• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Daily Obamacare Thread: Good and Bad

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
As you've indicated...it was fine for them to accept federal dollars pre-ACA but now the governor is rejecting it. As I have been following the news surrounding Gov. Deal's opinions on this matter he's rejecting this on partisan lines. The people of Georgia want the Medicaid dollars and the hospitals welcome it. The perfect storm that's a challenge for hospitals solvency in poor communities, such as the many that exist in Georgia, is when you actually have the federal government willing to cover 100% of the cost for three years and 90% after that but the governor and the local legislature intentionally rejecting these dollars and enacting (regulations) making it tougher to actually get those Medicaid dollars...even though accepting federal funds wasn't an issue in the past......:shrug:
Have links?
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Have links?

Links for what. I've shared the links to the actual news reporting on what hospital execs actually said about Medicaid expansion. The governor is against it. Actually, he was for it before he was against it. Before receiving money toward his campaign he was for building a state exchange. After receiving money from some big named health care donors he changed his tune...


https://gov.georgia.gov/press-relea...-health-insurance-exchange-advisory-committee
"It is my hope that this committee will construct the appropriate avenues for our state to implement our own exchange, based on delivering free market solutions for increasing the access and affordability of health insurance. This exchange should also focus heavily on improving the economic viability of creating and expanding small business in Georgia. I look forward to hearing the committee’s recommendations.”
That's all changed now. He's lock step expressing the same mantra we heard from others.....

Gov. Nathan Deal: ObamaCare a 'train wreck about to happen' | Interviews | Your World with Cavuto | Fox News
"Well, we have said for a very long time that this was a train wreck about to happen."



Follow the money......
Deal’s pals’ PAC collected $327K+ with no disclosure | Atlanta Unfiltered


But this right here is clear cut. His administration has admitted that they're actively obstructing the president from implementing this in Georgia and the bills implemented are being signed by the Governor.

Georgia insurance commissioner bragged publicly about sabotaging Obamacare | The Raw Story


[youtube]7Zk-U3kNSo4[/youtube]
GA GOP Pledged to Obstruct ObamaCare - YouTube



:shrug:
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
#1 son is a smoker again according to his insurance company & the gov, so they raised his
premium. He is spending hours on the phone & on line to try to fix it, but nothing is working
yet. Every contact has a different story about it. So it might be necessary to cancel his health
insurance, & then go thru the several month application process all over again. But there's still
no guarantee they won't decree him a smoker (or worse) again. It's stomach turning to watch
this process....almost half a year, & it still isn't settled.

I can see obstructing Obamacare. A complete redesign & reboot might improve things.
If the subsidy didn't involve government record keeping & approval, then he'd have only
to deal with his insurance company. That was pretty quick & smooth pre-Obamacare.
 
Last edited:

esmith

Veteran Member
Have a question. It appears that if a person smokes or has smoked it raises the premiums. Correct? My question is this, does anyone know if they ask for a persons height and weight. It would make sense (however, this is a government program) that if one was overweight/obese that it should raise ones premiums since this person would have just as many health problems as having smoked or does smoke. So, does being overweight/obese raise ones premiums?
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Have a question. It appears that if a person smokes or has smoked it raises the premiums. Correct? My question is this, does anyone know if they ask for a persons height and weight. It would make sense (however, this is a government program) that if one was overweight/obese that it should raise ones premiums since this person would have just as many health problems as having smoked or does smoke. So, does being overweight/obese raise ones premiums?

Good question. It is unknown to me. Although I must point out that the private insurance companies (which are still the ones setting the rates) have never bumped premiums due to weight directly (they only cut you out if you got hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, etc....i.e. the effects of obesity). Of course now they cannot cut you out. :)
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Have a question. It appears that if a person smokes or has smoked it raises the premiums. Correct?
Correcto!
Perhaps this is why government 'accidentally' logs in non-smokers as smokers, & cannot
(or will not) fix the error, eh? It boosts the non-smoker's subsidy of everyone else.

Could they prosecute my son for fraud, since he doesn't smoke?
I hope they don't require that he take up huffing on pimp sticks.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Correcto!
Perhaps this is why government 'accidentally' logs in non-smokers as smokers, & cannot
(or will not) fix the error, eh? It boosts the non-smoker's subsidy of everyone else.

Could they prosecute my son for fraud, since he doesn't smoke?
I hope they don't require that he take up huffing on pimp sticks.

Don't give them any ideas, Big Brother is watching.:help:
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Links for what. I've shared the links to the actual news reporting on what hospital execs actually said about Medicaid expansion. The governor is against it. Actually, he was for it before he was against it. Before receiving money toward his campaign he was for building a state exchange. After receiving money from some big named health care donors he changed his tune...


https://gov.georgia.gov/press-relea...-health-insurance-exchange-advisory-committee
That's all changed now. He's lock step expressing the same mantra we heard from others.....

Gov. Nathan Deal: ObamaCare a 'train wreck about to happen' | Interviews | Your World with Cavuto | Fox News




Follow the money......
Deal’s pals’ PAC collected $327K+ with no disclosure | Atlanta Unfiltered


But this right here is clear cut. His administration has admitted that they're actively obstructing the president from implementing this in Georgia and the bills implemented are being signed by the Governor.

Georgia insurance commissioner bragged publicly about sabotaging Obamacare | The Raw Story


[youtube]7Zk-U3kNSo4[/youtube]
GA GOP Pledged to Obstruct ObamaCare - YouTube



:shrug:


UPDATE.....

Nathan Deal: Tighten access to hospital emergency rooms - The Newnan Times-Herald
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act is a 1986 law that requires hospitals to provide emergency health care treatment to anyone who needs it, regardless of citizenship or their ability to pay. It’s provided life-saving care to countless people, but it’s also strained hospital resources and turned emergency rooms into the first stop, instead of a last resort, for some.

Legislative supporters in the 1980s cited cases of pregnant women being turned away from emergency rooms because they couldn’t pay. Deal, who long served on a key House health panel, said lawmakers can build in protections for pregnant women and others while tightening access to ERs in other ways. Said the governor

“I think we should be able in this passage of time to figure out ways to deal with those situations but not have the excessive costs associated with unnecessary visits to the emergency room


This is an important topic for Deal, given that many hospitals in rural Georgia are caught in the financial pinch caused by the governor’s refusal to expand Medicaid rolls, and the Affordable Care Act’s reduction of federal cash for indigent care.


:sarcastic
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
To review

The Bad
1) If you make under 11,000 a year you are non-applicable for the marketplace healthcare advantages such as government subsidies and lower rates. This does not matter in states where Medicaid has been expanded. Currently 25 states and D.C. are expanding their Medicaid. 4 states are considering the expansion (if your curious Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Utah) and 21 have elected not to expand their Medicaid program.

So currently in 25 states if you make to much to qualify for the existing Medicaid program (I think its 3k a year here in FL for a single person) but make less than 11k a year you are not applicable for any government help and you incour reason #2 that is a problem.

2) Individual penalties for non-compliance. ********. Just ********.

3) Working poor or anyone who has a job that offers health insurance is non-applicable for government subsidies regardless of how little they make.

4) Regulation requires the health insurance premiums that is provided by employers to not exceed 9.5% of their monthly income. However this is only on the individual level. If they have a family of 4 it could be as much as 32% of their income before taxes. There is little to no regulation on what the deductible is.

5) There is no public option. There was originally a public option and now it no longer exists. We should not be forced to purchase from any private company by government law. Though this is a problem across the board and not just in healthcare.


So to fix it we need

- National expanded Medicaid
- removal of individual penalties
- Have options for people who have full time jobs but still can't make enough to pay for insurance OR...
- Provide a public option that is a sliding scale regardless of employment opportunities.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
To review

The Bad
1) If you make under 11,000 a year you are non-applicable for the marketplace healthcare advantages such as government subsidies and lower rates. This does not matter in states where Medicaid has been expanded. Currently 25 states and D.C. are expanding their Medicaid. 4 states are considering the expansion (if your curious Missouri, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Utah) and 21 have elected not to expand their Medicaid program.

So currently in 25 states if you make to much to qualify for the existing Medicaid program (I think its 3k a year here in FL for a single person) but make less than 11k a year you are not applicable for any government help and you incour reason #2 that is a problem.

2) Individual penalties for non-compliance. ********. Just ********.

3) Working poor or anyone who has a job that offers health insurance is non-applicable for government subsidies regardless of how little they make.

4) Regulation requires the health insurance premiums that is provided by employers to not exceed 9.5% of their monthly income. However this is only on the individual level. If they have a family of 4 it could be as much as 32% of their income before taxes. There is little to no regulation on what the deductible is.

5) There is no public option. There was originally a public option and now it no longer exists. We should not be forced to purchase from any private company by government law. Though this is a problem across the board and not just in healthcare.


So to fix it we need

- National expanded Medicaid
- removal of individual penalties
- Have options for people who have full time jobs but still can't make enough to pay for insurance OR...
- Provide a public option that is a sliding scale regardless of employment opportunities.


Or scrap it all and provide healthcare for all. No more of this (we can't afford to)....because we certainly can,
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Or scrap it all and provide healthcare for all. No more of this (we can't afford to)....because we certainly can,

Only if we return the tax rates to what they were in the hay-days of American growth and prosperity...those of the 1950's and 60's.
Remember: Reagan wanted his tax cuts to be short term only. Bush Jr. said the same thing. :shrug: Yet here we are, 4 decades later.....and those short term tax cuts are still there.....and if any politician so much as suggests that they should be scrapped. :sorry1: :sad4:

There is no other way. Not just for health care, but for almost every single thing the complainers whine about.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Only if we return the tax rates to what they were in the hay-days of American growth and prosperity...those of the 1950's and 60's.
Remember: Reagan wanted his tax cuts to be short term only. Bush Jr. said the same thing. :shrug: Yet here we are, 4 decades later.....and those short term tax cuts are still there.....and if any politician so much as suggests that they should be scrapped. :sorry1: :sad4:

There is no other way. Not just for health care, but for almost every single thing the complainers whine about.
This post isn't clear.
- Which tax rates do you propose returning to? Average tax rates? Effective tax rates?
Payroll tax rates & limitations? Marginal tax rates (75% on $100K & 91% on $400K in 1960)?
- Would you also return to the tax reduction devices of that period too,
eg, accelerated depreciation with only capital gains recapture upon sale?
- Is your point that the tax structure then was more conducive to prosperity & growth,
or do you believe revenue was higher back then?

Note:
- The major marginal tax rate cuts (under Reagan) were a long (not short) term strategy.
- The economic gains of the 50s & 60s were due to factors other than taxation, eg,
less regulation than now, less foreign competition, domestic productivity advantages.
- There is another way to raise money. Stop squandering it on foreign adventurism.

I'm no fan of creeping socialism, but given a choice between the universal care you
like & Obamacare, I'd give up foreign aid & foreign wars in trade for single payer.
It would avoid things like this....
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-little-help-woman-prosthetic-leg_784108.html
 
Last edited:

esmith

Veteran Member
I realize that there are those that are tired of hearing negative stories about Obamacare. However, this latest move by this administration is nothing more than a political move to cover Democrats in the upcoming 2014 election. The "newest" move by Obama to possibly save Democratic seats is to postpone the mandates for the minimum coverage required under Obamacare until after the 2014 elections. It has been speculated that the wavier could extend past Obama's term in office. Now, I know that I am going to here backlash from the normal sources. Of which I suspect will try and justify this blatant political move by saying that wasn't this what those that objected to Obamacare wanted. Sorry that argument doesn't past muster. Just think, all of those sub-standard insurance policies, (those were your words correct) will be extended. Of course when state insurance regulators fail to accept these changes the administration can say "look it wasn't us that caused you to lose your insurance, it was your state. We said you could keep it"

New ObamaCare Delay To Help Democrats In Midterm Elections - Fox Nation
New O-Care delay to help midterm Dems | TheHill

And for those of you that do not trust what you consider right wing propaganda sources
Another part of the Affordable Care Act delayed for a year
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
The first 2 are the same source. But I love the assumption made in the headline that this is for the midterms. Unfounded, but nice try. Notice how your last link didn't mention midterms as the cause. That's because it's not jack-boot propaganda.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Did Medicare Part D have the same rollout problems as the Obamacare online marketplaces? | PolitiFact
The similarities between the two health care programs, both heralded as the signature domestic achievements of the presidents who signed them into law, are at times eerie. Supporters of the laws asked for time and promised a quick fix. Critics did not mince their words. Even the lingo -- words like "glitches" -- has been recycled.

For one thing, the Bush administration faced a difficult political battle to get the bill passed in 2003. That damaged public opinion of the law, making it a challenge to educate 43 million seniors on its nuances.

Enrollment in the law was set to begin in late 2005. In April of that year, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 27 percent of respondents understood the law, while only 21 percent favored it. (In a comparable Kaiser poll in April 2013, 35 percent viewed the Affordable Care Act favorably and less than half felt they were well-informed of its details.)

The Medicare site, meant to help seniors pick benefit plans, was supposed to debut Oct. 13, 2005, but it didn’tgo live until weeks later in November. Even then, "the tool itself appeared to be in need of fixing," the Washington Post reported at the time.

"Visitors to the site could not access it for most of the first two hours. When it finally did come up around 5 p.m., it operated awfully slowly," the Post reported. (Sensing a pattern?)


Once seniors began to enroll, problems persisted. According to the report, the online tools had "accuracy problems," and local organizations designated with assisting seniors "reported problems getting necessary and accurate information." Call centers provided by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services underestimated "the needed capacity to ensure that reliable answers could be provided" and "service representatives were not knowledgeable or failed to provide accurate information."

These days,nine in 10 seniors who utilize the program report they are satisfied with it.


"There’s really a striking amount of similarity even though this time it’s a far larger and daunting task. It’s a fair comparison," said Jack Hoadley at the Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute and one of the authors of the study. "Once something works its way through the problems, you forget the problems."

It rightly goes on to expound on the difference between the two programs but what's undeniable is the rocky roll out and start and add RomneyCare to the list as well.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
The first 2 are the same source. But I love the assumption made in the headline that this is for the midterms. Unfounded, but nice try. Notice how your last link didn't mention midterms as the cause. That's because it's not jack-boot propaganda.

If it is not for political reasons, as you assume, what was the reason for delaying the mandate until after the 2014 elections. Feel free to put forth any plausible reason. Note I said plausible.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Just for fun, some of the federal codes used for various medical maladies:

T63622A - Toxic effect of contact with other jellyfish, intentional self-harm, initial encounter
V9542XA - Forced landing of spacecraft injuring occupant, initial encounter
V9733XA - Sucked into jet engine, initial encounter
V80731A - Occupant of animal-drawn vehicle injured in collision with streetcar, initial encounter
V9027XA - Drowning and submersion due to falling or jumping from burning water-skis, initial encounter

Historical research shows that burning water skis have never caused this disorder.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Just for fun, some of the federal codes used for various medical maladies:

T63622A - Toxic effect of contact with other jellyfish, intentional self-harm, initial encounter
V9542XA - Forced landing of spacecraft injuring occupant, initial encounter
V9733XA - Sucked into jet engine, initial encounter
V80731A - Occupant of animal-drawn vehicle injured in collision with streetcar, initial encounter
V9027XA - Drowning and submersion due to falling or jumping from burning water-skis, initial encounter

Historical research shows that burning water skis have never caused this disorder.

Any chance they have a code for loss of ones sanity due to attempting to comply with medical federal codes, multiple repeat incidents.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Looking at the similarity in these 2 codes.....
V9542XA - Forced landing of spacecraft injuring occupant, initial encounter
V9027XA - Drowning and submersion due to falling or jumping from burning water-skis, initial encounter
...in the minds of vogons who designed this system, there must be something
similar about crash landing space ships & burning water skis drowning you.
Organizing information should not be left to amateurs & government schlubs.
Where's Dmitri Medeleev when you need him?
 
Top