Obamacare Enrollment for Uninsured Is Low, Survey Shows

[sangha]

U said it was good that deductibles were high. Some people will have much lower deductibles... That must be bad, right?

In my prior sentence "have" was supposed to be "love".

SO now you know what my deductible is? :lamo

 

[MAGAnificent]

Of course they won't be able to come up with that kind of money. They're all too poor to pay the premiums without the taxpayers' help. Hell they apparently are too poor to buy $10 a month birth control pills without taxpayer assistance.

Those medical bankruptcies that the ACAbots have been screeching about for years will occur as frequently if not substantially more once this mess of a law has been in effect for afew years.

The progressives will say: "But but but....they have insurance now." The fact that a 6 or 12 K deductible will send them into bankruptcy just as fast as no insurance at all does not seem to matter to the progressives.

 

[buck]

SO now you know what my deductible is? :lamo

Never mentioned your deductible. Sounds like you're confused again.

I'll try to assist you again...

You previously stated it was good that people have higher deductibles as it will prevent overuse of the system and they will make better decisions. Now you say that some will have a large portion of the deductibles paid for (their deductibles will be low). That would mean they will not have the same impetus to make good decisions.

 

[sangha]

Never mentioned your deductible. Sounds like you're confused again.

I'll try to assist you again...

You previously stated it was good that people have higher deductibles as it will prevent overuse of the system and they will make better decisions. Now you say that some will have a large portion of the deductibles paid for (their deductibles will be low). That would mean they will not have the same impetus to make good decisions.

No because people with low incomes do not need as high a deductible in order to be motivated to consider cost.

duh

 

[Kal'Stang]

Yes, the dems planned on passing on the costs to the states by having the feds pick up 100% of the costs of Medicaid expansion

For 10 years. And then the States would have the burden. Putting them in further debt. Why would they want that?

 

[Kal'Stang]

The majority of PPACA was written by a committee made of three dems and three repubs

No, the majority was written by dems. Remember the whole hulabaloo about the closed door meetings and people screaming about Obama not having kept a promise of transparency regarding the talks for Obamacare?

 

[sangha]

For 10 years. And then the States would have the burden. Putting them in further debt. Why would they want that?

Because in most cases, the states are paying 100% of the costs for the poor and if they expanded Medicaid, the feds would cover 90% of that into perpetuity

 

[sangha]

No, the majority was written by dems. Remember the whole hulabaloo about the closed door meetings and people screaming about Obama not having kept a promise of transparency regarding the talks for Obamacare?

It was written by a committee of 3 R's and 3 D's

On the Senate side, from June to September, the Senate Finance Committee held a series of 31 meetings to develop a healthcare reform bill. This group — in particular, Democrats Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, and Kent Conrad, and Republicans Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe — met for more than 60 hours, and the principles that they discussed, in conjunction with the other committees, became the foundation of the Senate's healthcare reform bill.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kal'Stang]

I have no idea what the intent was, perhaps they thought that by delegating part of the responsibility to the states it would create a more effective system. But you're right it appears that Dems did mess up in trusting Republican state governments would govern, would have been better instead to leave no power to the states and instead concentrate the entire program at the Federal level. The Federal government would have also taken on the costs of expanding medicaid for the states for I believe 10 years before the states would become responsible for it.

Why should any state government take on the extra burden when states are already in debt? Isn't there something going around showing that republican states are the ones recieving the most handouts? Why would they want to add to thier burden?

Either way that SCOTUS ruling means certain states, including Idaho, have declined to expand their medicaid and thus are leaving millions of people without health coverage.

Sorry that the Constitution interfere's with liberal agenda's. :shrug: And those people still have health coverage. People have had health coverage for years. What people don't have is health insurance. Wish obamacare supporters would understand the difference in that.

Personally I think the whole thing was a nice attempt to patch a broken system, but its an ugly patch and as we can see there are still leaks where people slip through without coverage. Better to be done with all of it and move to a single payer system. People need to stop thinking of healthcare as a luxury and instead as a basic human right, or if that's too Christian for Republicans to handle, consider it a form of investment wherein the economy freed of a great deal of damage towards production as a result of our current ineffective healthcare system can undergo a boom. A healthy population is a productive population after all.

No, it was a horrible attempt and nothing more than a power grab. Now unless some SCOTUS panel rules again on the subject the government can now mandate that you buy pretty much anything from any private corporation or punish you if you don't.

 

[Wiseone]

Why should any state government take on the extra burden when states are already in debt? Isn't there something going around showing that republican states are the ones recieving the most handouts? Why would they want to add to thier burden?



Sorry that the Constitution interfere's with liberal agenda's. :shrug: And those people still have health coverage. People have had health coverage for years. What people don't have is health insurance. Wish obamacare supporters would understand the difference in that.



No, it was a horrible attempt and nothing more than a power grab. Now unless some SCOTUS panel rules again on the subject the government can now mandate that you buy pretty much anything from any private corporation or punish you if you don't.

Because its a good investment for economic growth, no different than building a road. Also governments always, always, maintain debt in one form or another if for no other reason than to maintain a good bond rating so that in the future if they need to borrow again they can do so cheaply.

I understand the difference, its true they have access to emergency room care but that's not a solution to the health problems of the uninsured and its also ridiculously expensive.

Its a tax remember, the government taxes you for not having it but you aren't criminally prosecuted or anything. But yes the government can mandate that you buy something for the "greater good" that's been the case since 1792.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It was written by a committee of 3 R's and 3 D's


Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That committee may have wrote the foundation, but not the whole of it. Don't confuse the "foundation" with "the majority".

 

[Kal'Stang]

Because in most cases, the states are paying 100% of the costs for the poor and if they expanded Medicaid, the feds would cover 90% of that into perpetuity

Link?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Because its a good investment for economic growth, no different than building a road. Also governments always, always, maintain debt in one form or another if for no other reason than to maintain a good bond rating so that in the future if they need to borrow again they can do so cheaply.

There is such a thing as too much debt. And where would the economic growth come from?

I understand the difference, its true they have access to emergency room care but that's not a solution to the health problems of the uninsured and its also ridiculously expensive.

Then please start stating this for what it really is. Health insurance reform. NOT health care reform. It didn't do one single thing to change health care. And saying things like you did just puts a spin on whats really going on.

Its a tax remember, the government taxes you for not having it but you aren't criminally prosecuted or anything. But yes the government can mandate that you buy something for the "greater good" that's been the case since 1792.

Bold: It's not a tax. I don't care what SCOTUS said it is. A tax is something that the government charges everyone for a service provided to everyone. Those that don't get insurance are being fined. IE Punished. And they don't get a damn thing in return.

Rest: No, its never been the case.

 

[Wiseone]

There is such a thing as too much debt. And where would the economic growth come from?



Then please start stating this for what it really is. Health insurance reform. NOT health care reform. It didn't do one single thing to change health care. And saying things like you did just puts a spin on whats really going on.



Bold: It's not a tax. I don't care what SCOTUS said it is. A tax is something that the government charges everyone for a service provided to everyone. Those that don't get insurance are being fined. IE Punished. And they don't get a damn thing in return.

Rest: No, its never been the case.

Economic growth would come from knowing your work force would always have access to healthcare as required to cure or treat whatever may arise so they can't return to work. Also it comes from saving money on the expensive ER treatments that people without health coverage get, waiting for a condition to become life threatening and then paying for treatment is not as cost effective as treating it when its just developing.

If you don't care what the SCOTUS says why did you mention them earlier as support for your position? Seems hypocritical to pick and choose what court rulings to give credence to and which to ignore. Also those people do get something in return, they get healthcare because regardless of whether or not you buy health insurance you will at one point in your life need health care and some of that cost will come from the government. No one exists in an island where all their health care is free of government money.

Also here's that law from 1792

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified," "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."

So we've got over 200 years of history of the government making people buy things for the greater good, in this case its defense, in the ACA's case its health care.

 

[Mycroft]

Economic growth would come from knowing your work force would always have access to healthcare as required to cure or treat whatever may arise so they can't return to work. Also it comes from saving money on the expensive ER treatments that people without health coverage get, waiting for a condition to become life threatening and then paying for treatment is not as cost effective as treating it when its just developing.

If you don't care what the SCOTUS says why did you mention them earlier as support for your position? Seems hypocritical to pick and choose what court rulings to give credence to and which to ignore. Also those people do get something in return, they get healthcare because regardless of whether or not you buy health insurance you will at one point in your life need health care and some of that cost will come from the government. No one exists in an island where all their health care is free of government money.

Also here's that law from 1792

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified," "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."

So we've got over 200 years of history of the government making people buy things for the greater good, in this case its defense, in the ACA's case its health care.

Wow!!

I've seen liberals fold, spindle, mutilate and downright spin **** before, but this one takes the cake!

But, when you get right down to it, none of the militia acts said a damned thing about "the greater good"...whatever THAT is supposed to mean. Jesus!! Some freaking liberal could justify requiring ever American to buy PORN and make some dumbass case about how it's "for the greater good"! LOL!!

 

[Wiseone]

Wow!!

I've seen liberals fold, spindle, mutilate and downright spin **** before, but this one takes the cake!

But, when you get right down to it, none of the militia acts said a damned thing about "the greater good"...whatever THAT is supposed to mean. Jesus!! Some freaking liberal could justify requiring ever American to buy PORN and make some dumbass case about how it's "for the greater good"! LOL!!

The National Defense is a greater good, which is what the Militia Act was meant to address. Do you deny that national defense is a greater good?

 

[Mycroft]

The National Defense is a greater good, which is what the Militia Act was meant to address. Do you deny that national defense is a greater good?

Brushing my teeth can be considered a "greater good". You gonna mandate that I buy a toothbrush?

Washing my stinky body can be considered a "greater good". You gonna mandate that I buy soap?

If I have a TV, I can watch all those liberal media news channels. That can be considered a "greater good". You gonna mandate that I buy a TV?

That is the level y'all are at when you characterize buying insurance a "greater good".

 

[Wiseone]

Brushing my teeth can be considered a "greater good". You gonna mandate that I buy a toothbrush?

Washing my stinky body can be considered a "greater good". You gonna mandate that I buy soap?

If I have a TV, I can watch all those liberal media news channels. That can be considered a "greater good". You gonna mandate that I buy a TV?

That is the level y'all are at when you characterize buying insurance a "greater good".

Well now you're just being silly.

 

[Mycroft]

Well now you're just being silly.

Not as silly as you and your attempted "greater good" justification and that ridiculous Militia Act connection. LOL!!

 

[US Conservative]

Blame the Republicans. Twenty-six states, all dominated by Republicans, refused to expand Medicaid. That denied coverage to many uninsured and, because of that, over 17,000 Americans are likely to die. Let the Republicans explain that in the coming campaign.

The democrats alone passed this fatally flawed bill. Its nobody's fault but theirs. Own your failures.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Economic growth would come from knowing your work force would always have access to healthcare as required to cure or treat whatever may arise so they can't return to work. Also it comes from saving money on the expensive ER treatments that people without health coverage get, waiting for a condition to become life threatening and then paying for treatment is not as cost effective as treating it when its just developing.

:roll: Now that is some spin right there folks! Having health insurance in no way provides people jobs.

If you don't care what the SCOTUS says why did you mention them earlier as support for your position? Seems hypocritical to pick and choose what court rulings to give credence to and which to ignore. Also those people do get something in return, they get healthcare because regardless of whether or not you buy health insurance you will at one point in your life need health care and some of that cost will come from the government. No one exists in an island where all their health care is free of government money.

Did I ever once state that SCOTUS is never wrong? No? Then its not hypocritical at all. Nothing is ever black and white. There are many shades of grey.

Also here's that law from 1792

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified," "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack."

So we've got over 200 years of history of the government making people buy things for the greater good, in this case its defense, in the ACA's case its health care.

I knew you were going to bring this up. Been down this road before. It's just another talking point that doesn't hold water. The key words on that is "enrolled and notified". IE volunteers and drafted people had to provide their own weapons. Not regular citizens. There has always been exceptions for those in the military and national guard regarding Rights. Which is what they were talking about...the national guard. And please don't pretend that the National Guard and organized militias are two totally different things. The National Guard is the term used today for organized militias.

Got another example? No? Hmm...

 

[Wiseone]

:roll: Now that is some spin right there folks! Having health insurance in no way provides people jobs.

I didn't say provide jobs did I? No. I said economic growth, it allows for current workers to be more productive and for out of work workers to have one less thing to worry about become a barrier to them trying to re enter the work force.

Did I ever once state that SCOTUS is never wrong? No? Then its not hypocritical at all. Nothing is ever black and white. There are many shades of grey.

That's true I disagree with them as well from time to time.

I knew you were going to bring this up. Been down this road before. It's just another talking point that doesn't hold water. The key words on that is "enrolled and notified". IE volunteers and drafted people had to provide their own weapons. Not regular citizens. There has always been exceptions for those in the military and national guard regarding Rights. Which is what they were talking about...the national guard. And please don't pretend that the National Guard and organized militias are two totally different things. The National Guard is the term used today for organized militias.

Got another example? No? Hmm...

The Militia Act did not call for volunteers, it conscripted individuals without their consent.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.

The Militia Act of 1792

And have I got another example? Sure. Car insurance. Now I know you'll say that the government doesn't make everyone purchase car insurance just those who own a vehicle, that's true they only require those who use motor vehicles to have the insurance. Likewise they only require those who use the healthcare industry to have health insurance, which as a matter of fact is everyone, we all use healthcare at one point in our lives so the reasoning is no different.

 

[Mycroft]

Likewise they only require those who use the healthcare industry to have health insurance, which as a matter of fact is everyone, we all use healthcare at one point in our lives so the reasoning is no different.

That's a nice way of spinning..."Your alive...you have to buy it!"

 

[tres borrachos]

So what you are saying is that the insurance offered by the "Affordable Healthcare Act" is unaffordable. Okay...thanks....I got it. :roll:

Interesting contradiction, isn't it? The "Affordable Heathcare Act" resulted in unaffordable insurance. And unaffordable healthcare. Go figure.

But it's a success, don't you know?

 

[sangha]

That committee may have wrote the foundation, but not the whole of it. Don't confuse the "foundation" with "the majority".

You claimed that majority of ACA was written by dems with no repub input. I proved you wrong so no you're changing it to "the repubs didn't write all of it"

You also made a reference to "close door meetings" that dems held (with no repubs participating) in order to justify your inaccurate claim. I showed that those closed door meetings were held by a committee of three dems and three repubs