ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Woodruff]

How does it feel to be a sellout and a sucker? You're a bought and paid for shill, you're being played, and you're happy about it.

Honestly, I would say that applies much more to you in this case than I.

Well that's an interesting claim. Perhaps you can point out exactly how that is true?

Well if Romney wins by a slim margin, then we can thank those who voted for third parties, particularly parties like the Green party with members that otherwise would vote Obama.

How does that make me a sellout or a shill?

It makes you ineffective. The sell out bit is allowing Romney to win.

That doesn't even make basic sense. Do you have no concept of what the term "sellout" means? Because it has nothing to do with a secondary coincidental result, that's for sure.

There are other reasons, but this is far enough off topic.

Yeah, I didn't think you could back it up either.

Your jobs are and have been about supporting the status quo. I am not attacking the military, but to claim that youare opposing the system, and that I am a sell out because I am not voting for an ineffectual nominee, while your entire occupation is about supporting the system is, well hypocritical.

I believe in working within the system and changing it that way.

Getting the Federal money for the Green Party is literally working within the system. It's certainly more of an aspect of working for change than a vote for Obama is. We've seen how much Obama is willing to change the system...he's not.

That could very much be said of the entire green party. They talk a good talk, but have never been effective. The reason is because they take such an extreme position and have a "take it all or leave it" attitude. They deny compromise and celebrate that as if it were some kind of gift or benefit.

The result is more and more marginalization, less and less voice, not more. They actually had chances to gain power in parts of CA, elsewhere... and utterly blew it. Yet, instead of changing, they keep on.

You keep saying things like this, and they keep being false. The Green Party is growing, not getting smaller.

It is not growing the way it could, by any means. And what I said above is very true.

No, what you said is not true. It very much IS growing, thanks in large part to the utter failure of the man you are going to be voting for again. The Green Party (and also the Libertarian Party) has a great opportunity in this election year, and the primary thing holding us back is individuals like yourself who vote for your fears instead of your values.

It really is too bad that they stick to their principles though. I can see why someone who would vote for Obama wouldn't care for that too much.

Principles? Failure to compromise, to listen to others, to actually talk to others and hear what they are saying is not what I call "principles".

You do realize that it's possible to hear a position with an open mind and still disagree with it, right? That's called sticking to your principles. It's not called voting for someone so that you'll get a handout.

Also, while the green party is closer to what I would like to see, it is not fully what I agree with. I don't agree on their stance on the military, for example... though I do think we should have more debate on the topics they bring up.

For me, that's the primary attraction of both the Green Party and the Libertarian Party...more discourse. This two-party dichotomy-but-not-a-dichotomy we've got going on is frankly just stupid. That I happen to agree with both of them a little more than either of the other two "normal" parties is just icing on the cake.

[PLAYER57832]

moved my response, here:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=179904

[Woodruff]

Controlling for alcohol and tobacco use, 45,000 people die each year from lack of Insurance tobacco use.
"The uninsured are 40 percent more likely to die prematurely. "

what is prematurely? suffocating with or without the oxygen bottle? my mom's dad died ten years after he quit smoking, probably just as excruciating a death as those that were not insured.

But that's not the whole story. That doesn't address the strain on our economy or our hospitals created by people without insurance.
There are currently more than 50,000 Americans who don't have insurance and when they get sick, John Q. taxpayer bails them out. This new system is attempting to end the freeloading that you hate so much, because they will be coerced to getgiven insurance.

so what really changes here. let's assume that insurance costs for me does go up until they go down. we'll both have to wait and see. except of course in your fantasy land where money is no object. how often is it that prices usually tend to go up and not down? don't that usually happen with everything. because people who are in the business to make money, strive to make it right?

62% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were tied to medical expenses.

can't we just say, that bankruptcy comes from owing more than you have, or can make?
so these people that overextended on houses they couldn't afford full of overpriced furniture and luxery cars in the driveway, really didn't need the things they thought were so important at the time.
if you file bankruptcy, i'm going to have to think you are in debt. meaning you owe money that you don't have. if you're modest house of say 50,000 is paid for, instead of owing 400,000 bucks on a nice luxery one. then you're bank may tend to loan you a little more. especially when they see you take care fo things.... but when you're 200,000 dollar medical bill nearly buckles you and you see you'll never get that house paid for.. isn't it much easier to lean on the govt and just let everyone else flip the bill. heck, you can always start over.

By having everyone covered by health insurance, the cost will go down because the risk to hospitals and the government will go down. Bills will be paid, so they wont have to charge extra for services to cover the losses that they take when people have to file for bankruptcy or can't pay because they have no insurance.
And once again, it was going to be 30% of our GNP by 2030. We've got to do something to stop all of this.

And at any rate, you can still choose to not have insurance. But you have to pay the tax.

do you think that doctors and insurance companies are going to lose money. when doctors start to make less they will charge more for their fees, or our medical system will go down the drain by not having quality doctors because the govt will try to manipulate the amount the doctors are allowed to charge, because of course as we can see. the govt is in bed with the insurance companies. or as the doctors charge higher fees, the insurance companies will do the same. because we know they're not going to make less money. and now the doctors are in bed with the govt. no matter what, prices will go up. and it's because we ( the majority of america ) think the govt is the awnser to all our problems.

if you took insurance completely out of the equation, there would be no way that health care would cost so much. because only the elite 1% that you despise could afford it.

insurance makes money off of knowing you feel insecure about your future. but they also know that most likely you will not get sick. let's say 1 out of every 10 people cost them 1000 dollars a month in hospital costs. well damn. this is easy. let's charge all ten 200 dollars apiece and then we'll give 100 to the doctors and we'll keep 100 for ourself.
well now the doctors say... hey now! where doing all the work here... if you're going to do it like that, then i want a little more. this goes back and forth until now you are forced to pay insurance because that's all you can afford.
can't you see this is a racket. all i can see now, is this is fixing to get out of control because they now have the power backed by the govt to slowly increase rates that may not be noticable in the short term, but i would bet my health insurance now. that i had before obamacare, that there will be a much more rapid increase in insurance premiums in the next 10 years that there were in the last 10. or any other ten you'd like to use.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/ ... 4981.shtml

[WILLIAMS5232]

i sure hope Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is right woodruffster,

until then, i'm betting on things will be worse before they are good. we'll just have to wait and see.

and i'll say again, i think the bankruptcies that they are trying to claim that come from medical expenses, are really people overextending on houses and cars and i-phones and nice furniture only to be bombarded by an untimely illness. i doubt that someone debt free is bankrupting over a medical cost alone. or at least the numbers are far different than this most likely rigged study is trying to portray.

[Woodruff]

i sure hope Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is right woodruffster,

until then, i'm betting on things will be worse before they are good. we'll just have to wait and see.

and i'll say again, i think the bankruptcies that they are trying to claim that come from medical expenses, are really people overextending on houses and cars and i-phones and nice furniture only to be bombarded by an untimely illness. i doubt that someone debt free is bankrupting over a medical cost alone. or at least the numbers are far different than this most likely rigged study is trying to portray.

Rigged study? Good Lord man, they clearly say the numbers simply represent "was a factor", not that it was SOLELY the factor. I don't know how you could possibly conclude that it's a rigged study, to be honest.

[WILLIAMS5232]

i sure hope Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is right woodruffster,

until then, i'm betting on things will be worse before they are good. we'll just have to wait and see.

and i'll say again, i think the bankruptcies that they are trying to claim that come from medical expenses, are really people overextending on houses and cars and i-phones and nice furniture only to be bombarded by an untimely illness. i doubt that someone debt free is bankrupting over a medical cost alone. or at least the numbers are far different than this most likely rigged study is trying to portray.

Rigged study? Good Lord man, they clearly say the numbers simply represent "was a factor", not that it was SOLELY the factor. I don't know how you could possibly conclude that it's a rigged study, to be honest.

did you read the article?

But a new study published in The American Journal of Medicine says the biggest reason for going into bankruptcy is medical debt.

Medical Debt Huge Bankruptcy Culprit

this is not portraying simply "a factor"

But The Washington Post says people in bankruptcy with insurance were nearly $18,000 in the red. And those without insurance had an average of almost $27,000 in medical debt.

this is not a reason to file bankruptcy in my opinion. unless of course you are so far under on other things.

let me reword my thoughts in my statement earlier.
"i do not feel sorry for people who file for bankruptcy when their other debt is more than their total medical cost. however, i do feel sorry for people that are debt free who file for bankruptcy."

[Phatscotty]

so....Obamacare.....prices were supposed to be dropping, right?

Why did healthcare have an even bigger increase in cost this year than before Obamacare was passed?

[PLAYER57832]

and i'll say again, i think the bankruptcies that they are trying to claim that come from medical expenses, are really people overextending on houses and cars and i-phones and nice furniture only to be bombarded by an untimely illness. i doubt that someone debt free is bankrupting over a medical cost alone. or at least the numbers are far different than this most likely rigged study is trying to portray.

This is utterly false. Teh problem is that much of the above debt is very much part of medical debt. Did it never occur to you that when people have a sick child, they will mortgage their house, may wind up having to leave work enough that they suddenly become "expendable" to their employer, etc... so what you call "superfulous" really isn't.

ALSO.... isn't it funny how our economy is so dependent upon growth, which means purchases.. but when people actually do make those purchases, they are somehow irresponsible?

Medical care is not a free market item. People don't really have choice because most people, even with the internet and so forth don't have the knowledge that comes with medical degrees. In fact, the internet probably makes getting real information harder in some cases.. far too many people just hear the surface and don't bother looking into the depth needed to really understand compex situations. Beyond that, when your child is ill or injured, you can't just "shop around". That is precisely why ALL hospitals have to take ALL patients without first demanding payment.

AND, its why even the most responsible of people can wind up with huge debt if a family member gets sick. Worse, even with insurance, once you hit the "lifetime limits" or wind up with even a day gap in insurance the companies can simply refuse to cover you-- and then you pretty much have to either watch your loved one stay ill or do whatever you can, including taking on "unreasonable debt" to try to get help. Ironically, once you have done that and declared bankruptcy... THEN suddenly you can get help because you have no assets.

[WILLIAMS5232]

This is utterly false.

i disagree

Did it never occur to you that when people have a sick child, they will mortgage their house

yes, you would be silly not to.

isn't it funny how our economy is so dependent upon growth, which means purchases.. but when people actually do make those purchases, they are somehow irresponsible?

it's not "funny" it's sad. purchases are fine if you can afford them, but buying an xbox or a 70 dollar blender, or a new pair of shoes every 2 weeks on credit is unacceptable. paying cash for these things while in debt is not an argument.

even the most responsible of people can wind up with huge debt if a family member gets sick.

i agree, and i'm not talking about these people. i'm sure it's very few compared to that study.

Teh problem is that much of the above debt is very much part of medical debt

the problem is allowing folks to not have to take care of thierself until it's too late. this will only get more out of control the longer things go. and thinking there is a fairy tale solution to end all problems is silly thinking.
if you give everyone a false hope that they can do whatever they want and they'll be fine because society can take care of them when they hit bottom, it's not helping them.
i'd much rather help someone that doesn't' expect help than some one who feels it's a right.

[PLAYER57832]

so....Obamacare.....prices were supposed to be dropping, right?

Why did healthcare have an even bigger increase in cost this year than before Obamacare was passed?

LONG term versus short term AND including the money our tax dollars go toward subsidizing people without insurance, actual health care costs, etc-- not just the premiums you pay today. Prices WILL drop.... they were never going to drop immediately.


Obamacare, for example, dictates that if a hospital or doctor screws up, the bills to correct the error are the hospital/doctor's responsibility, not taxpayer's responsibility. It allows a lot more people to get insurance now than have in the past... but that wont become fully realized unless and until the exchanges are put in force and people /small businesses can begin to truly by insurance on their own at rates somewhat akin to those large companies now pay. ETC.

[PLAYER57832]

This is utterly false.

i disagree

Fine, show your work.. your evidence.

Did it never occur to you that when people have a sick child, they will mortgage their house

yes, you would be silly not to.[/quote]
and yet, you still think its perfectly OK to let those folks go bankrupt, rather than another type of fix.

You make statements, but ignore the real impact of those statements.

isn't it funny how our economy is so dependent upon growth, which means purchases.. but when people actually do make those purchases, they are somehow irresponsible?

it's not "funny" it's sad. purchases are fine if you can afford them, but buying an xbox or a 70 dollar blender, or a new pair of shoes every 2 weeks on credit is unacceptable. paying cash for these things while in debt is not an argument.

and yet, without those types of purchases, the 1% could not be gaining the huge increases in wealth they have experienced.. so there is no incentive to TRULY get people to stop, there is a lot of encouragement for folks to go out and just buy, buy, buy...

even the most responsible of people can wind up with huge debt if a family member gets sick.

i agree, and i'm not talking about these people. i'm sure it's very few compared to that study

No, its not. I, several others did do the research.. and posted it in this very thread.

The problem is that much of the above debt is very much part of medical debt

the problem is allowing folks to not have to take care of thierself until it's too late. this will only get more out of control the longer things go. and thinking there is a fairy tale solution to end all problems is silly thinking.[/quote]
Uh.. how, exactly is one supposed to "take care of oneself" when there is no insurance, when you don't have the money to go to a doctor, until you finally have to go to the emergency room and then you do get care without payment.

if you give everyone a false hope that they can do whatever they want and they'll be fine because society can take care of them when they hit bottom, it's not helping them.
i'd much rather help someone that doesn't' expect help than some one who feels it's a right.

Except, providing health insurance for all is ABOUT responsibility. Requiring people to buy insurance and requiring insurance providers to actually cover people, instead of mostly covering healthy people and dropping anyone who gets really sick onto the taxpayer systems IS responsibility.

The false hope is this idea that allowing for profit entities to dictate care will somehow magically result in cheaper and better care for all.

[WILLIAMS5232]

Fine, show your work.. your evidence.

can we both agree that the system is being abused? if so, that's my evidence.

and yet, you still think its perfectly OK to let those folks go bankrupt, rather than another type of fix.

You make statements, but ignore the real impact of those statements.

.
no i don't. i know full well what i say and why. i'm against an enabling society. i see people and have family that has been given plenty of oppurtunity to try and right theirself. but since they don't earn their keep and have people keep helping them, they don't know how to help thierself. it's sickening how dependant we can let each other become. if i have a family member that seriously needs and deserves help, i'm all for helping in whatever way i can. but i'm totally against some jack-ass up in kansas that i don't know taking money from our broke ass govt because he wanted 22 inch rims on his hummer instead of putting that money up for an emergency. if you're worth a shit in life there will be people come forward and help you when you're down. you shouldn't lean on the govt so much. ( this is my opinion of course so no need to show my work here )

and yet, without those types of purchases, the 1% could not be gaining the huge increases in wealth they have experienced.. so there is no incentive to TRULY get people to stop, there is a lot of encouragement for folks to go out and just buy, buy, buy...

so why reward these people for making foolish purchases. and why blame the 1% you hate so much. quit buying their products if you hate them so much.

No, its not. I, several others did do the research.. and posted it in this very thread.

again, do you agree the system is being abused. that's my research. i don't put much thought in polls and studies posted on the internet. i could go to fox news and find you 10 that would disagree just like you could find me 10 more that support it. also, i'm not going to go back through 100's of pages to prove something that you and i will obviously never agree on.

Uh.. how, exactly is one supposed to "take care of oneself" when there is no insurance, when you don't have the money to go to a doctor, until you finally have to go to the emergency room and then you do get care without payment.

i don't know... i guess you could start by getting a job. living within your means and saving money. do i really have to explain this?

Except, providing health insurance for all is ABOUT responsibility. Requiring people to buy insurance and requiring insurance providers to actually cover people, instead of mostly covering healthy people and dropping anyone who gets really sick onto the taxpayer systems IS responsibility.

The false hope is this idea that allowing for profit entities to dictate care will somehow magically result in cheaper and better care for all.

i'd be all for helping folks if we have a surplus. but we don't. people need to make a few sacrifices and help the situation out. and handing healthcare out to everyone so they can abuse it every time you get a stuffy nose is not a responsible act. no matter what you say we both know it is going to get abused. if it's a life threatening ilness fine, let the guy in. but there has to be a way to manage the abuse, and this isn't it.

[Phatscotty]

so....Obamacare.....prices were supposed to be dropping, right?

Why did healthcare have an even bigger increase in cost this year than before Obamacare was passed?

LONG term versus short term AND including the money our tax dollars go toward subsidizing people without insurance, actual health care costs, etc-- not just the premiums you pay today. Prices WILL drop.... they were never going to drop immediately.


Obamacare, for example, dictates that if a hospital or doctor screws up, the bills to correct the error are the hospital/doctor's responsibility, not taxpayer's responsibility. It allows a lot more people to get insurance now than have in the past... but that wont become fully realized unless and until the exchanges are put in force and people /small businesses can begin to truly by insurance on their own at rates somewhat akin to those large companies now pay. ETC.

Obama did say prices would drop in the short term and even immediately...when he was trying to get it passed.... I think Obama even tried to verify that prices have dropped, but immediately backed off it when the results came in

what is the track record for government projections on LONG term entitlement programs?

Why couldn't the examples you brought up, which I also happen to agree with, be passed individually? And don't even start saying it's based on the job creation (the 16,500 IRS agents that come along with..."allowing more people to get insurance")

[Woodruff]

Fine, show your work.. your evidence.

can we both agree that the system is being abused? if so, that's my evidence.

Any system will be abused. Are you ready to eliminate the military because corporations are abusing it for profits?

Uh.. how, exactly is one supposed to "take care of oneself" when there is no insurance, when you don't have the money to go to a doctor, until you finally have to go to the emergency room and then you do get care without payment.

i don't know... i guess you could start by getting a job. living within your means and saving money. do i really have to explain this?

Yes, these jobs are overwhelmingly available, certainly. Just get a job, hippie!

[PLAYER57832]

Fine, show your work.. your evidence.

can we both agree that the system is being abused? if so, that's my evidence.

As I thought, You don't have evidence, just opinion. That's a cop out. ANY system will be abused by some people. You claimed that bankruptcies are not really from medical expenses, though several studies (posted earlier in this thread, in fact) show you are wrong.

I asked you to provide your counter evidence. If you have it, provide it. Else you are talking garbage.

and yet, you still think its perfectly OK to let those folks go bankrupt, rather than another type of fix.

You make statements, but ignore the real impact of those statements.

.
no i don't. i know full well what i say and why. i'm against an enabling society. i see people and have family that has been given plenty of oppurtunity to try and right theirself. [/quote]
EVIDENCE, please... again.

Its easy to claim that folks are "given everything" when you don't bother to really look into why people get into trouble OR to the actual impact of cuts to help programs.

One example a big cause of homelessness, even TODAY is that Reagan (yep, him) "realeased" a lot of people from psychiatric institutions.. without making sure there were effective helps in place.

'Another--- the Republicans like to claim that the increase in food stamps, etc in the past few years is evidence of abuse, instead of evidence that people are hurting do to stupid mistakes made by the BUSH administration, mistakes Romney now wants to repeat in spades.

but since they don't earn their keep and have people keep helping them, they don't know how to help thierself. it's sickening how dependant we can let each other become. if i have a family member that seriously needs and deserves help, i'm all for helping in whatever way i can. but i'm totally against some jack-ass up in kansas that i don't know taking money from our broke ass govt because he wanted 22 inch rims on his hummer instead of putting that money up for an emergency.

Evidence, please... AGAIN, and not just an isolated idiot.
Here.. I will beat you to the punch. About 80% of kids in my school district, including my own up until last year, get either free or subsidized lunches. A few have stupid parents, sure. Many more are in families that suffered job losses, injury, divorce. Evne when it is idiot parents, cutting off food aid is not the answer. Nor, in many cases is taking the kids and throwing them into social services (though in some cases, absolutely).

So, I am one of those "users" and "abusers". And I honestly dare you to try and get into THAT debate with me. You are very quick to make judgements, but have not the experience or the willingness to even see if your beliefs are valid. That's more than digusting, its abuse of intelligence AND the system. Because you are willing to break it without bothering to find out if your ideas really have any bearing on true problems.

if you're worth a shit in life there will be people come forward and help you when you're down. you shouldn't lean on the govt so much. ( this is my opinion of course so no need to show my work here )

That's bull.
And no, its not just "your opinion", because you have based "your opinion" upon an utter lack of information.


i have to go to work.. finish later.

[WILLIAMS5232]

As I thought, You don't have evidence, just opinion. That's a cop out. ANY system will be abused by some people. You claimed that bankruptcies are not really from medical expenses, though several studies (posted earlier in this thread, in fact) show you are wrong.

I asked you to provide your counter evidence. If you have it, provide it. Else you are talking garbage.

my basic argument here is these studies do not take into account all the abuse that happens. they are written to try and sway peoples thoughts one way or another. did you read the study? could you not tell the author was bias. you claim that my judgement is just based on my unintelligent thought. well whatever i guess. i see how the world works and don't need to do Google searches to try and rationalize my actions. if this isn't good enough, we're done here.

we cant have a world full of doctors, lawyers, ballerinas and astronauts. this job problem is a hoax. my company can't find workers. we have 8 "3 man" crews that total about 17. ( that means we are hiring 7 people at the moment ) this has been a constant problem for about a year now since my company laid off all illegal workers. this is just one department. we have nearly 400 employees. we could probably stand to hire about 60 more people on a "will train" basis. but most people have sociology degrees and are too good for the positions we have to offer.

One example a big cause of homelessness, even TODAY is that Reagan (yep, him) "realeased" a lot of people from psychiatric institutions.. without making sure there were effective helps in place.

so now all homeless people are physchotic? could you show your work here?

'Another--- the Republicans like to claim that the increase in food stamps, etc in the past few years is evidence of abuse, instead of evidence that people are hurting do to stupid mistakes made by the BUSH administration, mistakes Romney now wants to repeat in spades.

can you buy poptarts with foodstamps?
are poptarts necessary to life?
this is my evidence that foodstamps are abused. if you buy any luxury item on foodstamps, yoiu are stealing.

Evidence, please... AGAIN, and not just an isolated idiot.
Here.. I will beat you to the punch. About 80% of kids in my school district, including my own up until last year, get either free or subsidized lunches. A few have stupid parents, sure. Many more are in families that suffered job losses, injury, divorce. Evne when it is idiot parents, cutting off food aid is not the answer. Nor, in many cases is taking the kids and throwing them into social services (though in some cases, absolutely).

So, I am one of those "users" and "abusers". And I honestly dare you to try and get into THAT debate with me. You are very quick to make judgements, but have not the experience or the willingness to even see if your beliefs are valid. That's more than digusting, its abuse of intelligence AND the system. Because you are willing to break it without bothering to find out if your ideas really have any bearing on true problems.

how much is a school lunch these days?
when i was in school it was 85 cents. so lets say it's now at 2 bucks due to govt induced inflation.
2x5=10
it's a damn shame if you can't come up with 10 bucks a week to feed your children. why have them if you can 't take care of them. i realize there are "certain" circumstances that make me look like a complete jerk and asshole here. but for petes sake, how many people getting free lunches honestly can't afford it. can you get me some numbers and percentages there? i don't feel like it. but i'm sure that to my standards it's way over what is acceptable for me.

That's bull.
And no, its not just "your opinion", because you have based "your opinion" upon an utter lack of information.

and i think i pinched a nerve with you, which was not my intention, so don't take any of this personal please,
if you feel you are doing the best you can with what you got, then there is no need to let someone on the internet rattle and bother you. i'm not here for that. i'm just passionate about my opinions however unintelligent you deem them to be. and i'll probably go to the grave without them changing much. unless maybe one day i am in dire need for these same govt assist. programs that i disgust which mind you that i am not against giving to those truly in need it's just i think there is way more abuse than what anyone wants to admit then i may change my stance a bit on it. but until then, i can't stand all this waste as the country goes down the tube. ( i know my grammer is bad here and i don't capitalize and use punctuation. and my spelling is off too. if you need help deciphering any of it pleaes pm me and when i get time i will try and get to it. ) it's just i'm getting tired is all.

back to insurance...
you say that by raising the cost of the healthy to lower the cost of the sick will eventually lower the cost of all healthcare later on down the road? is this some magic trick?

really, do costs ever really go down. and if so do you have a projection for when my insurance will go down? i love saving money. i mean when will my sacrafice for paying more for insurance to lower the costs of smokers and sugar/fat overeaters and alcoholics and drug users pay off for me? 4 more years? if obama is re-elected? or will it take longer than that. maybe 60 years? well hopefully not that long, cause by then i'll be 93. even by eating healthy i don't think i can guarantee myself a spot to the 90 club.

[WILLIAMS5232]

Any system will be abused. Are you ready to eliminate the military because corporations are abusing it for profits?

that would be silly. how could we have any chance to repel an enemy invasion without our military. let's instead try and work on eliminating the abuse here.

Yes, these jobs are overwhelmingly available, certainly. Just get a job, hippie!

again with the cant' find a job hoax.
can we just say it's "can't find a job we want" life's not all about roses and watermelons. sometimes you have to sacrafice. get outside and sweat a bit. i do, and live a comfortable life.

[jj3044]

back to insurance...
you say that by raising the cost of the healthy to lower the cost of the sick will eventually lower the cost of all healthcare later on down the road? is this some magic trick?

really, do costs ever really go down. and if so do you have a projection for when my insurance will go down? i love saving money. i mean when will my sacrafice for paying more for insurance to lower the costs of smokers and sugar/fat overeaters and alcoholics and drug users pay off for me? 4 more years? if obama is re-elected? or will it take longer than that. maybe 60 years? well hopefully not that long, cause by then i'll be 93. even by eating healthy i don't think i can guarantee myself a spot to the 90 club.

We in the healthcare industry are trying to slow the rate healthcare increases each year, and the hope is to eventually stop the rate of increase. You are probably right though, it most likely will never be below what we are paying today.

However, the healthcare bill does do a few things to try to get people to take care of themselves. Foe example, under the bill employers can now charge up to 30% of the premium MORE if you don't engage in a healthy lifestyle/wellness program, such as seeing your physician for a well visit or joining a smoking cessation program, or showing that you have good blood pressure. Many companies I work with are going in this direction, and we have seen good outcomes with the companies that have been doing this for years. However, it isn't overnight that you see these results. Typically it takes 3-5 years to see a return on your investment. BUT, it is the right way to go.

Essentially, if you are healthier and take care of yourself, you pay less. Smart, right?

[Woodruff]

Any system will be abused. Are you ready to eliminate the military because corporations are abusing it for profits?

that would be silly. how could we have any chance to repel an enemy invasion without our military. let's instead try and work on eliminating the abuse here.

Precisely my point. I now refer you back to your use of it...

Yes, these jobs are overwhelmingly available, certainly. Just get a job, hippie!

again with the cant' find a job hoax.
can we just say it's "can't find a job we want" life's not all about roses and watermelons. sometimes you have to sacrafice. get outside and sweat a bit. i do, and live a comfortable life.

My son got out of the Navy in April. He has been looking very hard for a job since then in a state (Nebraska) with relatively very good employment rates. He is looking outside of his career field for anything, to include janitorial work and things along those lines. He is looking throughout the state for work, not just within our city. His security clearance is as high as mine was, which is pretty freaking high. He is a veteran (so that's an advantage) and he has the qualities of military service that employers are looking for. He IS avoiding fast food type establishments, because they frankly cannot support him if he lives on his own (he's staying with us until he finds employment, an arrangment which he is hating).

The point is...I'm seeing the reality of it. He just wants a job that can support his meager requirements, and he can't find one.

[WILLIAMS5232]

However, the healthcare bill does do a few things to try to get people to take care of themselves.

well, hopefully this goes in a positive direction.

Precisely my point. I now refer you back to your use of it...

my use is that the study in question would have us believe that medical costs are the "big" cause for bankruptcy when it says it'self that the average medical cost that causes these bankruptcy is only 27k owed to the hospital. i'd be curious to know what percentage of total debt this is, and if it's fair to file bankruptcy because you owe a hospital about half of the average yearly household salary in the united states. someone has to pick up these costs down the line. abusing bankruptcy is the same as theft.

I'm seeing the reality of it. He just wants a job that can support his meager requirements, and he can't find one.

i guess it all depends on what you classify as meager. i left home at 18 and found a way to make it. of course it required me moving about 400 miles away from mommy and daddy to do it, but i'm fine now.

[Phatscotty]

Not sure how many people know this, but Minnesota is the home of Medtronic, St. Jude, Boston Scientific, and 3M. Here, that little medical device tax you might have been warned about around the time OBamaCare was passed, but was mostly talked about for the tax code "redefining" a tooth brush as a "medical device".....

Anyhew, this medical device tax is a monster on Minnesota. Just wanted to remind you supporters out there of new entitlement programs based on need, that the "impossible to see outcome in the near future" is arriving for us this year. Millions of excellent paying, middle class supporting, high tech jobs are on the line. Your little feel good moment when Obamacare was passed is now about to start tearing families apart and costing people their pride and their jobs so you can get your warm fuzzies and stroke your egos about how good you are and how much you care. I know why you don't care right now, because these jobs I am talking about are just a bunch of rich bastards anyways, they can handle it!

Oh, but not until after the election



oh well, add it on the national debt!

[Night Strike]

I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

[PLAYER57832]

I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Yo will have to back that up with data.

but overall, taxes have very little to do with real medical costs.

[thegreekdog]

I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Clearly the medical supply companies bought... I mean supported... the wrong candidate.

The medical device excise tax is a major issue for a lot of companies and is going to increase costs significantly. I've already worked with a bunch of companies on it, and it is clear these costs will be passed through. So the costs get billed to the customers' insurances, the customers' insurances collect the money from the customers, employers, and/or the federal government. But they had to do something to pay for the extra 5 people that get health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

[Night Strike]

I've never understood how medical costs could go down when taxes are being added to the actual tools being used in treatments.

Yo will have to back that up with data.

but overall, taxes have very little to do with real medical costs.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Medical-Device-E ... -Questions

The government is directly adding 2.3% to the cost of medical devices, which is in addition to any inflation and other normal market forces. How will health care costs go down when the government is forcing suppliers to pay more?