Daily Obamacare Thread: Good and Bad

[technomage]

I can't explain how the figure is derived, but on numerous occasions I have heard and read that the ACA will or would cover 27 million of those who did not have insurance coverage. Besides those who do not have insurance, I would also assume that it would extend into Medicaid as well.

The estimate was between 27-30 million, but as you note, that was also partly based on Medicaid expansions that are being blocked in about half the states.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Your assumption is invalid. I contend I paid for what I'm getting even though you may disagree. We have had this discussion before and you are wrong, IMHO, in your assumptions. So let's leave it at that.

So is your government veteran healthcare "not" subsidized by the taxpayer.....is Medicare"not" subsidized by the taxpayer... Yeah, we've had this discussion before and my contentions are still valid regardless of how you spin it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So is your government veteran healthcare "not" subsidized by the taxpayer.....is Medicare"not" subsidized by the taxpayer... Yeah, we've had this discussion before and my contentions are still valid regardless of how you spin it.

His argument seems to be that he worked for his benefits by risking his life in the military while I can only assume he means medicaid (not medicare) is, in his mind, usually low class people who don't work hard enough to pull themselves out of poverty or stricken with a case of "can't keep it in your pants" and have several children.

I don't know because I'm only guessing at this point. But in one way shape or another it is obvious that he feels he is entitled to his benefits because he earned them while other subsidies are given out without them earning it.

 

[metis]

As we heard from Romney during the 2012 campaign, some like him divide America up into a dichotomy of "givers and takers", as if each of us can be neatly fit into one or the other category. Sort of fits in nicely with Andrew Carnegie's belief that, if you're not a millionaire, you're either ignorant or lazy or both.

 

[esmith]

His argument seems to be that he worked for his benefits by risking his life in the military while I can only assume he means medicaid (not medicare) is, in his mind, usually low class people who don't work hard enough to pull themselves out of poverty or stricken with a case of "can't keep it in your pants" and have several children.

I don't know because I'm only guessing at this point. But in one way shape or another it is obvious that he feels he is entitled to his benefits because he earned them while other subsidies are given out without them earning it.

No, retired members of the military and their intimidate family(even after the death of the member) used to be eligible for Tricare Prime, this program has been basically discontinued. However, a less expensive program has replaced it. No, I do not mean Medicaid and your contention that retired members of the military are poverty stricken and or of a class that you insinuate. I would say that those that retire from the military after 20 or more years service go on to a successful civilian career. I and my wife are both on Medicare Part B with Tricare for Life as our secondary insurance (Medicare supplemental type insurance). Yes we pay the monthly premium.

I recently saw on Facebook the following. I believe it is from "Grunt Style LLC"
WHAT IS A VETERAN?
A veteran is someone who at one point in their life wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "Up to, and including my life".

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As we heard from Romney during the 2012 campaign, some like him divide America up into a dichotomy of "givers and takers", as if each of us can be neatly fit into one or the other category. Sort of fits in nicely with Andrew Carnegie's belief that, if you're not a millionaire, you're either ignorant or lazy or both.

Yes, it's that Ayn Rand philosophy that many on the right espouse to. It's hardly a philosophy that's representative of the society on a whole..considering many of the people they lump into this category are their own constituents within their party.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your assumption is invalid. I contend I paid for what I'm getting even though you may disagree. We have had this discussion before and you are wrong, IMHO, in your assumptions. So let's leave it at that.

I agree with your perspective that veteran health care is not a subsidy. Just as DP's government paycheck is payment for services rendered, your health care is the same, ie, when you served, this benefit was part of your contractual compensation. This is not a "subsidy", although I can see how it's attractive for some to spin it as such, since it would make you vets look like wards of the state, sucking at Uncle Sam's teat. But then, that rationale would also apply to all gov employees, with their pay & bennies being a "subsidy", a charaterization I think they'd object to.

 

[metis]

What some don't seem to realize is that the vast majority of people, including what the likes of Romney call "takers", have paid federal and state taxes and will likely do so in the future. But it's just so much easier for them to stereotype people while putting themselves into the "givers" category of course.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

His argument seems to be that he worked for his benefits by risking his life in the military while I can only assume he means medicaid (not medicare) is, in his mind, usually low class people who don't work hard enough to pull themselves out of poverty or stricken with a case of "can't keep it in your pants" and have several children.

Yeah, he and I have had that conversation before. He does feel as though 'someone' made him a "promise" and he's entitled to those benefits. Personally I disagree with such a notion.

I don't know because I'm only guessing at this point. But in one way shape or another it is obvious that he feels he is entitled to his benefits because he earned them while other subsidies are given out without them earning it.

Yeah, and that's where I have a hard time taking such a notion serious. I know plenty of families and single moms who've worked very hard, fell on hard times and sought government assistance. Not because they wanted to but because they needed to. Many of them stayed on it for a couple of years and got off of it and were able to gain decent employment.

I certainly won't doubt there there are those that get in the system with the mentality that the government is going to take care of them...but I contend that such attitudes also exist in the military.

Youths in Rural U.S. Are Drawn To Military

As sustained combat in Iraq makes it harder than ever to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer force, newly released Pentagon demographic data show that the military is leaning heavily for recruits on economically depressed, rural areas where youths' need for jobs may outweigh the risks of going to war.

More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities. Youths living in the most sparsely populated Zip codes are 22 percent more likely to join the Army, with an opposite trend in cities. Regionally, most enlistees come from the South (40 percent) and West (24 percent).

Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.

I don't think this this is indicative to all who join the military but there's a decent size portion of people joining because what Uncle Sam can do for them...(i.e. paycheck, housing, education tuition etc.). Then again..I'm one of those who advocates for a Single Payer System and I have no opinion on those who seek to join the military regardless of their personal reason.

 

[Revoltingest]

What some don't seem to realize is that the vast majority of people, including what the likes of Romney call "takers", have paid federal and state taxes and will likely do so in the future. But it's just so much easier for them to stereotype people while putting themselves into the "givers" category of course.

Similarly, what some don't realize is that there are many who pay fed & state taxes, but consume far more in gov largess than they contribute. It's easy & attractive to deny that these "takers" exist, but they do nonetheless. Moreover, there really are "givers", who pay more into government than they receive in return.
Now, what do we do with this information? If we identify the takers, we might find ways to help them become more productive.

 

[metis]

I would suggest that probably most who may end up "taking" more than "giving" probably would prefer for it not to be that way. But even that's pretty much a non-issue-- or at least it should be, imo. Do we deny a child born with a major birth defect help because (s)he'll be a "taker" probably all their life?

Nor do I go to the opposite extreme of believing that just throwing a lot of money around is the solution. It's mostly a matter of using reason matched with compassion, imo. Help those who truly need help in the most reasonable way possible, which means different solutions for different situations rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Therefore, to ignore the plight of those who need help by simply stereotyping and labeling them is to basically forfeit our humanity, imo. We know from the fossil record that Neanderthals generally did take care of those who could not hunt or gather, so maybe we should at least be as civilized as they?

 

[Revoltingest]

I would suggest that probably most who may end up "taking" more than "giving" probably would prefer for it not to be that way. But even that's pretty much a non-issue-- or at least it should be, imo. Do we deny a child born with a major birth defect help because (s)he'll be a "taker" probably all their life?

I'd wager your left jewel that even Romney would not deny this taker assistance.
Willard strikes me as one of those welfare state conservatives.

Nor do I go to the opposite extreme of believing that just throwing a lot of money around is the solution. It's mostly a matter of using reason matched with compassion, imo. Help those who truly need help in the most reasonable way possible, which means different solutions for different situations rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Well, if you're going to be all agreeable, reasonable & seeking-common-ground
about it, I'll just have to ignore you. (People come here to see the fur fly.)

Therefore, to ignore the plight of those who need help by simply stereotyping and labeling them is to basically forfeit our humanity, imo. We know from the fossil record that Neanderthals generally did take care of those who could not hunt or gather, so maybe we should at least be as civilized as they?

Is anyone in the political arena actually proposing to ignore the needy?
(The claim seems a straw man.)

 

[metis]

Cutting the SNAP program, and not allowing an extension of unemployment compensation while there's 3 applications for every 1 job available, and not allowing the extension of Medicaid under the ACA, and cutting programs like Head Start, and not working for universal health care, and...

oh, but make sure the wealthy get tax cuts.

That's a real "straw man" alright.

 

[Revoltingest]

Cutting the SNAP program, and not allowing an extension of unemployment compensation while there's 3 applications for every 1 job available, and not allowing the extension of Medicaid under the ACA, and cutting programs like Head Start, and not working for universal health care, and...
oh, but make sure the wealthy get tax cuts.
That's a real "straw man" alright.

The straw man would be

.... to ignore the plight of those who need help ....

To cut some programs would be less help than you'd want to give, but other
programs remain. How many politicians actually advocate ignoring the needy?
I don't see any mainstream types saying this.

 

[esmith]

The straw man would be
To cut some programs would be less help than you'd want to give, but other
programs remain. How many politicians actually advocate ignoring the needy?
I don't see any mainstream types saying this.

No, it is nothing more than political propaganda, hot air, bloviating, grandstanding, or any other means of denigrating your opposition.

 

[esmith]

Well it seems that the AMA is now having second thoughts about Obamacare. Weren't they at one time big supports of Obamacare? Guess they finally got around to reading it and found out what was in it.....hmmmm

AMA: Obamacare sticks doctors with unpaid bills | The Daily Caller

 

[technomage]

Well it seems that the AMA is now having second thoughts about Obamacare. Weren't they at one time big supports of Obamacare? Guess they finally got around to reading it and found out what was in it.....hmmmm

AMA: Obamacare sticks doctors with unpaid bills | The Daily Caller

I don't tend to trust Daily Caller as an accurate source of information. The basic facts of the article are fairly accurate, but the level of spin they give is worthy of MSNBC or The Blaze.

 

[metis]

The straw man would be
To cut some programs would be less help than you'd want to give, but other
programs remain. How many politicians actually advocate ignoring the needy?
I don't see any mainstream types saying this.

BTW, no politician would actually admit to it publicly, but cuts are cuts, and the idea that all these cuts are backed by other programs is nothing short of sheer nonsense. Each of these programs were passed to address typically specific problems, and even though some programs may overlap somewhat, often gaps remain. These programs need to be reviewed periodically and possibly fine-tuned, no doubt, but that's not what the Republicans have been mostly advocating, so your assertion is totally bogus.

 

[Revoltingest]

BTW, no politician would actually admit to it publicly, but cuts are cuts....

I don't dispute that. I address the straw man that some politicians would ignore the needy.

These programs need to be reviewed periodically and possibly fine-tuned, no doubt, but that's not what the Republicans have been mostly advocating, so your assertion is totally bogus.

Republicans also support the welfare state, so it's too extreme a claim that they would "ignore" the needy.
They just don't want to provide as much as you'd like.

 

[esmith]

I don't tend to trust Daily Caller as an accurate source of information. The basic facts of the article are fairly accurate, but the level of spin they give is worthy of MSNBC or The Blaze.

Well then I guess since you didn't like the headlines and say that the article is only fairly accurate guess maybe this will help you.

Docs Unhappy With ACA Exchange Plans
Doctors Say Obamacare Rule Will Stick Them With Unpaid Bills : Shots - Health News : NPR
Doctors Say Obamacare Rule Will Stick Them With Unpaid Bills - Kaiser Health News
Doctors Say Obamacare Grace Period Will Leave Them With Unpaid Bills « CBS DC