dayman

Well you should probably get over that.

LOL you are so mad. Keep on raging.

For one thing if I ever said it "doesn't address costs" then I simply misspoke. It clearly does do things that address costs. My point was that the level of impact this Bill will have on cost is debatable and that's an area for fair game. Like I've said over and over the basic reform in this bill will go to the cost of both insurance for the person as well as to the cost of service itself (the fee shifting the uninsured make happen)...and so and so on. The idea that healthCARE and healthINSURANCE are not intrinsically linked is absurd. One of the big things they're doing with medicare is implementing new experimental payment plans trying to coordinate change with the providers in a way that helps the natural movement from fee-for-service to fee-for-result. The idea being that the government being such a big spender is an ideal entity to lead the charge with these experimental payouts and hopefully the private sector can then adopt them (when of course the providers themselves are adjusted to take them which will take time). Reforming the system of CARE through reform targeted at INSURANCE is just the way it is going to be done. What do you want caps on rates doctors can charge? (I already know the answer to that so don't bother I'm just making a point...this is how it will be done...reforming the CARE through the method of payment...unless of course you do want a cap on service charges... ) First off if part of that response is basically saying "I like that people can't see doctors b/c I want to and there aren't enough"...I can't really address that. Secondly pages and pages back I described how I see the insurance market reforming (with the main focus that we will have to shift form a fee-for-service to fee-for-outcome payments system and then we have to make individual patients put more skin in the game so they actually shop and the market for the services they actually do need functions more like an actual free market). That change (which will happen btw it's just slow moving and we are really only just now starting to move that way) will put a larger demand in the service market for general practitioners and lower the demand for specialists.

Doc the idea is that uninsured ER visits will magically decrease, b/c the mandate has pushed more people into the market. And part of it is that yes, many ER visits can be avoided by preventative care which is mandatory under the insurance reforms, so the would-be non-insured person in the ER w/ a huge bill he can't pay is now someone who either 1) got the preventative care they needed under their insurance and avoided the costly ER visit or 2) is in the ER w/ insurance. Will there still be some people in the ER who simply have no insurance? Yes. Point is not as much. Everyone constantly attacks this Bill as if it has to be perfect. NO BILL IS PERFECT! Oh the mandate won't work on everyone...ok well it will work on most people according to the damn insurance companies that support it and other places it is in effect. Oh there will will still be some people that end up being diagnosed w/ an ongoing illness while uninsured who then receive help managing the condition while insured at a later date...no **** until we go to single payer that can never COMPLETELY be eliminated. The point is can it work? The answer is clearly yes. Can it start as in and be tweeked? Yes. Is "the government can't do anything right" a valid excuse for not reforming an industry that is bankrupting us? No. blah blah...and so on and so on... What freedom are you so concerned about? The freedom to not purchase health insurance? Guess what...it's chalked up right there with the millions of other freedoms that you don't actually have. It's bankrupting the country, so you have to buy it. Don't like it? Then push for a true public option. Don't like the public option? Then deal w/ the mandate. Don't like either? Then propose something different that could work or suck it up. We have to do something. We aren't doing nothing about this anymore. BTW as you point out over and over saying it won't actually compel many more people into the market (which nobody else agrees with)...if you refuse to comply you pay a tax penalty. So don't comply...and pay your damn tax. Wow you are so oppressed b/c you pay a tax penalty for not doing something the government wants you to do. Your rights have changed over night that has never happened in American history before....

Hold on here for a minute now. What I'm saying first and foremost is to refute the argument that people are going to realize they need care, then sign up, then forward the bills onto the insurance company. My point there is that it's not just a free for all in that way, you are still subjecting yourself to huge risk still by not having insurance. You will not be allowed to just sign up w/ no limitations 5 minutes before surgery, and obviously nobody will pay you back after these bills come in. As far as completely eliminating all costs associated with free riders developing preexisting conditions while they are not insured and then becoming insured after the fact...that is impossible unless we go to single payer anybody can see that. Point being people need insurance (sick or not) and the only way to keep it private (which conservatives want) is to compel many more people into the market so the numbers work. As for my claim that there is something that makes you unable to buy it at any point? That's the insurance company. They are subject to guarantee issue yes, but they may restrict enrollment to open/special periods subject to rules that will be promulgated by the secretary of HHS. As for confusing the group regulation with individual purchases just go back and read the section I posted from the ACA addressing it. Group and Individual right there together in the enrollment provision. The reason it isn't a significant step backwards is b/c you can't be refused (guaranteed issue) based on your preexisting conditions! Obviously that is a step forward from the individual view, no? The fact that he can't be insured 5 minutes before a heart transplant is not a step backwards that's just staying the same...and that will never change b/c that would be insanity (as we all agree I'm sure).

Clearly man on man is detestable. Clearly woman on woman is awesome so long as neither woman is butch. -Leviticus

Since you are correcting me I've noticed that a number of posters (not just you) don't understand the word is "emboldened." Just a small point to make sure I'm being a sufficient jackass in this response. As for your last point...there's some validity in that but you have to understand the enrollment periods are still subject to company control. If you choose to remain uninsured despite everything and you develop diabetes...yes at a later point you will most likely be able to receive a policy that includes helping manage your diabetes. But it's not going repay you for costs you incurred while you were not insured. As for B-Man and the tea party...lol As for 3rdnlng...do some looking around and educate yourself there's stuff everywhere. I'm not doing homework for you. I already know that mandate being toothless is not a big concern. If you insist it is, then you provide all these links you fixate on. Or just go ahead and refute the facts I have given whatever...point is I'm not making stuff up and never have been. Also I even went back and saw you edit some post accusing me of quoting you but changing the text in the quote! LOL...sorry dude...I don't know what your weird little mind does but that never happened.

The act does some significant reworking of both medicare and medicade (a big part of why it's so large). Of course it doesn't touch SS that has nothing to do with it and that's untouchable politically anyway (by anyone).

Yes 3rdnlng I make stuff up. I make this all up. The projections from a story I saw on the news so no there is no link. Had over 30M newly insured as a result of the mandate and somewhere right below 20M still uninsured. The actuaries for the insurance companies are fine with that and say they can comply with the guarantee issue under those circumstances. You can look around if you would like and produce evidence that the mandate WON'T WORK! But what you will find is in places like Massachusetts it has compelled over 400,000 people into the market reducing the share of uninsured individuals in the market to 1.9%. You can also see Switzerland and the Netherlands who have also achieved near universal coverage through the mandate. The mandate get's people into the market. There are a million reasons you can be unhappy with the ACA but the fact that everyone is just going to say "!@#$ off Obama" and not buy health insurance for themselves when it is made easier and mandated and penalized is not one of them.

I get it. "The mandate won't work." That's your take. Congratulations on that. The bottom line is all projections show the law would flush the market with over 30 Million newly insured people. Of course there will still be some people uninsured, no ****. The point is you help the market out so it can comply with the guarantee issue. The projections show that is the case. I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around this. Whoo....don't you belong at a town hall meeting screaming your lungs off while dressed like a revolutionary soldier? IT'S ABOUT MAAAHHHH FREEEDDDOOOOOMMM!!! AND I HATE WHAT I SEE AS "INTELLECTUAL!"

Most of this bill is about reforming many of the entitlements you speak of, and then yes also regulating the healthcare industry, allocating more funds for fraud detection etc... You act as though it is creating a whole new entitlement...this bill has been framed as more than it is to be honest. As is well documented if you don't want to take responsibility for yourself and you are willing to shift the costs to the rest of us if/when the time comes then you suffer a tax penalty and you are free to continue to risk personal bankruptcy and all the other wonderful things that go with freedom from health insurance... ...very politically-charged, overblown dramatic take on the situation....that's my take anyway.

Why is it so bad for the country and freedom? Why do you really think this? You do realize there is nothing all that new in this Bill right? There is nothing radical. Nothing not kicked around before.

If by state the obvious you mean state what you want to state. The GOP method described there was "maybe we'll do almost nothing and pass a token easy small change here and there...but maybe we'll just do nothing."

LOL c'mon man. C'mon now.

This is true. The only scenario where it might get rehashed is if it were totally destroyed by SCOTUS and Obama won the White House and (somehow) the house as well. Then we can go ahead and start over... ...or we can move forward. Implement it, fix what doesn't work, change things that need to be changed...the issue of healthcare is a clear example of the GOP being simply "the party of 'no'."

I posted a road map for you to use to begin to educate yourself on some basic questions you seem to have (what is the fine? etc)...and you think I'm trying to fool you. I'm not trying to trick or fool you. I was actually trying to help you. Yes 3rdnlng I'm sorry but if you want to discuss this sort thing intelligently you will have to do some reading. It's ok though I'm sure you would survive it. As for the specific assertion I made regarding the enrollment periods I literally posted the section for you to read. If you don't understand what you are reading then read it again. If you don't understand what agencies do then wiki it. I can't sit here and just preach to you on every little thing... EDIT: Just realized btw I gave you the exact citation you need to find the info on the penalty as well. I've actually gone out of my way to HELP you answer these questions you have. To say I'm trying to dodge or confuse issues is retarded. I get it...it's too long and complicated for you. Same for me honestly. So here I am, helping you...sharing resources I have access to that help filter the content of the Act and make is usable... and what do you do? Nothing...you B word at me for helping you....call me a liar and fool...

3rdling what in God's name do you have that you would call "specifics?" Your forumla is as follows: 1. Make crazy uneducated vague/general attacking assertion, 2. Demand those you are talking with to produce an "answer" by rules you don't follow yourself. Troll in rare form. DC Tom not sure you've been reading the same thing I've been typing...idk what to tell ya...

LOL. GO DC TOM! Address costs! Let's see you do it! Go...do it! Woo...it's soo easy! If only Romney were in charge the costs would be all fixed!!! Wooo!

I talked earlier about my take on addressing costs and how no piece of legislation will do it. My thoughts are a mere page or two back as to how costs will hopefully come down as the industry reforms itself. Either way the GOP put forth no intelligent thoughts on any of this...it's all just "no, no, no." The PPACA does address costs in some measure where it can as well as fraud...how successful those particular parts of the bill will be is up for interpretation. The costs issue in particular is not something that is reasonable to ask be fixed with a magic document produced by either party.

If your stance is "nobody will do it" then fine. We'll see. Most health insurance professionals I speak with agree....it will in fact push most people into the market which is key to the success of the overall scheme. You think everyone will just say **** it when told they have to and shown new avenues to doing so? That's fine. I don't. Will some? Sure...and those people will have problems just like they do now. End of that discussion really. Good luck to ya w/ that.

How can the same people who say "the Bill doesn't address COST!!!" say what you said in that last paragraph? As for Romney repealing it...we'll see about that he's got to pull of the election first and I doubt he can. The SCOTUS threat is obviously real though. Nobody denies that. In some instances it outlines new things to be developed in other areas it is very clear. Same as many other pieces of legislation. I guess we could always so "oh well healthcare as is, is bankrupting the country but it's too complicated to reform so let's just do nothing"...I probably wouldn't vote for that but maybe others would idk...

It's not "God knows what" though. Yes it's a fat bill. It's complicated reform. Is it too big? Absolutely. But lets move on from the fact that large pieces of complicated legislation reforming an industry that is almost 20% of our GDP as a nation in a way that is politically possible is complicated. Of course it is. That's just life. And of course there are a TON of things yet to be hashed out. The Bill is designed to set a very loose framework outlining the reform. In some areas it's more concrete than in others. Now the relevant agencies will get to work promulgating rules and so on...SAME AS ALWAYS. This is just how it goes. This is what agencies do. They "work things out" most of the time not Congress that is just the reality of modern America. Whether or not this is desirable is another discussion all together ... but it is the way government works. As for the hypothetical you put forth, that just isn't going to happen. Assuming for sake of argument though that the Act would destroy us all and lead to the ruin of the country I would not be "so enthused" about the Bill, lol. If that answers you question. Anyway I've taken on the defender role here but it's not like I AM Obama. Just a reminder, I see it as progress. I see its repeal as backwards. I see a lot of misinformation and propaganda around it and I just want to encourage people to not parrot the totally ridiculous things they hear without some sense of...well...knowledge. These views seem (to me) to be perfectly fine, as are other reasonable views that disagree with them...but go ahead PPP make me an insane person if you want. I can deal with it.

You do realize that while people who otherwise cannot qualify at the time will be pushed into the market...so will everyone else that is currently uninsured...you get this? Healthy uninsured...becoming insured. Also when you say go on the government dole do you mean enter the exchange?

LOL are you trying to troll me? As I said right away "lock out period" is a term I used. The relevant portions address the enrollment periods and the bottom line is a (very) basic understanding of government and administrative law is necessary to get the idea that all the specific rules and enforcement of the scheme are yet to be formed. As is with almost every large bill passed by Congress. Like it or not we live in an administrative state. This issue is alluded to in the section I quoted and as you saw the companies themselves will have control subject to rules promulgated by the secretary.

Trying to confuse the issue by showing where the sections that address issues we are talking about are? Are you insane? Why not say what you really mean. He's bothering me by helping me see where to go to read about things I pretend to care about, and that sucks b/c I'd rather just talk out of my ass and say nothing works.