The Affordable Care Act is Coming Home to Roost

[Chef Jim]

Like in how I think the government should provide health care to it's citizens, right?

 

No like in you thinking that the biggest reasons people go into financial ruin after a death is because of the medical costs.

 

thanks B, I appreciate it- while we rarely agree on policy, I happen to agree about this!

I figured you were talking about Universal Life of Variable Life, I think they hold cash value- money that might be able to used for Medical Expenses?

 

No there are policies that allow you to accelerate the death benefit prior to death. For instance a terminal illness, chronic illness (not able to do 2 of 6 activities of daily living) or critical illnesses like cancer, heart attack, stroke, etc.

[B-Man]

Lol........it's like The Onion writers are running the country.

 

 

 

 

Obamacare ‘Bat Signal’? Guess which journos were spotted heading to ‘apparent meeting’ with Obama

 

http://twitchy.com/2013/11/21/obamacare-bat-signal-guess-which-journos-were-spotted-heading-to-apparent-meeting-with-obama/

 

Rebranding! Call in … Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, Ezra Klein and Juan Williams?

 

What. . . . . A. . . . . . Plan.

 

 

 

 

.

[boyst]

 

 

Because we can, and then you can still not give a crap and no one will care that you don't care. What type of sick fok doesn't want people to get health care when they are sick? Oh ya, the average Conservative voter

I want people to get health care. But I don't want them to drink, smoke, drive fast, be on public support, wear high heels, play video games, eat fast food, think Jay Leno is funny, drink pop, eat candy or junk food or ride a motorcycle.

 

Then they can have my money to support themselves.

Edited November 21, 2013 by jboyst62

[keepthefaith]

The government is going broke? What does that even mean? If other, less prosperous nations can do it, so can we. Hell, the UK did it right after WW2 when they were heavily burdened with other costs and the UK is still there, way wealthier than they used to be

\

Silly me. Money these days is just numbers on a computer screen or bank statement or a transaction from something the size of a credit card. In it's most tangible form it's nothing more than fancy ink on really good quality paper. Let's just give people whatever they need and let them use cards or transactions from a keyboard to "pay" for everything. All this bickering is so tiresome and working for things is so overrated.

Edited November 21, 2013 by keepthefaith

[Koko78]

If you don't have a car, you don't buy car insurance.

 

The point you're missing is that people have the choice not to have a car. They have been statutorily deprived of the choice not to enter a private contract to buy Obamacare.

[boyst]

So democrats do not believe in trickle down economics yet we still see them saying Obamacare is a good system to lower healthcare costs... using a trickle down theory. Or am I just confused? Are they simply that stupid?,

 

[OCinBuffalo]

Ay yay yay! Now we have B-Large trying to tell us that "eventually" everyone will get coverage? That's the "answer" he thinks the American people are looking for, and will accept? :lol: Get a grip!

 

What do they do in the meantime? What does the kid who needs a kidney do...just hold on and drink less water?

 

There is no excuse for this level of incomptence, and the liberal Democrats will NEVER have the competence necessary to back up their grandiose plans.

 

That is the takeaway from this, and the campaign ads for 2014 and 2016 have already written themselves. Talk all you want. When you get done? "Senator X voted for Obamacare, he said you could keep your health insurance, and your doctor. Then he tried to tell you everything was going fine.

 

It it going fine? (Insert: Person in state who lost health care and suffered illness who says no)

 

Now, Senator X is asking for you to trust them, and the Democrats, again with your vote, but you, or your neighbor, just got their health insurance taken away, so that Senator X and his pal Obama can have their awful system. (Insert State) has had quite enough of liberal Democrats like Senator X lying to us, and enough of their "big plans" they can't deliver. On election day, vote for common sense. Vote (challenger)."

 

And that my friends, will be that.

 

If people like B-large really want "change"? Then why not try doing the way competent change managers do it? Target it, test it, iterate. Control the scope, control: yourself.

 

No. We'd rather have people with a deficit of understanding, meaning they think things are true that aren't, thus know less than 0 about health care, health insurance, and how to build big systems, attempt to take over 1/6 of the economy. We'd be better off putting Miley Cyrus in charge, at least she's completely clueless. But, that means she's not burdened by nonsense. She's at 0.

 

Obama and friends are at -5.

Edited November 22, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[DC Tom]

Ay yay yay! Now we have B-Large trying to tell us that "eventually" everyone will get coverage? That's the "answer" he thinks the American people are looking for, and will accept? :lol: Get a grip!

 

What do they do in the meantime? What does the kid who needs a kidney do...just hold on and drink less water?

 

Just take one from a greedy rich kid who has two. It's the difference between avarice and fulfilling basic needs.

[Koko78]

Just take one from a greedy rich kid who has two. It's the difference between avarice and fulfilling basic needs.

 

The spoiled rich kid 1%er needs to pay his fair share. For the good of all. He clearly doesn't need two kidneys, two lungs or an entire liver.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Koko78

[B-Large]

The point you're missing is that people have the choice not to have a car. They have been statutorily deprived of the choice not to enter a private contract to buy Obamacare.

 

Yes, but everybody gets sick, and most of those people want treatment for it. You can choose to have a car or not, but you can't chose to have a body- All I ask is for YOU to cover your risk of gettign sick so the rest of don't have to pay for it,

[B-Man]

OBAMACARE: Now It’s The Doc Shock.

 

“So far, coverage about the Affordable Care Act has focused on rate shock and policy cancellations. But the next wave of bad news is coming, and it could wind up being even more fatal to public support for the law.

 

Supporters of Obamacare can fight back against the rate shock stories by pointing to examples of people who have gotten cheaper premiums through the ACA. But in many cases, the ACA’s cheaper premiums are the result of restricting provider networks.

 

It’s a phenomenon pundits are calling doc shock, and WaPo reports it’s already effecting the insurance agency.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victor Davis Hanson: Obamacare-Speak: The Obama administration is altering its language like there’s no tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

FEEL-GOOD STORY OF THE WEEK: Older hill aides shocked by Obamacare prices.

[B-Large]

Ay yay yay! Now we have B-Large trying to tell us that "eventually" everyone will get coverage? That's the "answer" he thinks the American people are looking for, and will accept? :lol: Get a grip!

 

What do they do in the meantime? What does the kid who needs a kidney do...just hold on and drink less water?

 

There is no excuse for this level of incomptence, and the liberal Democrats will NEVER have the competence necessary to back up their grandiose plans.

 

That is the takeaway from this, and the campaign ads for 2014 and 2016 have already written themselves. Talk all you want. When you get done? "Senator X voted for Obamacare, he said you could keep your health insurance, and your doctor. Then he tried to tell you everything was going fine.

 

It it going fine? (Insert: Person in state who lost health care and suffered illness who says no)

 

Now, Senator X is asking for you to trust them, and the Democrats, again with your vote, but you, or your neighbor, just got their health insurance taken away, so that Senator X and his pal Obama can have their awful system. (Insert State) has had quite enough of liberal Democrats like Senator X lying to us, and enough of their "big plans" they can't deliver. On election day, vote for common sense. Vote (challenger)."

 

And that my friends, will be that.

 

If people like B-large really want "change"? Then why not try doing the way competent change managers do it? Target it, test it, iterate. Control the scope, control: yourself.

 

No. We'd rather have people with a deficit of understanding, meaning they think things are true that aren't, thus know less than 0 about health care, health insurance, and how to build big systems, attempt to take over 1/6 of the economy. We'd be better off putting Miley Cyrus in charge, at least she's completely clueless. But, that means she's not burdened by nonsense. She's at 0.

 

Obama and friends are at -5.

 

In States that determined to make it work, it is working. I empathize with people in need who live in States where their Conservative representation chose to make a point, and faulty one in my opinion, rather than taking a run at making this work for their State. Rather ironic considering that Conservatives value States Rights, and liberals are more comfortbale with Central Planning, that the result has been just the opposite.

 

I am not making excuses for the website rollout, I don't know anything about computer systems, but the deliver has been awful. I blame the President that he was not more engaged in this rollout so that would be operational and funcational day one.. if it were my legacy on the line, on my signature legislative achevement, you best best it would be not only functional, but easy to use with a big red bow on it.

 

That being said, I do believe at the end of the day people will get covered and this law will be a success, much to the chagrin of conservatives... If it does not last, does not make it, I do hope States who have the Exchanges in place and working will be able to adopt the ACA reforms for their State... I will just always live in a State that has the reforms i place... I can live wiht that.

 

*** and where you as outraged prior to 2008 when a kid with Kidney failure was dropped from insurance coverage, or his his lifetime limit, or his parent did have a job and couldn't get insurance after COBRA ran out. I assume you did, right?

 

OBAMACARE: Now It’s The Doc Shock.

 

“So far, coverage about the Affordable Care Act has focused on rate shock and policy cancellations. But the next wave of bad news is coming, and it could wind up being even more fatal to public support for the law.

 

Supporters of Obamacare can fight back against the rate shock stories by pointing to examples of people who have gotten cheaper premiums through the ACA. But in many cases, the ACA’s cheaper premiums are the result of restricting provider networks.

 

It’s a phenomenon pundits are calling doc shock, and WaPo reports it’s already effecting the insurance agency.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Victor Davis Hanson: Obamacare-Speak: The Obama administration is altering its language like there’s no tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

FEEL-GOOD STORY OF THE WEEK: Older hill aides shocked by Obamacare prices.

 

then buy a plan that includes your Doctor. That is pretty easy, right? Most MD are not going to be able to survive without seeing patinets with private medical coverage, right? I guess if your doctor does a concierge medical practice then you will have ot make the choice to pay the retainer, but you will still have to have insurance coverage for specialists and other care.

 

Buy a plan that included doctors you like is not a new concept, though these stories lead us to believe otherwise.

Edited November 22, 2013 by B-Large

[Koko78]

Yes, but everybody gets sick, and most of those people want treatment for it. You can choose to have a car or not, but you can't chose to have a body- All I ask is for YOU to cover your risk of gettign sick so the rest of don't have to pay for it,

 

Except that many of those who had health insurance for when they got sick were just deprived of that insurance and are now forced to pay more for less.

 

The other thing that doesn't seem to register is that maybe some people just don't want treatment. Who are you to determine that they must be put on life support, or that they must seek medical attention?

 

What good is health insurance that you can't afford with unreasonable out-of-pocket deductibles when you can no longer afford to eat or pay rent because of the new cost that you're forced, by law, to bear?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Koko78

[Joe Miner]

 

Yes, but everybody gets sick, and most of those people want treatment for it. You can choose to have a car or not, but you can't chose to have a body- All I ask is for YOU to cover your risk of gettign sick so the rest of don't have to pay for it,

 

That's not in line with the idea you posted earlier.

 

You want people to pay what you agree with is a fair amount.

[B-Large]

Except that many of those who had health insurance for when they got sick were just deprived of that insurance and are now forced to pay more for less.

 

They are getting more protections in their policies... I won't argue that they are more likely to pay more.

 

Again, people often don't want to pay for ****, but they want all the benefits when they need them... now they have the beneifts and are paying for them.

[DC Tom]

OBAMACARE: Now It’s The Doc Shock.

 

“So far, coverage about the Affordable Care Act has focused on rate shock and policy cancellations. But the next wave of bad news is coming, and it could wind up being even more fatal to public support for the law.

 

Supporters of Obamacare can fight back against the rate shock stories by pointing to examples of people who have gotten cheaper premiums through the ACA. But in many cases, the ACA’s cheaper premiums are the result of restricting provider networks.

 

It’s a phenomenon pundits are calling doc shock, and WaPo reports it’s already effecting the insurance agency.”

 

People with exchange coverage can't get treatment at places like Cedar-Sinai and the Mayo Clinic? So basically, one of the law's unintended side-effects seems to be creating a further division between the "haves" and "have-nots" in the quality of care available now?

 

Worst. Law. Ever. Not often you see a law that's completely counter-productive to its stated goals.

[Azalin]

Worst. Law. Ever. Not often you see a law that's completely counter-productive to its stated goals.

unless, of course, the stated goals aren't the same as the intended goals.

[Koko78]

They are getting more protections in their policies... I won't argue that they are more likely to pay more.

 

Again, people often don't want to pay for ****, but they want all the benefits when they need them... now they have the beneifts and are paying for them.

 

Great, so how exactly is a 32 year old gay man protected by having the policy he liked cancelled in accordance with the dictates of HHS and the ACA, and now being forced to pay more money than he was paying so that his new policy can include maternity care?

[Tiberius]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/opinion/egan-the-souths-new-lost-cause.html

 

 

What we could see, 10 years from now, is a Mason-Dixon line of health care. One side (with exceptions for conservative Midwest and mountain states) would be the insured North, a place where health care coverage was affordable and available to most people. On the other side would be the uninsured South, where health care for the poor would amount to treating charity cases in hospital emergency rooms.

Texas, where one in four people have no health care and Gov. Rick Perry proudly resists extending the Medicaid helping hand to the working poor, would be the leading backwater in this Dixie of Despair. In the 11 states of the old Confederacy, only Arkansas and Tennessee are now open to Medicaid expansion.

The South, already the poorest region in the country , with all the attendant problems, would acquire another distinction -- a place where, if you were sick and earned just enough money that you didn’t qualify for traditional Medicare, you might face the current system’s version of a death panel.

 

Or am I just confused?

 

I've never thought otherwise about you

 

People with exchange coverage can't get treatment at places like Cedar-Sinai and the Mayo Clinic? So basically, one of the law's unintended side-effects seems to be creating a further division between the "haves" and "have-nots" in the quality of care available now?

 

Worst. Law. Ever. Not often you see a law that's completely counter-productive to its stated goals.

 

Ya, like that can't be fixed

[IDBillzFan]

Not even California will follow dear leader's mandate.

 

Covered California Says It Won't Cover President's Lie.

Edited November 22, 2013 by LABillzFan