The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[ALF]

1 hour ago, Koko78 said:

 

So is the answer to give them more handouts, or give them opportunities to find a better-paying jobs?

 

opportunities to find a better-paying jobs?  of course

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, ALF said:

 

One problem is the working poor who earn too much to qualify for medicaid , who cannot afford medical and dental coverage if their job does not provide it. Barely living paycheck to paycheck with no savings is a real problem for too many.  

 

Can you please specify if you’re talking about wealth or income?

 

Also, in the example you just gave the problem was not disparity, it was the existence of the poor.

[unbillievable]

4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Also, in the example you just gave the problem was not disparity, it was the existence of the poor.

 

You have to understand that poor people only exist when compared to the rich.

 

If you remove rich people, then those previously poor will be considered middle class.  It's a good way to manipulate statistics.

 

Another good one is to hyper-inflate the cost of living where someone living in a studio apartment in California is considered rich, while owning a 10 acre ranch in Alabama is poor. ie, the poorest states are Red...

 

 

[/dev/null]

2 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

 

You have to understand that poor people only exist when compared to the rich.

 

If you remove rich people, then those previously poor will be considered middle class.  It's a good way to manipulate statistics.

 

Another good one is to hyper-inflate the cost of living where someone living in a studio apartment in California is considered rich, while owning a 10 acre ranch in Alabama is poor. ie, the poorest states are Red...

 

 

 

Maybe the $100k a year serf in Silicon Valley should #learntofarm

[B-Man]

 

 

[reddogblitz]

As I see it we could have single payer right now if the Ds in 2009 had wanted it.  All of the Senate votes for and all 219 HOR votes for were democrat and it passed. They could have passed whatever they wanted and chose to pass what we have.

 

There was talk of single payer going in and it seemed popular, until they let the insurance companies in to figure it all out.

[B-Man]

GOVERNMENT MEDICINE: 

I Was a Physician at a Federally Qualified Health Center. Here’s Why I No Longer Believe Government Health Care Can Work.

 

For example, one of the requirements for federally qualified health centers is that they must maintain a certain number of physician assistants and nurse practitioners. Rural health clinics were the first sites to receive a federal mandate to hire non-physician practitioners.

 

For me, this meant supervising a physician assistant from day one. And within a few months, a brand new nurse practitioner was added to my list of responsibilities. Despite this extra workload, there was no time allotted in my schedule to provide education, review charts or discuss cases—nor was I compensated for my extra duties.

 

Federal regulations also create massive amounts of paperwork. While the medical staff worked hard to move patients through the registration process, my schedule often ran hours behind as forms were signed and documents reviewed.

 

This bottleneck often led to me starting my day late and working into the evening. When I started coming in a bit later than my assigned start time, knowing that patients would not be ready for me, I was given a stern warning by administrators.

 

Medicine is going to get worse, as those best-qualified to become doctors decide the bureaucratic BS isn’t worth the bother.

 

 

 

And do read the whole thing.

 

.

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by B-Man

[DC Tom]

17 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

As I see it we could have single payer right now if the Ds in 2009 had wanted it.  All of the Senate votes for and all 219 HOR votes for were democrat and it passed. They could have passed whatever they wanted and chose to pass what we have.

 

There was talk of single payer going in and it seemed popular, until they let the insurance companies in to figure it all out.

 

Actually, they probably couldn't, simply because of this concept of "states."  

 

States have regulatory responsibilities over health care and health insurance - the latter being one of the big reasons why the ACA was structured as it was, and why Medicaid programs are run by states with funding through federal block grants (yes, even the "single payer" examples used by its advocates aren't "single payer.") 

 

True "single payer" at the federal level introduces some very serious constitutional issues concerning separation of powers, and is unlikely to survive a court challenge.

[reddogblitz]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

True "single payer" at the federal level introduces some very serious constitutional issues concerning separation of powers, and is unlikely to survive a court challenge.

 

Perhaps. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have passed it.  They had the votes if that's really what they wanted.

[keepthefaith]

41 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Perhaps. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have passed it.  They had the votes if that's really what they wanted.

 

They had the bodies but I doubt enough votes if the rubber had met the road. 

[Taro T]

40 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Perhaps. But it doesn't mean they couldn't have passed it.  They had the votes if that's really what they wanted.

 

What would be the point of passing a law that would have been known to be unconstitutional at the time it was drafted and at the time it was signed into law?

 

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

What would be the point of passing a law that would have been known to be unconstitutional at the time it was drafted and at the time it was signed into law?

 

 

 

Oh...wait, you're serious?

[B-Man]

 

 

WEIRD, AND JUST AS WE’VE SPENT A DECADE OR MORE MAKING IT LESS ATTRACTIVE TO BE A DOCTOR: 

 

 

America’s aging population is leading to a doctor shortage cris.

[keepthefaith]

Well in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, we just got our company Blue Cross health insurance renewal for next year effect 12/1/19.  Coverage cost under the HMO plan for a single employee is dropping $80 a month.  That's never happened in our 15 year history. 

 

Question is, who gets credit, Trump?

[B-Man]

 

 

 

FROM CHRIS JACOBS: The Case Against Single Payer: How ‘Medicare for All’ Will Wreck America’s Health Care System―And Its Economy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 Millions of Americans’ medical records are out in the open on the internet. 

 

“Some servers with medical data in the US aren’t even protected by a password.”

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

BETSY MCCAUGHEY: Democrats’ Health Care Whoppers.

Whopper 1: Obamacare is affordable. Joe Biden’s running a television ad in Iowa pledging to stand by Obamacare because “every American deserves affordable health care.” Iowans aren’t going to buy that. They’re not hayseeds.

 

Truth: In Iowa, 90% of Obamacare customers who paid their own way in 2014 have dropped their coverage. Obamacare is affordable only if you qualify for a subsidy. Middle-class people who earn too much to get taxpayer-funded help can’t afford to stay enrolled. They “have taken it on the chin,” reports Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation. Why is the number of uninsured in America suddenly rising again? Blame Obamacare for pricing the middle class out of insurance.

 

 

 

Much more at the link.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[billsfan89]

On 8/25/2019 at 2:06 PM, 3rdnlng said:

Our poor in this country would be considered rich in many other countries. Income inequality is a crockofshit.

 

Do you really think that the argument that your living conditions aren't as bad as third world countries is a compelling defense of wealth inequality? Shouldn't you aim a little bit higher and understand context?

 

Wealth inequality is a problem not just for the poor but for the health of the overall economy. The middle class is the engine of consumer demand in an economy. Rich people can consume more but there is an inherent limit to how much they can consume. A rich person and their family can only eat 3 meals a day, buy so many clothes, buy so much toilet paper and basics. They drive some levels of the consumer economy but they don't drive it anywhere near what the middle class does. Putting more money in the hands of the wealthy via tax cuts and subsidizing corporations leads to the rich buying more assets typically which inflates stock prices and assets prices things most middle class people don't own or don't own in any significant quantity. 

 

Simply put take one million dollars into the hands of someone who has 30 million in the bank and they aren't really spending it much at the consumer level. Most likely they peel 50-100 grand off the top and have some fun and then invest the rest into assets. Whereas if you put 1,000 dollars into the hands of 1,000 middle and working class people they will typically spend most of that money paying down debts, treating themselves to dinners and consumer products, or taking care of repairs and other services they need. In which scenario do you think the consumer economy benefits most from? The second scenario most likely results in 90% of that money getting spent at a consumer level. In the first scenario it results in less than 50% of that money circulating at the consumer level. 

 

Wealth inequality relates to the middle class shrinking. As we see more money going from the bottom to the top it stagnates the economy. You should be orienting your economy from the middle out as trickle down economics simply doesn't work. 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Do you really think that the argument that your living conditions aren't as bad as third world countries is a compelling defense of wealth inequality? Shouldn't you aim a little bit higher and understand context?

 

Wealth inequality is a problem not just for the poor but for the health of the overall economy. The middle class is the engine of consumer demand in an economy. Rich people can consume more but there is an inherent limit to how much they can consume. A rich person and their family can only eat 3 meals a day, buy so many clothes, buy so much toilet paper and basics. They drive some levels of the consumer economy but they don't drive it anywhere near what the middle class does. Putting more money in the hands of the wealthy via tax cuts and subsidizing corporations leads to the rich buying more assets typically which inflates stock prices and assets prices things most middle class people don't own or don't own in any significant quantity. 

 

Simply put take one million dollars into the hands of someone who has 30 million in the bank and they aren't really spending it much at the consumer level. Most likely they peel 50-100 grand off the top and have some fun and then invest the rest into assets. Whereas if you put 1,000 dollars into the hands of 1,000 middle and working class people they will typically spend most of that money paying down debts, treating themselves to dinners and consumer products, or taking care of repairs and other services they need. In which scenario do you think the consumer economy benefits most from? The second scenario most likely results in 90% of that money getting spent at a consumer level. In the first scenario it results in less than 50% of that money circulating at the consumer level. 

 

Wealth inequality relates to the middle class shrinking. As we see more money going from the bottom to the top it stagnates the economy. You should be orienting your economy from the middle out as trickle down economics simply doesn't work. 

Don't put words in my mouth.

[billsfan89]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Your argument came off to me as because you would be rich in a third world country income inequality isn't an economic issue, maybe I was brash in the way you stated it but that is the general gist of what you said? 

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Your argument came off to me as because you would be rich in a third world country income inequality isn't an economic issue, maybe I was brash in the way you stated it but that is the general gist of what you said? 

 

The two of you combined have the comprehension skills of a banana.  This should be fun...

 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Your argument came off to me as because you would be rich in a third world country income inequality isn't an economic issue, maybe I was brash in the way you stated it but that is the general gist of what you said? 

We have made so many advances in just the last few years that a poor person today has a life (when measured in "things") quite similar to a wealthy person of a couple decades ago. I'm not too worried about wealth inequality when the money going to the top gets invested in making the advancements that end of improving the lot of everyone.

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

 

The two of you combined have the comprehension skills of a banana.  This should be fun...

 

Not going to happen. Save your popcorn for the highly entertaining TPS-GG debates.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[KRC]

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

.

 

Is that similar to "We are not increasing your taxes. We are just rolling back the tax cuts that have been in place for years."?

[TakeYouToTasker]

@billsfan89

 

A quick point, followed by a question.

 

The middle class is shrinking, but not in the way you think.  More people are exiting the middle/working class and are joining the upper middle class.  The poor and working poor are also shrinking demographics.

 

Moving onto the question:  why do you believe wealth inequality to be problematic?  

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

@billsfan89

 

A quick point, followed by a question.

 

The middle class is shrinking, but not in the way you think.  More people are exiting the middle/working class and are joining the upper middle class.  The poor and working poor are also shrinking demographics.

 

Moving onto the question:  why do you believe wealth inequality to be problematic?  

 

You are objectively wrong on the poor and working poor being shrinking demographics in 1971, 25% of people were considered lower class compared to 29% in 2016 (Pew research link included below.) You are correct in that there are portions of the middle class that are joining the upper middle class as that has gone from 14% in 1971 to 19% in 2016. 

 

However while those number might reflect mixed news (More upper class, more poor/working poor, and less in the middle) the fragility of the middle class is going to lead to the middle class shirking more and more. Automation, globalization, and less unionization is putting a much harder squeeze on the middle class and going to trend those numbers into a winner take all economy that will race to the bottom. Even within the middle class the stability of things like pensions and education for their children are no longer there likely leading to the trend of polarization increasing to a very Dickensian society where not only will the consumer base be eroded but social cohesion will be destroyed. 

 

As for why do I think wealth inequality is problematic. 

 

The truth is I don't think wealth inequality is problematic, I find wealth inequality to be a necessary component of capitalism. I think almost anyone would understand why Warren Buffett or Bill Gates has more money than them. 

 

The question is to what degree do you think wealth inequality should exceed to? Too much wealth stagnated at the top of the economic system is simply bad economics. It stagnates consumer demand, leads to a lack of public investment in things like education and infrastructure, it stagnates social cohesion, and it generates a winner take all race to the bottom that leads to a shrinking economy.

 

It simply is bad economics that in the face of a suffering and increasingly fragile middle class to orientate an economy around giving more back to the segments of society that are doing phenomenally well thinking that somehow that is going to help the middle class when despite decades of doing those things the middle class continues to suffer and the economy becomes increasingly polarized. 

 

My political philosophy is that investments like infrastructure and infusing money into the middle class via debt forgiveness and tax funded higher education are better uses of tax payer dollars than inflating the stock market via tax cuts. So the issue of degree is the issue with wealth inequality The levels we currently see of wealth inequality are rates not seen since the late 1920's and well the 1930's weren't nearly as roaring. 

 

Numbers of people entering both the upper class and working poor/poor increasing. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/09/06/the-american-middle-class-is-stable-in-size-but-losing-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/

 

What is impacting the middle class. 

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-middle-class-is-shrinking-2019-04-12

https://www.businessinsider.com/america-shrinking-middle-class-debt-homeownership-retirement-savings-2019-5

[billsfan89]

18 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

We have made so many advances in just the last few years that a poor person today has a life (when measured in "things") quite similar to a wealthy person of a couple decades ago. I'm not too worried about wealth inequality when the money going to the top gets invested in making the advancements that end of improving the lot of everyone.

Not going to happen. Save your popcorn for the highly entertaining TPS-GG debates.

 

You are making a very optimistic and inaccurate assumption that money given to corporations and top earners gets invested in making advancements that end up improving the lot of everyone." A lot of the tax cuts went to buybacks of stocks for shareholders (many of whom aren't American thus representing a huge transfer of wealth out of the country.) A lot of the money received by upper income brackets went into assets. Once again it is poor economics to justify inequality by stating that well your TV's are better than they were 20 years ago. Inequality on a macro trend is relative and context based. If you erode the middle class in favor of an economy that is mostly working poor and upper class people that's going to destroy social cohesion and create a race to the bottom. 

 

Most economists would say that the issue with the American economy is lack of consumer demand as a result of a shrinking middle class. If your prescription for that problem is to give more tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy then I think you are disconnected from reality. 

 

Stock Buybacks

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-500-companies-expected-to-buy-back-800-billion-of-their-own-shares-this-year-2018-03-02

 

Lack of Investment

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/31/U-S-46942

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by billsfan89

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

You are making a very optimistic and inaccurate assumption that money given to corporations and top earners gets invested in making advancements that end up improving the lot of everyone." A lot of the tax cuts went to buybacks of stocks for shareholders (many of whom aren't American thus representing a huge transfer of wealth out of the country.) A lot of the money received by upper income brackets went into assets. Once again it is poor economics to justify inequality by stating that well your TV's are better than they were 20 years ago. Inequality on a macro trend is relative and context based. If you erode the middle class in favor of an economy that is mostly working poor and upper class people that's going to destroy social cohesion and create a race to the bottom. 

 

Most economists would say that the issue with the American economy is lack of consumer demand as a result of a shrinking middle class. If your prescription for that problem is to give more tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy then I think you are disconnected from reality. 

 

Stock Buybacks

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-500-companies-expected-to-buy-back-800-billion-of-their-own-shares-this-year-2018-03-02

 

Lack of Investment

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/31/U-S-46942

 

Don't put words in my mouth.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

Family health plan costs exceed $20,000 for first time

by Christopher Snowbeck

 

Original Article

 

The average cost  of family coverage in employer health plans pushed above the $20,000 mark for the first time this year, according to a new report, as the 5% average increase in premiums exceeded the growth rate for wages and general inflation. Low-wage workers face unique challenges, the study found, since they are less likely to be offered employer coverage and must pay a larger share of the premium when they have the chance to buy it. The numbers come from an annual national survey by the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation on cost trends for employer health plan coverage

 

 

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poor People Are Still Sicker Than The Rich In Germany, Despite Universal Health Care.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by B-Man

[Koko78]

43 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

You know the stock answer would be to claim that Obamacare was ruined and destroyed when Trump and the evil mecha-Nazi GOPs removed the penalty and ended the subsidies when they unjustly enriched 90% of US taxpayers in their tax cut bill.

[DC Tom]

3 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

You know the stock answer would be to claim that Obamacare was ruined and destroyed when Trump and the evil mecha-Nazi GOPs removed the penalty and ended the subsidies when they unjustly enriched 90% of US taxpayers in their tax cut bill.

 

I thought it was "Obamacare was a solution crippled by Republican obstruction that prevented the Democrats, holding both houses of Congress and the White House, from passing it."

[B-Man]

 

 

 

Medicare-for-All Insults Our Intelligence.

 

 

 

.

[GG]

Wreck it Trump is at it again.   

 

In less than 3 years, he's done more to truly shake up the healthcare biz than any president since LBJ.  More of these kinds of actions are infinitely better than any schemes proposed by the lunatic left.

 

Quote

 

The Trump administration on Friday released a far-reaching plan that would for the first time force hospitals and insurers to disclose their secret negotiated rates.

Administration officials said the final rule will compel hospitals in 2021 to publicize the rates they negotiate with individual insurers for all services, including drugs, supplies, facility fees and care by doctors who work for the facility.

 

The administration will propose extending the disclosure requirement to the $670 billion health-insurance industry. Insurance companies and group health plans that cover employees would have to disclose negotiated rates, as well as previously paid rates for out-of-network treatment, in file formats that are computer-searchable, officials said.

 

The insurers, including Anthem Inc. and Cigna Corp. , would have to provide a transparency tool to give cost information to consumers in advance, senior administration officials said.

 

 

 

[B-Man]

TOTAL mystery! ABC News gets help figuring out why Americans have been getting ‘crushed by rising health insurance costs’ in the last 10 years

 

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2019/11/21/total-mystery-abc-news-gets-help-figuring-out-why-americans-have-been-getting-crushed-by-rising-health-insurance-costs-in-the-last-10-years/

[Hedge]

 

Appeals court says Obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional and sends law back to lower court\

 

Quote

A federal appeals court has found the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate unconstitutional, but did not invalidate the entire law, which remains in effect.

The decision by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals likely pushes any Supreme Court action on Obamacare until after the 2020 election.

In the case brought by Texas and joined by the Trump administration, which argued the entire law should be thrown out, the panel has told a lower court that it must consider whether the individual mandate can be separated from the rest of the law.

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, Hedge said:

 

Appeals court says Obamacare individual mandate unconstitutional and sends law back to lower court\

 

 

 

 

...LMAO.....Obama Care......it was Hillary's Health Care Mandate with the Dynasty's cardboard cutout prop as the delivery boy.....Sham 101........

[B-Man]

 

 

IF YOU LIKE THE LAW YOU PASSED, YOU CAN KEEP IT! 

 

Democrats’ worries grow as ObamaCare court fight drags on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

  

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

.