|
Post by redleg on Nov 12, 2013 21:22:23 GMT -5
I don't. They tried to 'bail out' the Dems, and the Dems shut down the government to prevent it. The Repubs need to go on every outlet they can find, and tell people "we tried to help, they shut down the government. Now they need to implement this law, as written. After all, "it's the law of the land", "it was passed by Congress, signed by the President, it's the law". Now they will live with it. No delays, no waivers, no subsidies except as written in the original law." And then stand by it. Make the serfs realize what it really is they voted for. redleg - I understand the urge to rub the voters' nose in this pile of crap and shout 'bad voters!' And yes, they do deserve having this shoved down their throats by the Democrats. But I want to get the Democrats OUT OF OFFICE. Where they desperately need to be. Punishing the voters isn't going to get us where we need to be. Besides, don't worry about it - the Democrats won't back off of this no matter how hard the GOP tries. So let the GOP try, over and over again, to try to fix all of this, or parts of this. I'm talking about making people realize what happens when you let Democrats get anywhere near a position of power. The Dems created this disaster, used it to feather their own nests by handing out exemptions and waivers to their sycophants and cronies in exchange for cold, hard cash, and shut down the government to protect their perks. They need to have their criminal activities exposed, and the Repubs need to shout it from the rooftops. They are being absolutely silent. What they need is a political ad saying something like "you lost your insurance. You can't get the promised government insurance. But the Democrats shut down the government to make sure that their insurance didn't lapse, and that they didn't have to pay the premiums that YOU are going to pay".
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 12, 2013 21:39:01 GMT -5
redleg - I understand the urge to rub the voters' nose in this pile of crap and shout 'bad voters!' And yes, they do deserve having this shoved down their throats by the Democrats. But I want to get the Democrats OUT OF OFFICE. Where they desperately need to be. Punishing the voters isn't going to get us where we need to be. Besides, don't worry about it - the Democrats won't back off of this no matter how hard the GOP tries. So let the GOP try, over and over again, to try to fix all of this, or parts of this. I'm talking about making people realize what happens when you let Democrats get anywhere near a position of power. The Dems created this disaster, used it to feather their own nests by handing out exemptions and waivers to their sycophants and cronies in exchange for cold, hard cash, and shut down the government to protect their perks. They need to have their criminal activities exposed, and the Repubs need to shout it from the rooftops. They are being absolutely silent. What they need is a political ad saying something like "you lost your insurance. You can't get the promised government insurance. But the Democrats shut down the government to make sure that their insurance didn't lapse, and that they didn't have to pay the premiums that YOU are going to pay". You don't need to worry about the Democrats doing anything to do what's needed to fix Obamacare. O's standing on the bridge of the Titanic, shouting "Damn the icebergs, full steam ahead" and Harry Reid is right there with him. Unfortunately the rest of their criminality will not be exposed before 2016 at the earliest. We'll need a Republican AG for that. The media sure as hell won't investigate this guy. Otherwise, I'm with you, the GOP needs a good strong PR effort that explains why Obamacare needs to go, and what needs to come after it.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 12, 2013 22:40:02 GMT -5
I'm talking about making people realize what happens when you let Democrats get anywhere near a position of power. The Dems created this disaster, used it to feather their own nests by handing out exemptions and waivers to their sycophants and cronies in exchange for cold, hard cash, and shut down the government to protect their perks. They need to have their criminal activities exposed, and the Repubs need to shout it from the rooftops. They are being absolutely silent. What they need is a political ad saying something like "you lost your insurance. You can't get the promised government insurance. But the Democrats shut down the government to make sure that their insurance didn't lapse, and that they didn't have to pay the premiums that YOU are going to pay". You don't need to worry about the Democrats doing anything to do what's needed to fix Obamacare. O's standing on the bridge of the Titanic, shouting "Damn the icebergs, full steam ahead" and Harry Reid is right there with him. Unfortunately the rest of their criminality will not be exposed before 2016 at the earliest. We'll need a Republican AG for that. The media sure as hell won't investigate this guy. Otherwise, I'm with you, the GOP needs a good strong PR effort that explains why Obamacare needs to go, and what needs to come after it. Sorry, but I still maintain that nothing needs to come after it. There is no authority for the Feds to control health care.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 13, 2013 7:02:01 GMT -5
You don't need to worry about the Democrats doing anything to do what's needed to fix Obamacare. O's standing on the bridge of the Titanic, shouting "Damn the icebergs, full steam ahead" and Harry Reid is right there with him. Unfortunately the rest of their criminality will not be exposed before 2016 at the earliest. We'll need a Republican AG for that. The media sure as hell won't investigate this guy. Otherwise, I'm with you, the GOP needs a good strong PR effort that explains why Obamacare needs to go, and what needs to come after it. Sorry, but I still maintain that nothing needs to come after it. There is no authority for the Feds to control health care. Well, the Feds have been controlling health care. So then lets make the argument that deregulation needs to come after it. Allowing insurers to compete across state lines. Tort reform. Allowing people to purchase individual health insurance with pre-tax income. All of these have been put forward, all of them would help reduce insurance costs, and get more people covered.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 13, 2013 8:24:26 GMT -5
Sorry, but I still maintain that nothing needs to come after it. There is no authority for the Feds to control health care. Well, the Feds have been controlling health care. So then lets make the argument that deregulation needs to come after it. Allowing insurers to compete across state lines. Tort reform. Allowing people to purchase individual health insurance with pre-tax income. All of these have been put forward, all of them would help reduce insurance costs, and get more people covered. For any of that to work you have to have some reason for people to buy insurance when they are healthy. So they also need to stop giving away free healthcare, and preexisting conditions have to jot be covered, the people who were not covered, and got sick need to pay for themselves, or have a charity help, or die. Even medicaid, medicare needs to have deductibles. Of course that will not happen so we will continue to see escalating costs.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 13, 2013 8:27:18 GMT -5
Has anyone else noted the big jump from total healthcare paid for by medicaid, and the high deductible bronze plans that are subsidized by the taxpayers? Seems people would be better off hiding income and getting medicaid so that they are covered for all the little things, like abortions, and birth control.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 13, 2013 9:42:55 GMT -5
Sorry, but I still maintain that nothing needs to come after it. There is no authority for the Feds to control health care. Well, the Feds have been controlling health care. So then lets make the argument that deregulation needs to come after it. Allowing insurers to compete across state lines. Tort reform. Allowing people to purchase individual health insurance with pre-tax income. All of these have been put forward, all of them would help reduce insurance costs, and get more people covered. Actually, the only thing I think would agree with Constitutional powers would be an HSA. Why should I pay for your health care, or you for mine, if we can both put money aside for emergencies? Insurance should only be for disaster, not for contraceptives, checkups, and asprin.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 13, 2013 9:45:09 GMT -5
Has anyone else noted the big jump from total healthcare paid for by medicaid, and the high deductible bronze plans that are subsidized by the taxpayers? Seems people would be better off hiding income and getting medicaid so that they are covered for all the little things, like abortions, and birth control. Well, given that there is no income verification, no questions asked, that is happening. I saw one report, on MSNBC no less, that claimed that 80% of those that have been able to sign up have signed up for Medicaid, not Puppettax.
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 13, 2013 9:48:48 GMT -5
Has anyone else noted the big jump from total healthcare paid for by medicaid, and the high deductible bronze plans that are subsidized by the taxpayers? Seems people would be better off hiding income and getting medicaid so that they are covered for all the little things, like abortions, and birth control. Well, given that there is no income verification, no questions asked, that is happening. I saw one report, on MSNBC no less, that claimed that 80% of those that have been able to sign up have signed up for Medicaid, not Puppettax. Is that perhaps because the "no income verification" that actually is part of the 404care.org process - when it's working, that is - has determined that those people really do qualify for Medicaid?
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 13, 2013 10:43:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 13, 2013 10:56:00 GMT -5
Six weeks in, I still find this mind blowing.Not so much that he didn't know, because I think that's a lie, but because the people responsible still have jobs. You can be sure that in the corporate world that after a clusterfark on this scale, heads at the highest level would roll. I think they have a word for that: accountability. Somebody needs to introduce the Obama team to the concept.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 13, 2013 12:16:21 GMT -5
Because that's not how politicians think. Right around election time the Pubs often stand up a bill restricting abortion. Typically, these bills have a fatal flaw, like omitting the medical exemption, that guarantees they'll get no traction, and if they do, that they'll be struck down on Constitutional grounds. This is because the Pubs know actually trying to outlaw abortion is political poison - roughly 75% of the country doesn't agree with that stance. But they have to pretend they're doing something their core constituency, religious extremists, want done. Unless the bill *requires* companies to make such policies available it gives people nothing. And if it requires that, it undercuts Obamacare and the Resident won't sign it. So: nothing. It's politics. I don't think 75% support abortion. At least, not abortion for any reason, at any time like the Dems do. Look at what just passed in TX, with overwhelming approval. People are finally realizing that it's infanticide. I did not say that 75% supported abortion at any time for any reason. Not all Democrats believe that. The last time I checked; about 22% of people wanted abortion completely banned, regardless of reason. Around the same number wanted it completely permitted. Most of the rest supported various levels of restrictions. 100% - 22% = 78%, which I rounded down. Here's a link. These polls vary widely. Texas is a very conservative state. You can't extrapolate what happens there nationally any more than you can extrapolate what people in Berkeley vote for nationally.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 13, 2013 18:16:29 GMT -5
Well, the Feds have been controlling health care. So then lets make the argument that deregulation needs to come after it. Allowing insurers to compete across state lines. Tort reform. Allowing people to purchase individual health insurance with pre-tax income. All of these have been put forward, all of them would help reduce insurance costs, and get more people covered. For any of that to work you have to have some reason for people to buy insurance when they are healthy. So they also need to stop giving away free healthcare, and preexisting conditions have to jot be covered, the people who were not covered, and got sick need to pay for themselves, or have a charity help, or die. Even medicaid, medicare needs to have deductibles. Of course that will not happen so we will continue to see escalating costs. Actually, that's the beauty of an HSA. You open up a savings account - perhaps it even pays interest - and use that to pay your deductibles until you get to your coverage limits. There's good reason for even young, healthy people to have health insurance. The problem is the cost should reflect the risk. Which means it ought to be cheap. The fact that it isn't means the government is putting it's thumb on the scale again.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Nov 13, 2013 18:19:07 GMT -5
Well, the Feds have been controlling health care. So then lets make the argument that deregulation needs to come after it. Allowing insurers to compete across state lines. Tort reform. Allowing people to purchase individual health insurance with pre-tax income. All of these have been put forward, all of them would help reduce insurance costs, and get more people covered. Actually, the only thing I think would agree with Constitutional powers would be an HSA. Why should I pay for your health care, or you for mine, if we can both put money aside for emergencies? Insurance should only be for disaster, not for contraceptives, checkups, and asprin. Is not that pre-tax income your money? Why shouldn't the government allow you to spend some of your money before it takes it? And I agree with you about the purpose of health insurance. Your car insurance doesn't cover preventive maintenance. Neither should your health insurance. But a savings account to pay for such things does make sense.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 13, 2013 18:31:40 GMT -5
Actually, the only thing I think would agree with Constitutional powers would be an HSA. Why should I pay for your health care, or you for mine, if we can both put money aside for emergencies? Insurance should only be for disaster, not for contraceptives, checkups, and asprin. Is not that pre-tax income your money? Why shouldn't the government allow you to spend some of your money before it takes it? And I agree with you about the purpose of health insurance. Your car insurance doesn't cover preventive maintenance. Neither should your health insurance. But a savings account to pay for such things does make sense. It doesn't even have to be pre tax money, just tax employer health care the same as income and you will see a change in that as well. Frankly employers shouldn't be insuring their employees, it just traps the employee into a group plan so that he really cannot quit if he gets some condition which would be considered pre-existing if he changed insurance, if he owned his own policy then that wouldn't be an issue. Of course something that does need to be addressed is what happens with someone who has a condition that is covered by their insurance, and that insurance company decides to drop the policy, how does the person covered get new insurance without the pre-existing condition problem cropping up? Say the insurance company goes out of business? I am just pointing out problems, I don't have solutions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 18:35:03 GMT -5
Riddle me this. Government has decided that they need to control healthcare because those without healthcare are going bankrupt due to serious illnesses.
From what is being reported about the higher premiums and deductibles isn't bankruptcy a possibility?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 18:37:26 GMT -5
Should we call this a success? Obamacare should never have happened. Actually, the true percentage is about .01% of the expected numbers. Given that, one has a 50% better chance of being accepted at Harvard University than one does getting onto OBAMACARE at this point. Check yesterday's WSJ.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 13, 2013 18:41:07 GMT -5
Riddle me this. Government has decided that they need to control healthcare because those without healthcare are going bankrupt due to serious illnesses. From what is being reported about the higher premiums and deductibles isn't bankruptcy a possibility? Only if people are that close to the edge that an extra $1000 per month will break them. $417 per month should be saved away to pay for deductibles, and then of course premiums going up. What will really hurt is for those who are subsidized for bronze, unless they have the discipline to save that $417 per month then when they get sick they will not have enough to pay for the deductible, I wonder how that will fly. Somehow I think that all the states that took the Medicaid deal are going to regret it.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 13, 2013 18:41:42 GMT -5
Oh I forgot, the $416 per month only needs to be saved for the first year if no one gets sick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 18:44:05 GMT -5
With the lousy enrollment numbers being reported where is the president?
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 13, 2013 18:44:53 GMT -5
Riddle me this. Government has decided that they need to control healthcare because those without healthcare are going bankrupt due to serious illnesses. From what is being reported about the higher premiums and deductibles isn't bankruptcy a possibility? O nly if people are that close to the edge that an extra $1000 per month will break them. $417 per month should be saved away to pay for deductibles, and then of course premiums going up.What will really hurt is for those who are subsidized for bronze, unless they have the discipline to save that $417 per month then when they get sick they will not have enough to pay for the deductible, I wonder how that will fly. Somehow I think that all the states that took the Medicaid deal are going to regret it. That's an awful lot of people. I can assure you that if you qualify for a subsidized health plan, you're not likely to have $400 extra lying around collecting dust.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 13, 2013 18:46:35 GMT -5
With the lousy enrollment numbers being reported where is the president? His staff is playing a prank on him. They told him he had to enroll for Obamacare, so that's what he's been trying to do for the last few days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 18:47:13 GMT -5
EY you are too kind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 18:47:25 GMT -5
With the lousy enrollment numbers being reported where is the president? Are you referring to the "Excuser In Chief?"
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 13, 2013 18:52:02 GMT -5
O nly if people are that close to the edge that an extra $1000 per month will break them. $417 per month should be saved away to pay for deductibles, and then of course premiums going up.What will really hurt is for those who are subsidized for bronze, unless they have the discipline to save that $417 per month then when they get sick they will not have enough to pay for the deductible, I wonder how that will fly. Somehow I think that all the states that took the Medicaid deal are going to regret it. That's an awful lot of people. I can assure you that if you qualify for a subsidized health plan, you're not likely to have $400 extra lying around collecting dust. I agree, that is why I see a real problem with the Bronze, and silver plans, do you know if gold/platinum plans get subsidies?
|
|