ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

Honestly, guise, I think the author mixed up the subject and object.

I am mixed up as to how I asked mrs a question, but only got a bunch of misdirection from Mets.

MRS?

[Phatscotty]

From your last article:

We should take care of [old people] with government subsidies, and not by trying to redistribute resources from the young to the old.

Your author seems a bit confused.

are you sure? How do you mean

Taxing people and giving that tax money to a specific set of people is a way of redistributing wealth, obviously.

The young and old both pay taxes, but then a portion of those taxes are used to subsidize the old, then you have a redistribution with the government as the middle man (who also skims off the top, so that even then it's not very efficient).

sure, but the entire article was mostly about premiums and coverage. The author only mentioned taxpayer subsidies one time, and only to point out that is what we already have, and now we are adding another level of subsidies, not with tax revenues, but with health care premiums through the Obamacare exchange. The premiums and the coverage are now redistributing resources (healthcare) on top of redistributing the wealth, which speaks to the point of the article. But for sure Obama is not a Marxist, and his priority polcies for sure do not resemble anything close to Marxism ore Socialism. Heck, it's basically Conservative policy and Obamacare is all Freedom and Liberty.

As a 60-something, relatively healthy person, I don't want lactation and maternity services, abortion services, speech therapy, mammograms, fertility treatments or Viagra. I don't want it. So why should I have to tear up my existing health-care plan, and then buy a plan with far more expensive premiums and deductibles, and with services I don't need or want?

He's not making a case about tax money being redistributed, he's explaining how his premium and deductible have risen (all in the name of affordable health care) for coverage he does not want and cannot possibly used by him, as a way to extract his money and work and give it to someone else (who supposedly cannot afford insurance but spends 280$ a month on a pack a day smoking addiction), on top of the taxpayer subsidies that already exist.

[patches70]

Obamacare is a lot closer to corporatism than socialism or marxism. IMO. The ACA is pretty much pure corporatism actually, which makes me chuckle a little bit when certain anti-corporation members here on CC who regularly rail about the evils of corporations but then cheer and applaud the ACA.

But I can see your point there PS, thanks for the clarification.

[Phatscotty]

Obamacare is a lot closer to corporatism than socialism or marxism. IMO. The ACA is pretty much pure corporatism actually, which makes me chuckle a little bit when certain anti-corporation members here on CC who regularly rail about the evils of corporations but then cheer and applaud the ACA.

But I can see your point there PS, thanks for the clarification.

I agree about the corporatism aspect, but that's only the stepping stone. As usual, Obamacare picks the corporate winners, and everyone else who wouldn't play ball will be the losers. The entities who are participating like AARP, Aetna etc will use the government to put their competitors under, but then those entities will eventually become too big and important to fail, and then the government will be picking who sits on their boards, and the government will have to 'bail them out/take over. And it turning it it's the government who is using the corporations, not the corporations controlling the gov't. The corps who did this deal, when those heads step down, the federal gov't sill still be there.

What are the 2 or 3 most important aspects of Marxism? (anyone)

class warfare? redistribution of wealth? what else are defining tenets?

[Phatscotty]

The affordable care act is based on the biggest damned lie of all time. Even honest Liberals agree. How anyone can defend this absolute garbage is a fucking testament to EXACTLY what is wrong with this country. What else would you expect in a country where people slurp up obvious bullshit and then ask for seconds. It won't be long until people finally understand all the other things Obama lied his ass off about.

[mrswdk]

I didn't answer you because I forgot I posted that and therefore stopped checking this thread.

Mets said exactly what I would have said, so 'ditto Mets' I guess.

[BigBallinStalin]

The affordable care act is based on the biggest damned lie of all time. Even honest Liberals agree. How anyone can defend this absolute garbage is a fucking testament to EXACTLY what is wrong with this country. What else would you expect in a country where people slurp up obvious bullshit and then ask for seconds. It won't be long until people finally understand all the other things Obama lied his ass off about.

We saw this too after 9-11 when it climaxed with the US-Iraq War 2.0.

[Phatscotty]

The affordable care act is based on the biggest damned lie of all time. Even honest Liberals agree. How anyone can defend this absolute garbage is a fucking testament to EXACTLY what is wrong with this country. What else would you expect in a country where people slurp up obvious bullshit and then ask for seconds. It won't be long until people finally understand all the other things Obama lied his ass off about.

We saw this too after 9-11 when it climaxed with the US-Iraq War 2.0.

Sure in the hell did, but it was far bigger and almost totally bipartisan, Obamacare is the only time in history a major piece of legislation was passed without a single vote from the minority party. (Only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich voted against war authorization powers) Even Keith Olbermann and Hillary Clinton supported the pre-emptive strike, along with a lot of foreign allies intelligence supposedly backing up the WMD claims. It was so crazy people were calling me a Liberal the whole time. In fact, one time I was getting into it with a neighbor, and me just asking what he based his claims on led him to conclude the discussion with "Scott wants to put Saddam Hussein on a God damn pedestal!" But I have since chalked up the Liberal drum beating for war with Iraq to the media masters recognizing how profitable a war would be to the country and the respective media stations, and this was around the time military spending started being counted as GDP.

JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES: The Economic Consequences of the Peace FULL Audiobook

It was around that time I woke up to how peoples thoughts and emotions are manipulated by government sponsored media narratives, and they are getting better at it.

[Phatscotty]

you know what else else? I think a good amount of people who are from countries with socialized/nationalized/gov't run healthcare, when asked how their system is there, even if it did suck, would not admit it, on camera. Not to mention you have to weigh the biased of how their feeling about America effect the answers to that question when comparing to americas system.

You do realise that you are talking about almost the entire developed world outside the US yes

Sure do. Do you realize how incredibly stupid that comment is now 5 years later, as those countries you held up as an example are mired in entitlement riots, austerity measures, and health care rationing. Oh yes, we want to be JUST LIKE THAT!

[Phatscotty]

A couple tidbits about Minnesota. Rochester (where the Rochester Mayo clinic is) residents only have ONE option with Obamacare. I hope it's affordable!!!

Another weird thing



There is a river that separates Minnesota from Wisconsin, and people on the Wisconsin side of the river have premiums that average more than double than on the Minnesota side. This is a perfect example of how buying across state lines would drive competition and lower prices But now people who really need insurance in Wisconsin will have to physically move to Minnesota....if they want coverage they can actually afford. Obamacare is doing the complete opposite in Wisconsin and Rochester Minnesota of what it was intended to do. shocker, I know.

btw this idea that was pitched by Republicans and rejected by Obama, which then led Obama to accuse Republicans of not offering any alternatives. It's would be so simple for people in Wisconsin to just pick up the phone and call a company in Minnesota. Why would Obama prevent that from happening, when supposedly the programs purpose is to lower prices and expand coverage? The complete opposite is happening!

[Dukasaur]

Hmmm... "Share What's Happening in Your State"

I'm in a State of suspended animation, and what is happening is that I need to go to the bathroom, but it just isn't happening.

[Phatscotty]

Hmmm... "Share What's Happening in Your State"

I'm in a State of suspended animation, and what is happening is that I need to go to the bathroom, but it just isn't happening.

You're welcome

[WILLIAMS5232]

healthcare of the future.....

"why come you don't have a tattoo?"

[Phatscotty]

I think a good amount of people who are from countries with socialized/nationalized/gov't run healthcare, when asked how their system is there, even if it did suck, would not admit it, on camera. Not to mention you have to weigh the bias of how their feeling about America effect the answers to that question when comparing to America's system.

You do realise that you are talking about almost the entire developed world outside the US yes

How about an update on how the entire developed world outside the US is doing with their government healthcare?

Oh, their economy took a hit??? Well I guess we forgot plan on the possibility of that, so we just need to write a law saying nobody's economy can crash.

[mrswdk]

What's this mumbo jumbo about economies taking a hit?

[PLAYER57832]

Here you go Phattscotty, Nightstrike, etc...

a short explanation of how the Affordable Care act is supposed to work and how it is working:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11 ... -subsidies

[PLAYER57832]

sure, but the entire article was mostly about premiums and coverage. The author only mentioned taxpayer subsidies one time, and only to point out that is what we already have, and now we are adding another level of subsidies, not with tax revenues, but with health care premiums through the Obamacare exchange. The premiums and the coverage are now redistributing resources (healthcare) on top of redistributing the wealth, which speaks to the point of the article. But for sure Obama is not a Marxist, and his priority polcies for sure do not resemble anything close to Marxism ore Socialism. Heck, it's basically Conservative policy and Obamacare is all Freedom and Liberty.

Translation, instead of ALL of us SUBSIDIZING the irresponsible (those who decide they "don't need insurance") and the poor with our tax dollars, now everyone will be pulled, just like any other insurance program, just like anyone with employer-based insurance is now doing. It is not coming from tax dollars, but premiums because a key demand of those on Congress when this bill passed was that it be "deficit neutral". Not only does this bill pay for itself, but by reducing the long term tax payer funded health costs, it will result in a surplus of funds.

in other words.. you don't want "socialism" (though you have made clear you know nothing about how healthcare in countries with "socialized medicine" actually works) AND you don't want a private system (which is what we have) because you are against any kind of mandates.

You did actually admit that our prior system was just not working, but nothing you have offered gave a real and true better solution.

Your key complaint, today, seems to be that some people might be paying more, but you ignore that this is just for right now. Later, they will be getting lower costs because of the investment in their health they are making today!
Like all insurance, some people will be paying for more than they might if they were just going out and getting a yearly physical and perhaps one or two office visits when they need a prescription. AND??? -- "the rest of the story", as Paul Harvey used to say, is NO ONE, not you, not Nightstrike, not anyone else who thinks they "don't need" full coverage can really and truly predict well the coverage you will need. You are healthy now, hopefully will stay so. If so, count yourself lucky! BUT... in the meantime, millions of those in your exact same boat are not so lucky. They get in a car wreck, find they have cancer or other illnesses. In fact, eventually, it happens to all but a very, very, few people. Only a few are lucky enough to keep fully functional, healthy until they die. (Sadly, most of those in that category die early from accidents). When you say you "don't need" x insurance, you are making a decision that might SEEM to make sense to you as an individual, but it is only really "sensible" because you can, currently, rely on a public system of care. The problem is that we cannot keep affording to cover all you folks who think you are impervious. NOR can we wait until you finally start do facing the almost inevitable increases in care that come with age to enroll you if we want to keep YOUR premiums at a reasonable level for life. Keeping insurance reasonable requires pooling of healthy, young individuals along with those who are not healthy any longer. The "subsidy" you keep referring to will pay for YOUR future care.

ALSO, you utterly ignore any real figures about who actually will be paying more for coverage. Anyone who has employer-based insurance is ALREADY "subsidizing others", because that is how insurance works! It is how the companies keep costs a bit down. Today, that pooling is happening with individuals. Effectively, there is no "individual" coverage any more, its ALL "group coverage". Most people in that category will get help in paying their premiums. Most of them are younger people who work either part-time or for smaller operations that don't offer insurance. A few people, small business owners, freelancers and the like who are making very good money will pay more and not be eligible for subsidies. They will almost always be getting more coverage, though. AND.. remember, the individual payors, unlike employer based policies, are subject to cancellation at any moment for any reason. That was the real issue this bill fixed. Many of these people kept paying and paying.. only to find their insurance was cancelled when they really needed it.

IS more reform needed? Absolutely! Above all, we have to have data based, medical results and cost based limits. These already exist in many forms, from simple medical guidelines on what medicine is best for what problem to existing insurance limits on coverage. End of life care needs MUCH more attention. Issues change when you get old, have terminal illnesses and the like. Doctors have a hard time shifting from "hold all stops to save this life, no matter what" to "OK, we all know this person is going to die, how do we make things as easy as possible" --NOT "speeding death', but things like offering counseling to family members, communicating real risks and results (said it before, but if a painful procedure has only 5% chance of success, and I am looking at a feeble 97 year old dementia patient, is it really worth the risk?... on the other hand, if its a 40 year old with no other real chance, maybe 5% is worth it.). The "old fashioned country doctor" did not like death, but knew it happened and could help patients and family to deal with it, to a point. (even if just to let family know its time to "call the priest") Today's doctors are sometimes so used to miracles they forget that life does, eventually end and that that end does not necessarily mean the doctor has failed.

As a 60-something, relatively healthy person, I don't want lactation and maternity services, abortion services, speech therapy, mammograms, fertility treatments or Viagra. I don't want it. So why should I have to tear up my existing health-care plan, and then buy a plan with far more expensive premiums and deductibles, and with services I don't need or want?

And I certainly don't need prostate exams, testosterone supplements, etc. I hopefully won't need cancer treatment, etc, etc, etc. I am thankful I did not need fertility treatment, did not need significant genetic testing, etc, etc. BUT.. I have paid for those things all along, because I have GROUP coverage and the way group coverage works is that all care is pooled and paid for out of the pool. The individual market has worked more independently, BUT.. if you want to go there, then you have to acknowledge that individual coverage was only affordable to people who were healthy and/or who decided they "did not need" much insurance. Even the individual policies were grouped, to a point. You NEVER use all of the insurance you buy.. if you ever dared, then under the old plans your police would hit its limit and you would be cancelled!

In other words.. this is insurance. PERIOD. That is how insurance works. You NEVER use all of the insurance offered. If you ever came close, then guess what surprise your "wonderful insurance company" would offer you.. a cancellation notice WITHOUT any fallback.

Today, some folks are getting cancelled.. and, they can go enroll in the group policies offered on the exchanges. In many cases, they not only get better insurance, but also wind up paying less.

Still complaining [thought so].. care to explain why, beyond rhetoric?

[Night Strike]

Here you go Phattscotty, Nightstrike, etc...

a short explanation of how the Affordable Care act is supposed to work and how it is working:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/11 ... -subsidies

Precisely why we're against it. Not only is the government taxing more from the "rich" people, they're also forcing those same people to pay higher premiums/deductibles for coverage they don't want/need. Double punishment!

[mrswdk]

[mrswdk]

www.commieblaster.com

[Phatscotty]

[mrswdk]

A map with the locations of each of Chairman Obama's 'affordable healthcare camps':

[mrswdk]

A map with the locations of each of Chairman Obama's 'health camps':

[Phatscotty]

I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for people who voted against Obama and lost their health insurance or had is doubled/tripled/quadrupled; while I have zero sympathy for anyone who voted for Obama and loses their health insurance or has it doubled tripled quadrupled.



Is there anyone who had their premiums lowered? Forget the $2,500 per year lower dangled like a shiny hook in front of a mouth with an animal brain, where is a single person that was helped by Obamacare????? (not including the 5 people who have enrolled in Obamacare so far)

[mrswdk]

[img]abcnews.go.com/images/International/gty_kim_jong_un_jp_121212_wg.jpg[/img]