OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

I used to like O'Reilly, but this video is an excellent example of Narcissistic Rage:

you used to like oreilly from 1973?

I watched O'Reilly until I became more aware of various PDs. After that, I stopped watching most of them regularly. Anywho, back to the topic....

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

P.S.  Also, regarding that insurance people like me couldn't get before and can't afford now ... now we get to pay a new tax because we can't afford "Affordable Health Care"!

(Did I say, "Thanks Barry!" ?)

If I'm not mistaken, you're self employed, right? I ask because a former coworker was being forced to pay for medical benefits for himself because, as he said, he's a 'dad'. But the prices he was forced to pay were similar to mine which seemed generally reasonable to me. So in that regard, I suspect Obamacare hurts the self-employed guy much more so than the guy working for a large company?

Yes, I'm self-employed.

However, it's not about being self-employed (even though it is but that's another topic.)

It has to do with the bullshit Obama and Co. keep spewing about, "People with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied medical insurance!"  And he feigns a fake care that if Obamacare is cancelled, people like me won't be able to get medical insurance.

That's total crap.  And the bullshit part of it is ...

Sure ... thanks to B.O., I can't be denied medical insurance now.  That's true.  Now, it's also true that I can't be denied a trip to the space station either.

But people with that "preexisting condition" tag might as well be trying to buy a ticket to the space station.

None of the people like me are going to lose a damn thing if Obamacare's canned ... because we can't afford "Affordable Health Care".  It's just as out of reach as it ever was.

Except we now get to pay a tax because we can't afford "Affordable Health Care!"

When it comes to "preexisting conditions" he hasn't solved the problem.  It hasn't done a damn thing except make it more expensive for me to live.  Now I get to pay for what I can't get ... so somebody else can get it for free!

In reality, the "preexisting condition" thing is a total, laughable joke ... just a mantra ... an empty political talking point designed to sound good to the unaware.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

P.S.  Also, regarding that insurance people like me couldn't get before and can't afford now ... now we get to pay a new tax because we can't afford "Affordable Health Care"!

(Did I say, "Thanks Barry!" ?)

If I'm not mistaken, you're self employed, right? I ask because a former coworker was being forced to pay for medical benefits for himself because, as he said, he's a 'dad'. But the prices he was forced to pay were similar to mine which seemed generally reasonable to me. So in that regard, I suspect Obamacare hurts the self-employed guy much more so than the guy working for a large company?

Yes, I'm self-employed.

However, it's not about being self-employed (even though it is but that's another topic.)

It has to do with the bullshit Obama and Co. keep spewing about, "People with preexisting conditions can no longer be denied medical insurance!"  And he feigns a fake care that if Obamacare is cancelled, people like me won't be able to get medical insurance.

That's total crap.  And the bullshit part of it is ...

Sure ... thanks to B.O., I can't be denied medical insurance now.  That's true.  Now, it's also true that I can't be denied a trip to the space station either.

But people with that "preexisting condition" tag might as well be trying to buy a ticket to the space station.

None of the people like me are going to lose a damn thing if Obamacare's canned ... because we can't afford "Affordable Health Care".  It's just as out of reach as it ever was.

Except we now get to pay a tax because we can't afford "Affordable Health Care!"

When it comes to "preexisting conditions" he hasn't solved the problem.  It hasn't done a damn thing except make it more expensive for me to live.  Now I get to pay for what I can't get ... so somebody else can get it for free!

In reality, the "preexisting condition" thing is a total, laughable joke ... just a mantra ... an empty political talking point designed to sound good to the unaware.

Well, I'm definitely among the millions of Americans who are basically ignorant of the whole picture. That said, what 'tax' are you referring to?

Anywho, I've been self-employed in the past and found that trying to get a Health Care Plan came with an much unexpected and very high cost. At the time, it felt more rational to simply take that amount of money and sock it away in a savings account each week, so for a fairly long time, I went without any medical insurance. So in that regard, I can certainly understand some grudge here. But I'm still ignorant about the tax you're referring to.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

To-date, only 3M people have signed up for a program that is going to cost TRILLIONS.  Hospitals are already shutting down.  Insurance companies are already raising rates because of how Obamacare's raising their costs.  Over 700 companies and unions (many of the unions who supported it) have asked and have been granted waivers from participation.  And that number has grown from 200 in January.  

I could go on.

What Obama says sounds good for sure.  But it's crap.  But the writing's on the wall, we need to see it, and we need to see it for what it is.  Obamacare needs to be shut down and done right or not done at all.

For most people nothing goes into motion until 2014.  Overall costs is questionable...using current situations and some outlooks the CBO has found that the program actually brings in money.  But no one can tell what all the variables will happen.  The biggest variable, of course, is the health care costs themselves.  As far as the current increase of insurance costs...there’s about a 1 to 4 percent increase in premiums in the individual market due to the health care law. If the legislation hadn’t been enacted, the bulk of the reported premium increases still would have occurred. The real driver of the premiums is the costs, and you have to get the costs under control.

The waivers are due to mini-med plans.  The law wanted them to slowly start increasing the amounts they would cover.  The waivers are to miss ONE year until they work out the details.  There will be no more waivers once 2014 arrives.

There are some hospitals that my be closing...but I doubt any of them has anything to do with the passage of this law.  Actually the medical field is expected to increase greatly after 2014.

The mandate is to place those with the higher risks mixed in to those that have been without health problems...meaning those with conditions would have comparably lower rates.  But without any real ideas on how to lower the actual health care costs the rates for all will continue to increase.

The program is far from perfect.  But I disagree with the idea to scrap it, and eventually make some more committees to look at the problems, and then much later propose some other program.  If they have something better to replace it, come up with that program first.  To me that is like if your job is mainly using your computer, but it is no longer up to date...so you get rid of it because you know you'll get around to figuring out what you'll need and eventually get around to buying a new one.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
.

When it comes to "preexisting conditions" he hasn't solved the problem.  It hasn't done a damn thing except make it more expensive for me to live.  Now I get to pay for what I can't get ... so somebody else can get it for free!

If you don't have medical insurance and you're not poor, Obamacare will be levying a payment on you.  That's what the states are suing over as being unconstitutional.

So I can't afford "Affordable Health Care" because the rates are astronomically high for the self-employed but much, much more on top of that if you have "preexisting conditions."

More info ...

Prior to Obamacare, if someone had employer insurance, preexisting conditions weren't a concern.  By law, your employer's plan had to accept you.  So Obamacare didn't fix that ... it was never an issue to begin with.

So, to repeat ... this whole "preexisting condition" crap was "designed" (cough!) for people like me.  Except that we can't afford it.  So we have to pay a penalty for not having medical insurance ... about $160 / month.

What it was supposed to address was people like me.

But it doesn't.  It's just going to tax a lot of us about $150/month so somebody else can get free Obamacare.

And we still won't be able to get insurance.

OFFLINE

I know this sounds really bad, but I'm really getting tired of voting for the person least likely to **** things up!

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

For most people nothing goes into motion until 2014.  Overall costs is questionable...using current situations and some outlooks the CBO has found that the program actually brings in money.  

Agreed. They're extremely questionable.

In order to fudge the numbers and make it work on paper, B.O. says he's going to decrease Medicare/Medicaid by $500 billion ... that'll be a savings that'll reduce the deficit!

Yay!

Except that ... who really believes he's going to do this?  And what plans has he laid out to do it?

And even if hell did freeze over and he did cut out $500 billion, it's still not saving anything ... not one single penny.  He's spending that $500 billion on Obamacare.

Only in government can you say you saved money that you spend.

And then, the assumptions (i.e. instructions) that were given to the CBO was based on a humongous fudge factor so they could declare a deficit reduction.  To accomplish this, they had to score it were based on 10 years of revenues vs. 6 years of costs.

Does "Ponzi scheme" come to anyone's mind?  

If this were you or me, we'd be in a jail cell with Bernie Madoff.

And what's going to happen after 10 years?

And then, after passage the CBO has already come back and said uh-oh ... we missed another $50 Billion in costs ...

It's right there ... a certain financial disaster that will make 2008 look like "Happy Days".

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Ron Bradley:
I know this sounds really bad, but I'm really getting tired of voting for the person least likely to **** things up!

the lesser of two evils is not a good choice, but it's about all we have.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Ron Bradley:
I know this sounds really bad, but I'm really getting tired of voting for the person least likely to **** things up!

The lesser of two evils, that's been my voting criteria since 1996. In 1992, I truly believed in my vote (The Reform Party), but since then, it seemed like my choices weren't really choices, but two options I'm stuck with.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Scott Terry:

And then, the assumptions (i.e. instructions) that were given to the CBO was based on a humongous fudge factor so they could declare a deficit reduction.  To accomplish this, they had to score it were based on 10 years of revenues vs. 6 years of costs.

Does "Ponzi scheme" come to anyone's mind?  

If this were you or me, we'd be in a jail cell with Bernie Madoff.

And what's going to happen after 10 years?

And then, after passage the CBO has already come back and said uh-oh ... we missed another $50 Billion in costs ...

It's right there ... a certain financial disaster that will make 2008 look like "Happy Days".

There are some taxes that have already begun.  There's also some benefits already inacted.  I would agree that there is some lead in tax time/beginning of benefits...but not nearly as many as some GOP estimates. By far the majority of both start later.  It's not a total pay now for later.

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation -- Congress' bipartisan judge of revenue impacts from proposed laws -- the tax provisions collect minimal revenue for 2010, $2.9 billion for 2011 and $5.5 billion for 2012. They only start getting big in 2013, when revenues increase to $31.9 billion, eventually peaking at $86.9 billion in 2019.

Indeed, of the total $409.2 billion in increased taxes over the 10-year window, only 10 percent of that amount is raised in the first four years -- the period when, according to Republicans, the government is collecting taxes without providing care.

Meanwhile, on the coverage side, it's true that the cost increases significantly four years after enactment. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service's Office of the Actuary, the first four years account for about 1 percent of the 10-year cost of increased coverage.

The costs I'm more concerned about is first, we have no idea how much the cost of actual care will be.  Second, there was an assumption that for the most part employers will continue to offer health care insurance coverage.  I'm not as sure of this.  The penalty might well be under the cost of coverage.  But right now, any company can choose to drop coverage because of the rising cost...with no penalty imposed.  The costs involved would be on how much those employees might need to be subsidized under the law.

I have also done a quick look for recent hospital closings.  I could find several...and many more that are closing maternity wards.  But I couldn't find any that the healthcare insurance law was a factor.  Actually just the opposite.  The hospitals were mainly located in lower income areas where they were required to give care to a higher than average non-insured patients.  The maternity wards were also closing because the large amount of non-insured young females needing services.  Do you know of any specific cases where the law closed a hospital?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
Well, I'm definitely among the millions of Americans who are basically ignorant of the whole picture. That said, what 'tax' are you referring to?

I think this was the final:  An adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, so long as the amount does not exceed the price tag of a basic health plan. But by 2016, the penalty increases to $695 for an uninsured adult, and up to $2,085 per household, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.

OFFLINE

medicare's chief actuary has already come out and said that obamacare will actually increase the nation's health care tab. his office has also projected that if the cuts in payments under the bill were actually enacted, that it would force about 15% of providers into the red, and cause half of seniors on medicare advantage to have to find coverage elsewhere.

like scott said, the CBO has already come out and raised the cost of the legislation by another $100B+, and even democrats have admitted that the true cost is somewhere around $2.5 trillion per decade. but even more worrisome, the cato institute has put a pricetag of $6 trillion on obamacare for every decade.

regardless, this monstrosity isn't saving any money.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

I have also done a quick look for recent hospital closings.  I could find several...and many more that are closing maternity wards.  But I couldn't find any that the healthcare insurance law was a factor.  Actually just the opposite.

Three currently profitable hospitals up for sale because of projected impact of Obamacare.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamacare-firesale-three-catholic-hospitals-sale-pennsylvania

One is too many.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:
Well, I'm definitely among the millions of Americans who are basically ignorant of the whole picture. That said, what 'tax' are you referring to?

I think this was the final:  An adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, so long as the amount does not exceed the price tag of a basic health plan. But by 2016, the penalty increases to $695 for an uninsured adult, and up to $2,085 per household, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.

Based on how that reads, I would say that's synonymous with theft. How can the government justify 'penalizing' a person, especially a single adult with absolutely nobody who depends on their existence, for not having a medical plan? And how does that factor in on part-timers working for a company that only offers medical benefits to full-timers while making it policy to basically weed out most full-time positions?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Shawn Ishness:

Based on how that reads, I would say that's synonymous with theft. How can the government justify 'penalizing' a person, especially a single adult with absolutely nobody who depends on their existence, for not having a medical plan? And how does that factor in on part-timers working for a company that only offers medical benefits to full-timers while making it policy to basically weed out most full-time positions?

Well, that's the basics of the constitutional question the courts are currently working out.  So far 2 federal courts have said that it is constitutional and 2 courts have said that it is not.  And that primarily falls on the definition of inactivity and activity.  If it is an inactivity...not purchasing...then it is probably not.  But if it is an activity...the person is actively choosing a method to pay for the use of the healthcare system...then it probably is constitutional.  It's quite a bit more complex, but that is the LCD of the arguments.

After that definition, it rotates on the commerce clause, where a lot of cases have been questioned.  For example, in the 1940s the Congress had set a system of wheat controls concerning production and cost controls.  A farmer claimed that his extra production amounts were for personal use.  The Court found that this could upset the overall prices and ordered that the excess amount be destroyed.  The mandate places healthy low risk individuals in the same market with higher risk individuals.

Mandates have switched party affiliation over the years.  Republicans were once in favor mainly because of those cost controls...Democrats opposed because of the individual vs. group dynamic.  They have since switched.