the amount you plan to INCREASE something, is NOT a "CUT!" So this is complete misinterpretation on your part, and due to your lack of intelligence. Now go and try to find me a Republican who has supported cutting Medicare, or stop spewing the lie.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Think "public option".

Public option is pretty much a dead issue now. The SCOTUS ruled the Feds can't regulate health care under the commerce clause, so there goes any idea of a public option. Now, congress could come back and pass legislation to allow insurance carriers to compete across state lines, like Republicans suggested we do.. and THEN, perhaps the Feds have authority to regulate this under the commerce clause, and could offer a public option. But until that happens, there is no way to constitutionally establish a public option health care plan.

 

[Howey]

Let me dumb it down for you, Chicklet... IF we cover the cost of insuring or caring for those who have no insurance or are too poor to afford insurance, the overall cost per paying individual HAS to increase. Hospitals and medical professionals do not work for free, it doesn't matter if the person they are working on is poor, black, white, or an asshole. Money does not simply materialize in order to pay for these things, it would be GREAT if that were the case, but it isn't. Cost doesn't remain the same in spite of expense... again, it would be GREAT if that were the case, I wish it WAS the case! But alas... it's NOT the case.

Thank you. You just explained the theory behind the mandate and why it is needed.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Thank you. You just explained the theory behind the mandate and why it is needed.

Well if that's what I did, then it also explains why the mandate will be a failure. Granted, in theory, it would be feasible if every American were actually going to contribute to buying their own insurance, and we could assume claims would remain relatively the same as they are now... but neither of those things are likely. When we realistically factor in the number of people you expect the "rich" to carry, who won't pay in via the mandate, and when you consider the amount claims are likely to rise, having to cover pre-existing conditions, and then consider the increased demand on the system without adding new doctors, then it becomes virtually impossible to assume the price will remain reasonable or feasible. Meanwhile, you have created a monster, because no matter how unreasonable and unfeasible, the government now has the authority to tax you for it. So, in the not-to-distant future, when we open our paychecks to find half of it gone to the Feds to supposedly pay for our health care, we can thank the Democrats for it!

 

[cancel2 2022]

Well if that's what I did, then it also explains why the mandate will be a failure. Granted, in theory, it would be feasible if every American were actually going to contribute to buying their own insurance, and we could assume claims would remain relatively the same as they are now... but neither of those things are likely. When we realistically factor in the number of people you expect the "rich" to carry, who won't pay in via the mandate, and when you consider the amount claims are likely to rise, having to cover pre-existing conditions, and then consider the increased demand on the system without adding new doctors, then it becomes virtually impossible to assume the price will remain reasonable or feasible. Meanwhile, you have created a monster, because no matter how unreasonable and unfeasible, the government now has the authority to tax you for it. So, in the not-to-distant future, when we open our paychecks to find half of it gone to the Feds to supposedly pay for our health care, we can thank the Democrats for it!

Have you ever considered the large amount of crime that is perpetrated by people desperate to pay for medical care?

 

[Althea]

Well no, Althee.. that isn't so. You have redefined "cut" to include "cuts in amount of annual increase" and the reduction of the amount you plan to INCREASE something, is NOT a "CUT!" So this is complete misinterpretation on your part, and due to your lack of intelligence. Now go and try to find me a Republican who has supported cutting Medicare, or stop spewing the lie.

Sorry hotshot.

If you choose to claim that Obamacare is 'taking money from Medicare', when in reality he's also slowing the increase in future funding, then the Ryan/Romney plan is a cut.

In fact, the Ryan/Romney plan will make for the end of Medicare as we know it.

Likewise, the Ryan/Romney plan will indeed cut Medicaid substantially.

For someone who claims to have been a 4.0 student (granted...it was in Alabama!), I can't seem to teach you the difference between funding for Medicare/Medicaid.

Nevertheless, if you can find a 7 year old to read you this piece, you can see that Ryan/Romney do indeed have plans for decimating Medicaid. Of course, you'd have to have the kid read through these threads, and point out the numerous times I've attempted to teach you about Medicaid funding. That way, you'd comprehend that a block grant, a la the Ryan/Romney plan, acts as a severe cut to Medicaid.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3727

 

[Althea]

Public option is pretty much a dead issue now. The SCOTUS ruled the Feds can't regulate health care under the commerce clause, so there goes any idea of a public option. Now, congress could come back and pass legislation to allow insurance carriers to compete across state lines, like Republicans suggested we do.. and THEN, perhaps the Feds have authority to regulate this under the commerce clause, and could offer a public option. But until that happens, there is no way to constitutionally establish a public option health care plan.

So Medicare is unconstitutional?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sorry hotshot.

If you choose to claim that Obamacare is 'taking money from Medicare', when in reality he's also slowing the increase in future funding, then the Ryan/Romney plan is a cut.

In fact, the Ryan/Romney plan will make for the end of Medicare as we know it.

Likewise, the Ryan/Romney plan will indeed cut Medicaid substantially.

For someone who claims to have been a 4.0 student (granted...it was in Alabama!), I can't seem to teach you the difference between funding for Medicare/Medicaid.

Nevertheless, if you can find a 7 year old to read you this piece, you can see that Ryan/Romney do indeed have plans for decimating Medicaid. Of course, you'd have to have the kid read through these threads, and point out the numerous times I've attempted to teach you about Medicaid funding. That way, you'd comprehend that a block grant, a la the Ryan/Romney plan, acts as a severe cut to Medicaid.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3727

DIRECTLY FROM YOUR SOURCE:

Under the plan’s proposal to replace Medicaid with a block grant, the federal government would no longer pay a fixed share of states’ Medicaid costs.[1] States would instead receive a fixed dollar amount that would rise annually with the general inflation rate and the percentage increase in the size of the U.S. population.[2]
The Ryan plan does not provide much more detail about its Medicaid block grant proposal, but the proposal appears very similar to the block grant in last year’s House-approved Ryan budget. Assuming the design specifications are the same as in last year’s proposal (except for moving the block grant’s start date back by one year, along with the base year used to calculate the initial state block grant amounts), each state would receive a fixed dollar amount starting in fiscal year 2014 that is set at the amount of federal Medicaid funding the state received in fiscal year 2011, adjusted for inflation and U.S. population growth since 2011.[3] The block grant amounts for subsequent years would be based on the prior year’s amount, adjusted for inflation and population growth.
----------------------------------------------------------

There has been no "CUT" proposed here. You can CALL it a "CUT" because you have redefined what "CUT" means. A "fixed dollar amount that would rise annually" is certainly not a cut or "gutting" anything. You made the claim that Republicans want to "gut Medicaid" and as we see, you can't support that claim with FACTS.