Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 8:14:00 GMT -5
Just wondering....that 10% of Medicare expansion states will need to pick up in 3 years (the ones that expanded, that is)....anyone have any idea what the real numbers are for that?? I suspecting it's quite expensive. The feds only pick up the tab for those who qualify under the NEW means test. The states must pay 100% of the cost of new registrants who qualify under the OLD means test, but weren't in "the system" because they didn't have any medical expenses. (Quite often, maybe most often, people aren't enrolled in Medicaid until there's a bill to pay. With all the publicity about exchanges and subsidies, sign-ups are rising, quickly.) I'm thinking a lot of state health officials didn't bother to read that bit of fine print when they eagerly reached for those yummy federal dollars. Ummm... BOHICA? Yup. And even if it was straight-up as it sounds-- 10% is a lot of money when you're taking hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more. There is no surprise at all half the states have refused to go for it-- get ready for Maryland's' structural deficit to rebound in force in 3 years time if the law still stands as is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 8:47:30 GMT -5
True - this president was bought. Name one that wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 5, 2013 9:05:45 GMT -5
I don't believe that a Harry Truman or a Dwight Eisenhower were "bought," at least not in the way presidents are bought today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2013 10:37:11 GMT -5
I don't believe that a Harry Truman or a Dwight Eisenhower were "bought," at least not in the way presidents are bought today. Maybe, but there has never been a presidency that hasn't been 'bought', one way or another, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 5, 2013 10:44:48 GMT -5
I don't believe that a Harry Truman or a Dwight Eisenhower were "bought," at least not in the way presidents are bought today. I'm still trying to figure out how a George Bush won twice yet no one liked him. Lol
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 5, 2013 15:33:46 GMT -5
I don't believe that a Harry Truman or a Dwight Eisenhower were "bought," at least not in the way presidents are bought today. I'm still trying to figure out how a George Bush won twice yet no one liked him. Lol Same way Obama won - they liked the other guy even less. Lol look at all the sour grapes. Try winning an election occasionally. Even better, try trotting out a decent candidate. even the last guy you elected twice was terrible . That's the ONLY reason Obama is in office. But somehow he became convinced he had some sort of mandate to move the country towards socialized medicine.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2013 11:07:26 GMT -5
douger yet it is --- really. Because the NYT still thinks Obama walks on water. The talking points seem to be that the insurances dropping people are because they were junk policies. Really? Who decided that one? They're "junk policies" if you compare the coverage to what someone might have. The thing is, many people who are in the individual market - as compared to employer sponsored plans - have done their homework and bought plans that suited them both in coverage and cost. Most men I know haven't much need for pregnancy care, ya know. No, they are "junk policies" if they don't subsidize what The Puppet has decided 'need' to be subsidized. IOW, if they don't contain natal care, even if you are a single man, or they don't contain coverage for mammograms, well baby checkups, child dentistry, or any of the other things that many people don't need, don't want, but The Puppet has decided you should pay for anyway. That's what makes them "junk" policies in the eyes of the chief redistributionist.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2013 11:09:59 GMT -5
Lol look at all the sour grapes. Try winning an election occasionally. Even better, try trotting out a decent candidate. even the last guy you elected twice was terrible . Really? Try winning an election yourself, without a wholly owned LR media to lie for you, ignore anything detrimental to you, and destroy your opponent for you with lies, innuendo and omission. Just like in VA, where your masters had to pay someone to pose as a "Libertarian" to suck votes from the Repub. Otherwise, McCauliff would now be an 'also ran'.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2013 11:11:14 GMT -5
At one time my family had an individual policy. Our payment was $500.00 per month. That was NOT easy to pay but we did so as we needed the insurance. It covered what we needed as we had a baby under the plan. I wonder if Obama is willing to give up his plan and doctor. Lol. What a load of simplistic BS. More bumper stickers? You must be one of the 47% living off of the rest of us. Otherwise, you wouldn't vote Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2013 11:14:08 GMT -5
I don't believe that a Harry Truman or a Dwight Eisenhower were "bought," at least not in the way presidents are bought today. I'm still trying to figure out how a George Bush won twice yet no one liked him. Lol Look at who the Marxists ran against him both times: a con man, who was telling everyone they had to go back to living in mud huts while he built a 26,000 sq ft monstrosity for himself and his wife, and a gigolo traitor.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 7, 2013 11:47:51 GMT -5
They're "junk policies" if you compare the coverage to what someone might have. The thing is, many people who are in the individual market - as compared to employer sponsored plans - have done their homework and bought plans that suited them both in coverage and cost. Most men I know haven't much need for pregnancy care, ya know. No, they are "junk policies" if they don't subsidize what The Puppet has decided 'need' to be subsidized. IOW, if they don't contain natal care, even if you are a single man, or they don't contain coverage for mammograms, well baby checkups, child dentistry, or any of the other things that many people don't need, don't want, but The Puppet has decided you should pay for anyway. That's what makes them "junk" policies in the eyes of the chief redistributionist. The truth of that matter is that either directly or indirectly, you've been paying for all of that anyway, because most states have been requiring it for years. The two major players in Obamacare that bend the actuarial curve is preexisting condition coverage and allowing a parent to keep their kids on their policy until age 26.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 7, 2013 13:05:31 GMT -5
There's also the premium limits: the age surcharge difference cannot be greater than a factor of three between lowest and highest. Previously it was around five; the net effect is not to save older people but to cost younger people. Unintended consequences are something this administration does not understand. Or maybe it does. They did let the insurance industry write most of the behemoth.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 7, 2013 17:50:00 GMT -5
Is Jay Carney able to apply for health care? During today's briefing he does appear annoyed. Carney really was a totally appropriate last name for him... though I suspect carnival people might disagree.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Nov 7, 2013 18:12:11 GMT -5
It is? Really? I wondered if the NYT readership could grasp the concept of subsidies. Let me "school" you. The taxpayers don't pay all of the federali's budget. $700 billion of it was borrowed last year. So, the same people (young & healthy) being swept into buying faux insurance will ALSO have to pony up to pay the debt. Man, what a sweet deal they're getting! At the risk of stating the obvious, the healthy keep insurance companies afloat. You can cast stones at the ACA from a number of directions but you either accept the premise of insurance or you don't. As for the young they will sort out the messes we make today as they always have. But given the obstructions the repubs placed in writing the ACA it's something of miracle that anything at all was settled on. I'm agnostic on the ACA but I'm willing to give it a chance because our existing medical/insurance practices and billing policies are a tangled mess.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 7, 2013 18:18:20 GMT -5
So, the same people (young & healthy) being swept into buying faux insurance will ALSO have to pony up to pay the debt. Man, what a sweet deal they're getting! At the risk of stating the obvious, the healthy keep insurance companies afloat. You can cast stones at the ACA from a number of directions but you either accept the premise of insurance or you don't. As for the young they will sort out the messes we make today as they always have. But given the obstructions the repubs placed in writing the ACA it's something of miracle that anything at all was settled on. I'm agnostic on the ACA but I'm willing to give it a chance because our existing medical/insurance practices and billing po licies are a tangled mess. Whew! Finally a sane poster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 18:22:00 GMT -5
So, the same people (young & healthy) being swept into buying faux insurance will ALSO have to pony up to pay the debt. Man, what a sweet deal they're getting! At the risk of stating the obvious, the healthy keep insurance companies afloat. You can cast stones at the ACA from a number of directions but you either accept the premise of insurance or you don't. As for the young they will sort out the messes we make today as they always have. But given the obstructions the repubs placed in writing the ACA it's something of miracle that anything at all was settled on. I'm agnostic on the ACA but I'm willing to give it a chance because our existing medical/insurance practices and billing policies are a tangled mess. How about those who have lost their insurance after being told they would be able to keep the plans they liked?
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Nov 7, 2013 18:48:28 GMT -5
At the risk of stating the obvious, the healthy keep insurance companies afloat. You can cast stones at the ACA from a number of directions but you either accept the premise of insurance or you don't. As for the young they will sort out the messes we make today as they always have. But given the obstructions the repubs placed in writing the ACA it's something of miracle that anything at all was settled on. I'm agnostic on the ACA but I'm willing to give it a chance because our existing medical/insurance practices and billing policies are a tangled mess. How about those who have lost their insurance after being told they would be able to keep the plans they liked? Obama's legacy could be shaped by that quote in much the same way "read my lips, no new taxes" did with GHW Bush. It's fair political game. Obama is an excessively political figure and therein lies his vulnerability. He seeks out the politicos in times of trouble and he gets the expected counsel from them.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 7, 2013 18:59:08 GMT -5
So, the same people (young & healthy) being swept into buying faux insurance will ALSO have to pony up to pay the debt. Man, what a sweet deal they're getting! At the risk of stating the obvious, the healthy keep insurance companies afloat. You can cast stones at the ACA from a number of directions but you either accept the premise of insurance or you don't. As for the young they will sort out the messes we make today as they always have. But given the obstructions the repubs placed in writing the ACA it's something of miracle that anything at all was settled on. I'm agnostic on the ACA but I'm willing to give it a chance because our existing medical/insurance practices and billing policies are a tangled mess. Well the premise of insurance is to share the "RISK", not the known costs, so what ACA does is take the risk out of the equation, it is now no longer insurance but a way to make those who are healthy pay for those who are not, but choice is not given but forced. Insurance should not cover things that we know will occur, regular doctors visits, dental cleanings, contraceptives.... or elective things like mammograms, and abortions regardless of if in the long run money is supposed to be saved. The young will figure out how not to pay as well. Then you go on to blame the pubs for how ACA was written, do you have a link? As far as I knew it appeared out of whole cloth immaculately, and was passed with no one reading it by dems only. Having the government do anything and expecting good results makes you not an agnostic, but a flaming optimist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 19:01:15 GMT -5
How about those who have lost their insurance after being told they would be able to keep the plans they liked? Obama's legacy could be shaped by that quote in much the same way "read my lips, no new taxes" did with GHW Bush. It's fair political game. Obama is an excessively political figure and therein lies his vulnerability. He seeks out the politicos in times of trouble and he gets the expected counsel from them. Honestly, he appears to be concerned with himself more then others.
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Nov 7, 2013 19:07:51 GMT -5
Obama's legacy could be shaped by that quote in much the same way "read my lips, no new taxes" did with GHW Bush. It's fair political game. Obama is an excessively political figure and therein lies his vulnerability. He seeks out the politicos in times of trouble and he gets the expected counsel from them. Honestly, he appears to be concerned with himself more then others. ? Such brilliant insight
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Nov 7, 2013 19:18:56 GMT -5
At the risk of stating the obvious, the healthy keep insurance companies afloat. You can cast stones at the ACA from a number of directions but you either accept the premise of insurance or you don't. As for the young they will sort out the messes we make today as they always have. But given the obstructions the repubs placed in writing the ACA it's something of miracle that anything at all was settled on. I'm agnostic on the ACA but I'm willing to give it a chance because our existing medical/insurance practices and billing policies are a tangled mess. Well the premise of insurance is to share the "RISK", not the known costs, so what ACA does is take the risk out of the equation, it is now no longer insurance but a way to make those who are healthy pay for those who are not, but choice is not given but forced. Insurance should not cover things that we know will occur, regular doctors visits, dental cleanings, contraceptives.... or elective things like mammograms, and abortions regardless of if in the long run money is supposed to be saved. The young will figure out how not to pay as well. Then you go on to blame the pubs for how ACA was written, do you have a link? As far as I knew it appeared out of whole cloth immaculately, and was passed with no one reading it by dems only. Having the government do anything and expecting good results makes you not an agnostic, but a flaming optimist. Sharing the risk is code for the healthy paying your bills. Insurance is about creating a pool of money from which to draw the revenue to pay off bills. Hopefully you have more in the pot at the end of the month than not. Gov does medicare exceptionally well. Gov has insured we have the finest fighting force on the planet. You got to start somewhere. If the repubs don't like what they see they should have contributed more to the process than obstruction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 19:22:17 GMT -5
How about asking the millions of people who have lost their insurance after the president said they would not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 19:24:12 GMT -5
How about asking the millions of people who have lost their insurance after the president said they would not. Imagine that..... the bastard LIED!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 21:10:36 GMT -5
Well the premise of insurance is to share the "RISK", not the known costs, so what ACA does is take the risk out of the equation, it is now no longer insurance but a way to make those who are healthy pay for those who are not, but choice is not given but forced. Insurance should not cover things that we know will occur, regular doctors visits, dental cleanings, contraceptives.... or elective things like mammograms, and abortions regardless of if in the long run money is supposed to be saved. The young will figure out how not to pay as well. Then you go on to blame the pubs for how ACA was written, do you have a link? As far as I knew it appeared out of whole cloth immaculately, and was passed with no one reading it by dems only. Having the government do anything and expecting good results makes you not an agnostic, but a flaming optimist. Sharing the risk is code for the healthy paying your bills. Insurance is about creating a pool of money from which to draw the revenue to pay off bills. Hopefully you have more in the pot at the end of the month than not. Gov does medicare exceptionally well. Gov has insured we have the finest fighting force on the planet. You got to start somewhere. If the repubs don't like what they see they should have contributed more to the process than obstruction. Medicare is rife with problems. Hospitals and clinics have shut down due to slowness of payments (Gundry Glass was killed this way, last psych hospital focusing on pediatrics, sore loss for Maryland). Doctors and hospitals are underpaid, and make it up by refusing Medicare patients, or overcharging others. Government does Medicare-- even moderately well would be stretching it- barely adequate only because it's not a monopoly would be a better descriptor.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 7, 2013 21:51:39 GMT -5
Let's not forget that both the military, and medicare are massively expensive, and unsustainable , I wouldn't call that a success.
|
|