# I will finally be able to afford health insurance.



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

Last year and several times before, I tried to get health insurance but it just cost way too much. Fortunately, I have my VA health benefits to fall back on. But I don't want to lean on fellow tax payers… I want to pay my share. Well, tomorrow I am going to shop for health insurance that, finally, I can afford. Thank you President Barack Obama for standing your ground and making sure affordable health insurance will be available for me and others who share my disposition. If the government shuts down, I know it's the Republicans in Congress who are to blame. They are the ones holding the federal budget hostage, to meet their own agenda-an agenda dictated to them by the very health care industry which has been bleeding people dry in the name of maximum profits for far too long.


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Grow the private sector, or be one of the ruling class


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

I and millions of others can't afford private sector. It's easy to throw stones…. got any other solutions?


----------



## waho6o9 (May 6, 2011)

Competition, let policies cross state lines, reduce red tape and regulations

that stifle innovation and competition.


----------



## fatandy2003 (Apr 4, 2012)

Sorry to hear about your situation Ted, but you are still "leaning" on "fellow tax payers" by having them subsidize your health insurance through ObamaCare. At least by using your VA benefits, you are using something you "earned" while serving the country… With ObamaCare, the taxpayers are subsidizing EVERYONE's health insurance in a tiered system.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Ted, can you qualify for Medicaid?


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

I think I'd like to keep all the members of Lumberjocks as people I would like to talk to about woodworking. I think, like Ron Paul, I'll retire from this discussion and get back into my shop.


----------



## Jim Jakosh (Nov 24, 2009)

Health care should be a Not for Profit business. When it was like that we all got good affordable care. They are missing the boat by making insurance companies rich and leaving health care still so very expensive.
I wonder if just because you have insurance that you still won't be turned down for a procedure.
Plus those that can pay will be paying for all the muslims that don't have to buy it and all the illegals that won't be forced to buy it or be fined. The middle class gets to pay for everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Ted, I appreciate you putting this up. I do not at this moment have your problem but could very easily have in the future.
Both my wife's and my kids are in the boat of not being able to afford insurance. This will enable them some piece of mind in the coming years.


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

I'm glad to say that I'm as healthy as can be, so unless I have a serious accident (knock on wood) chances are I will be putting in more than I take out, at least for a good long time.

Andy, as a tax payer myself, I am also paying into the pot. Ironically, taxes is one of the biggest reasons I couldn't afford insurance. Lots of taxpayers could not afford insurance. Conversely, millions of people who were not paying into the pot will now be paying their share. That's the whole point of Affordable Care Act… everybody pays.

nomercadies, this is the "Coffee Lounge" forum, meant for off topic discussions.

DKV, I don't qualify for Medicaid. I'm a healthy young 54 year old.

Jim, I could not agree with you more, except I don't know when health care was ever a not-for-profit business. Anyway, you lost me at "all the muslims". I don't share your sentiment.

madts, I'm glad it's working out for you and yours. That's what ACA is for


----------



## 111 (Sep 2, 2013)

I have a question. I'm paying nearly 475.00 bucks a month for my insurance. I think I make little enough money to qualify for Obamacare. Should I quit my health insurance and sign up for Obamacare.


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

Beats me… I'm not the expert. But I will say it's worthwhile to do some research. You can start here => http://www.healthcare.gov


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

I would think that you should look into your options.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

I'm glad you can get insurance. I'm not so glad my grandkids will be paying for it.


----------



## BJODay (Jan 29, 2013)

Ted and others,
I am a Paramedic on a fire department. If someone calls 911 we provide care and transport, whether they can pay or not. The city I work for picks up the tab.

We transport to a local hospital. They must provide care. If the patient cannot pay the hospital covers it and charges the rest of the patients more to cover it.

If someone is on Title 19, (public assistance), they will cover some of the costs. That is the rest of us. We're paying for it now. How about if we address issues before they become expensive.

Having affordable care means someone can have and see a general practitioner, (family doctor). Then they will not have to rely on the emergency medical system and hospital ERs. This is cheaper for everyone. I would rather help someone pay for preventative care than wait until a child goes into a seizure from an untreated fever and calls 911.

I support the Affordable Care Act. The ACA will be full of pitfalls and potholes but it will pay off in the end.

BJ


----------



## cutworm (Oct 2, 2010)

Hey Ted. Use your VA benefits with your head up. You earned it dude. I hope the Affordable Care Act works. I feel like we had to do something. Status quo isn't working for sure. Thanks for the post man.

I work for a major automotive manufacturer and have good insurance but still pay out the ying yang. I had a heart cath. and my part was 2500. Earlier this year my wife needed dental surgery and 2 implants. 12,000 all of it on me. But I'm told I have good insurance so I guess I do…........


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Don: "...I'm not so glad my grandkids will be paying for it…."*

Lest you forget that WE paid for our grand parents coverage via SS and Medicare. This truly is a societal issue that transcends generations.

Here. Let me say the damn word… Socialism. If the rest of ya'll don't think that we Americans don't already have Corporate Socialism, then I have some special Kool-Aid for you to drink… Jim Jones would have been proud…


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

ACA has very little to do with health reform. It is a tax law more than anything else.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Please explain that Rocky.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Premium subsidies (APTC under the law) come from taxes. As the cost goes up, the taxes will need to go up. And the cost will go,up.

Anyone, including the press, that thinks the ACA will lower health care cost is just delusional.

It does not work that way. I am implementing the law in my job and have been in the industry for more than 35 years. 
The ONLY thing that will lower or mitigate the cost of healthcare is for individuals to take better care of themselves.

There will be an artificial reduction in cost that will be temporary then it will go up again. The cost of insurance will go up faster due to leveraging..


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

How come Canada has a system that works? ( not called socialism ) Europe has similar systems. What is wrong with doing the same in the USA? By saying it does not work that way, is not showing an open mind.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Canada and Europe both ration care. That is one way to control utilization (consumption ). You ok with that? The government decides who gets care and what that care will be.

You want that?

The 2 controlling factors of cost in healthcare are severity (how bad is it ) and intensity ( how much treatment to make it better )

Are patients, doctors and families better suited to make those decisions or is government?


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

YES!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

So when you are older and need a hip replacement you are fine with being told no? What if your child had a heart valve defect and they told you no? You willing to let your child die?


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Older people get to die while all the younger get to live. Ask the Eskimos.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

You should read up on healthcare in those 2 countries/continents. You are either uninformed or misinformed.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

I am not uninformed nor misinformed. Read up on facts about the eskimos. I am from Europe so I know what is going on there.


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

Don " I'm not so glad my grandkids will be paying for it"

You do realize I will be paying for insurance, don't you? I hope so, and I also hope you realize I have been paying taxes, a big chunk of which goes toward our broken healthcare system, for many many years. I also take fairly good care of my health. Your grandkids will not be paying for MY healthcare… I pay for that. It's finally time I will be able to afford coverage on what I have been paying for all these years. Never had a broken bone, never had a serious illness, one minor outpatient operation at the VA hospital about 10 years ago, and I paid out of my pocket for driving glasses and any dental. Don't tell me your grandkids will be paying my share.


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

Rocky, ACA is not about the cost of healthcare, it's about the cost of insurance. The more people who buy health insurance, the less it will cost per individual.


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

I should not get into this discussion, but I will point out one minor little observation I made the last time I was in Europe. My co-workers (I worked for a Belgium based company at the time) making a similar salary to me had to pay well over 64% of their income to taxes to support the "free" medical care system.

I, on the other hand, paid about 7% of my salary to health insurance for my whole family, about 32% to the federal government for income and SS and Medicare taxes, about 4.5% (assumes I spent half of every thing I made on taxable goods) to sales taxes and about 1.5% to the state for property tax. That's it. So I had access to one of the best healthcare systems in the world and everything else the USA has to offer and my total tax burden was about 45%.

I think I was getting a better deal than my European brothers. But the bugger in the whole mess, and the part that no politician anywhere wants to admit, is there is NO WAY to pay for the many multiple layers of middle men and red tape for services without there being waste, bureaucratic cost, and favoritism.

Think about it. Would you get a better deal on a new car if you shopped around and negotiated a good deal for the car you want from a company selling the car, or if you gave all your money to a bank and asked them to decide what you need. And then find that car and give you back what ever money's left? Think they would get you what you want? Think they would not buy the car from a dealer who owes them a bunch of money? Think you would get any money back?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The problem is that in healthcare when you receive a service and they don't "fix" the problem you have to engage more services that now cost more.

Medical Providers are paid for services, not outcomes. If the entire system were to convert to medical evidence based outcomes, you would see more efficiency in the design and delivery of treatments.

Right now, for the vast majority of healthcare, there is no financial incentive to prevent or cure the patient, there is an incentive to treat them over and over again.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Ted, if i had 100 patients 55 years of age with diabetes versus 1000 patients 55 years old with diabetes would the cost per person come down?

The problem or cost implication of insurance really has not much to do with how many patients but rather how sick are they. Claims make up 80% to 85% of premium cost.

Don 't let the media and politicians (both parties) draw you in to this false narrative. It is a smoke screen at best. Same with buying across state lines, which will have a modest and very temporary reduction in price, not cost.


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

I don't think that's a very accurate analogy.

If you are an insurance provider and insurance was totally optional, as it is now, a larger percentage of the people buying insurance from you will have a direct need for it. The healthiest people, when faced with financial difficulties, will be more prone to drop their health coverage, leaving you stuck with a larger percentage of unhealthy people. You will then have no choice but to raise premiums. If, on the other hand, people are required to buy insurance, then the cost is spread more evenly to cover the healthy and less healthy.

I totally agree about the way doctors and hospitals are paid, though. They actually make more by keeping people sick! That's just bass ackward.


----------



## bullhead1 (Mar 29, 2012)

Maybe the Eskimos have it right. My 82 year old father passed away 6 years ago (my mother preceded him). In the last 3 years of his life I moved him from an apartment to a senior living center to assisted living and finally to a nursing home. I saw him going from loving to see his grandkids to eating supper with a bib on. During that last three years he was in the hospital 8 times. On dialysis for 2 years of that along with other expensive procedures and tests. Thankfully he had wonderful insurance along with a supplemental policy and never paid a penny. But the problem with this situation is that someone had to pay. I quit adding up the benefit statements from insurance when it reached > $300,000. So how much do we spend to keep the terminally ill and old alive. Don't get me wrong, I cherished having my father for a longer period of time. But what could that $300,000 do to treat younger children with curable illnesses. Can we afford to keeping spending money to try to achieve immortality? I don't think this is a problem with our health care system, but a problem with the rising costs of health care. Do I think hospitals and doctors try to prolong illness and health care for revenue. I don't think so. They are trying to cover there asses from lawsuits. I would like to believe the majority are truly concerned about helping people. I would probably run out of room with what I think if I went further . I have been a registered Republican since I was old enough to vote. I am totally disgusted with a minority in congress using the spending bill to change a health care alternative. I don't know if Oboma care is good or bad, it's here and let's see if it work's and tweak it along the way. But letting the government shut down is not the answer. 
I'm sorry for the rant but I needed to get it off my chest.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

At this point in time I'm not going to say much other than I'm against this Affordable Heath Act. I'm very skeptical of a government who says, "here's you health care, it's great you're going to love" however I'm going to exempt my self from it and all my buddies and the big corporation who help elect me. Something really stink about this.

I just hope I'm around in a year or two when this thread is resurrected and see how everyone feels then.

Those of you who think Canada and Europe has such good health care are just misinformed.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Ted, how many of the uninsured are currently healthy and how many are not?


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

I don't know how many, but let me ask you this…

Supposing you have $800 a month income, 2 kids in school and you're not sure how you're going to pay your bills. 
You have to decide between making your car payment and families health insurance. You need your car to get to work. You're in tip-top health and so are your kids. Which one do you pay? Now same scenario but you've been having occasional chest pains, or your kid has an unexplained fever every couple of months. Now which one do you pay?


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

Alaska, let me first say I also hope you're around in a year or two, or five or ten… 

I have as much confidence in our government as the average person, which seems to me not much. But the fact is I can not afford $350 (est) a month for health insurance. But I can afford $150. If I can afford health insurance, I'm going to get it… no mandate required.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Ted, please don't misunderstand , I am glad you can now get insurance and many more will be able to do so, but the ACA has very little to do with health care reform or health insurance reform…it is a tax law.

I think there is a general misunderstanding from the public that all of the requirements for the health insurance companies such as age 26 children, essential health benefits, no pre-existing, pediatric vision/dental, etc., etc. were not added to the cost of the insurance as if the government punished the insurance companies.

All of the provisions of the ACA aimed at the insurance companies have been added to the premium base I assure you of that.

In the end, the ACA will not lower healthcare or heath insurance costs, regardless of what the media or politicians say.

Again, I am glad for you, just don't be fooled by the rhetoric.


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)

Kudos for the civility on this thread. Good discussion.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Where are you finding insurance for $150 a month? The cheapest bronze plans I have seen were around $300-$400. Id also say if my income was $800 a month I would not have a car payment (would have the ugly $400 car that makes all kinds of noise). It never ceases to amaze me the "poor" people that have air conditioning, expensive cell phones with expensive data plans, new cars etc.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The final cost of your insurance thru the exchange will depend on where you fall within the federal poverty level based on income and family size. This will determine the plans you are eligible for and your subsidy to offset the cost of the premium.

There will be some folks that will get insurance and pay nothing in terms of premium cost. They will have deductibles, copays and other out of pocket expense though.

The government, via the Treasury, will pay the insurance company the subsidy directly and you will pay the balance of the premium direct to the insurance company.

BTW, in the law, the subsidy is called the APTC or Advance Premium TAX Credit. This is a tax law.


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

Is there a neutral website or blog where this issue can be debated and investigated? Neutral seems to be a rare commodity these days. I did a search, but maybe I am not as skilled as one should be to find such a thing.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

A neutral site or blog on the internet?

No such thing. Good luck.


----------



## murch (Mar 20, 2011)

Europe is not a country. Health care in this part of it is optional.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

So you have private insurance in Ireland Murch?


----------



## DavidBethune (Feb 9, 2009)

I love it when people talk about Canada and other countries health care systems when they have ZERO clue. Makes me laugh to be honest. Our health care in CANADA is awesome and the restrictions implied by some on here are just ludicrous? They believe everything they READ!!! and know nothing about the true reality..I lived in the USA for over 25 years..Both my daughters are AMERICAN! Most every other advanced country in the world has medical coverage for it's citizens.
The affordable care act you are being offered is AWESOME. Finally everyone will be covered…
If you believe the NEGATIVE propaganda.. why do all the rest of the other countries in the world still have it if it SOOOO bad…It's time to wake up..
Quit listening to your politicians and lobbyists.. Have a listen to: *El Toro Poo*
Thank GOD there are only a select FEW that "JUST" don't get it.. and unfortunately they are the only ones speaking out about it..


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I take it then DavidBethune you have read the ACA law?

Everyone WILL NOT be covered, that is a fallacy.

Read the law and come back and tell me you still believe what appears to be your statement of fact, is still accurate.


----------



## DavidBethune (Feb 9, 2009)

Rocky… You just don't get it.. and that's ok with me.. Like I said you are in the "SELECT FEW GROUP" 
If you Quit believing everything you read.. and let it play it's course you'll see..
It's no different from the propaganda spread about issues during war times.
The truth will come out eventually and you will thank Barrack Obama.


----------



## Manitario (Jul 4, 2010)

As a Canadian, living in a country with universal health care benefits, I am continually astounded by the lack of health care for many Americans, or the expense of it for those that can afford it. Even on LJ I have read many stories about members not seeking medical attention for injuries because of the cost eg. "I couldn't justify paying $800 for a few stitches". Other stories abound of people having to morgage their homes to pay for medical bills when unexpected serious illnesses hit. Seems completely crazy to me as I live in a country where if I get hurt, I go to the hospital, get fixed and then go home and worry about getting well rather than how much it cost.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

So David, I should not believe the ACA law because I HAVE read it? I have implemented it for the last 2 years, ......what have you done relative to the ACA?

My comments above do not come from media or politicians, but from decades of experience in the industry and having READ the actual law. I may be in the "SELECT FEW GROUP" that has actually read the law, that is true.

It seems I do get it but you would if you would take the time and effort to read and understand the law in its ENTIRITY. Read it sir, read it.

Tell me which of my responses in this topic are propaganda? Which ones? Point them out to me. I will wait.


----------



## DavidBethune (Feb 9, 2009)

Manitario.. AMEN


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Hence the rub: "Trust the Government."

Some can, some cannot, and those two ends of the spectrum collectively garner the majority of the media's attention. There is no rational discussion of this law on it's merits available anywhere. There have been statements made from our elected leaders that set a disturbing tone; "We have to pass it to find out what's in it" comes to mind, while the assurance that more will get improved care, and at lower cost no less, seems too good to be true. "Let it play it's course you'll see…" is not reassuring.

Imagine there were no political parties and debate centered on the general welfare of our nation's citizens while preserving individual liberty vs. what Dem or Rep reactions were to every statement coming out of the White House. Geo. Washington had it right WRT political parties, but his ideal didn't make it past his lifetime…


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

This discussion brings up a question I have been pondering about the Lumberjocks posting rules. Is this a political discussion, and if it is, is it welcomed by the rules of the "Non-shop Talk" area? If it is ok, I'd like to join in. If it isn't, I'll sit quietly and watch to see what happens.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Manitario, there is a difference and I would not debate your experiences. In Canada, as I understand it, a non-urgent wait time could be as long as 60 days, say for a strained arm lifting a heavy object.

If I strained my arm this morning, I could see a doctor this afternoon.

Time and convenience have a price.

I am not saying one is better than the other, just different experiences, hence different cost.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Whether you are for against the ACA has more to do with someone's political leanings than anything else. To me unfortunately the affordable care act has little to do with actual care and everything to do with insurance. If the government wanted people to have access to health care it would have made a lot more sense to me to provide the care directly via low or no cost clinics that paid doctors, nurses, physician assistants etc by allowing them to work off their college debt for so many hours per week. 
I had a kidney stone a year ago, I was in severe pain on a Sunday night and finally I broke down and went to the hospital. The reasoning for my not wanting to go had nothing to do with the cost, but what I dreaded was sitting in the waiting room for hours in terrible pain around a bunch of sick people. I have sat in an emergency room before. I have seen people with broken bones sit and wait hours.
The American Medical Associations stance on someone other than a doctor providing certain care is part of the reason, someone with the sniffles does not need to see a doctor a registered nurse or physician's assistant is probably all most need. 
When I had my kidney stone surgery (really minimally invasive) I was astounded by the sheer number of people involved (and different bills I got). I happen to have what would be considered a silver level plan and it still cost me about $1500 out of pocket when all was said and done. 
People's beliefs about what insurance is for is another problem, people would rather spend $600 on a cell phone than pay $50 for a doctor visit, ever notice how many billing 'specialists" are in doctor's offices now? I had to go through this with my mom, for some reason she just had to have an expensive policy to "pay for prescriptions". She has had exactly 1 $20 prescription in the 8 years since she got the policy that cost $400 a month, when the policy that cost $150 a month would have sufficed but by god that expensive policy saved her $20 on that prescription! You will find most people think this way. 
Military healthcare is fantastic, but I will tell you that I know people that will go to the Dr for a cold because he will give them free cough medicine rather than just pay $6 out of pocket for a bottle of Nyquil.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

There are many problems with the ACA, but I still agree with it being "mandatory". As an example: Here in Albuquerque, the University of New Mexico Hospital is paying out $130 million a year for those individuals who do not have health insurance, or refuse to buy any, because they can get it free at UNMH. A portion of my property tax goes to UNMH, to pay for these lazy SOB's. All I hear is excuses of why they can't "afford" health insurance. These same individuals are buying 2+ cartons of cigarettes a week, 3 to 4 cases of Bud Lite a week, spout out umpteen children a year, lay on their lazy butts collecting welfare and getting fat. And, these are the people the Tea Party are supporting? What a load of crap!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Jimbo4, with the cost of insurance being several hundred dollars a month and the initial tax penalty for not buying insurance is $95 per year, how mandatory is it really? They get the $95 penalty when you file a tax return…does everyone do that as well?

By law if you go to the ER and don't have coverage they have to treat you, in most cases.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Their still a bunch of lazy SOB's my property tax pays for.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

The ACA is a cost-shifting method. It will help some people to be able to afford insurance (mainly those who are low-income and/or have pre-existing conditions). Older, sicker people will end up with lower rates, while young, healthy people, will actually pay more. Every upgrade in coverage required by the law is still going to be paid for by the consumer through premiums.

The big fallacy in all of this is the idea that the huge profit margins of the big, bad insurance companies are what makes insurance unaffordable. It's just not true. As Scott pointed out, 80 to 85 percent of premiums are paid directly out in claims. Add in actual operating costs, and the remaining profit margin is relatively low. Making health insurance completely non-profit would *not* make a sizable dent in the cost.

As Pat Collins said, ACA does nothing to address the real problem, which is the cost of health care itself, not the cost of insurance. What's going to happen when these folks who are feeling great about their inexpensive bronze-level policies run up a $20,000 medical tab for a three-day hospital stay, and discover that they still owe over $6,000 out-of-pocket?


----------



## jdman (Dec 13, 2012)

I am a RETIRED Federal government worker.

I carried my government insurance, same coverage Blue cross Blue Shield Texas, with me when I retired.

I pay the SAME premium as as a CURRENT federal employee.

It is excellent coverage.

My bitch is even though I carry the BC / BS premium coverage I have to accept TAXPAYER PAID medicare as my primary coverage and my BC / BS is now considered my SUPPLEMENTARY coverage by LAW.

There is something wrong with our country when CORPORATE AMERICA can get laws passed that screws every one of us tax payers. IT TAKES BOTH PARTIES and the President.

Further if a corporation is the SAME as an individual AMERICAN PERSON (AS AFFIRMED BY OUR SUPREME COURT) why doesn't a corporation pay the SAME TAX RATE as an individual AMERICAN PERSON.

When are we going to throw the B >>>>DS OUT!


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Charlie1958, you are correct, this law isn't about making care affordable, its about making people feel better and throwing a bone to the big insurance companies.

The same people that are so for the ACA tend to think that big insurance companies are evil, what does that make you think about to know the big insurance companies were all for the ACA?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Charlie is correct, the ACA is a cost shifting process, using taxes and subsidies to shift cost from one tax payer to another. Plain and simple.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Pat, it might be a little misleading to say the big insurance companies were all for it, because compliance and implementation of the law is a nightmare for them. But the ACA does preserve their existence, so they would much prefer it to system that would do away with private insurance altogether.

Meanwhile,as Ted said, the theory is that more young, healthy folks paying into the system will bring rates down eventually. While true in theory, I don't have any confidence that it's going to actually work out that way. Because the individual penalties are relatively small, and because there is no real provision in the law for enforcing those penalties, I suspect a lot of healthy people who have previously chosen not to purchase insurance will continue to make that choice.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I see it as giving the insurance companies a new previously untapped demographic, just like Phillip Morris selling cigarettes to kids.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

I am a CURRENT private sector worker.

I carried my Company insurance, United Healthcare. I PAY my share of the premiums for the coverage I PREFER.

It is excellent coverage.

My bitch is even though I want to continue the premium coverage I have, it is now considered a CADILLAC PLAN and my Company is eliminating the option vs. paying a penalty to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for offering it's employees good coverage. The coverage I have is now considered CADILLAC coverage by LAW.

There is something wrong with our GOVERNMENT can screw us employed, working us tax payers. IT TAKES BOTH PARTIES and the President.

When are we going to throw the B >>>>DS OUT!


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Rhetoric. Ugh…

I feel better now, leaving this thread behind.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

It would have been so much simpler if part of the pay package for jobs never evolved to include health care insurance.

Smitty, it sounds to me like your company owes you a raise to make up for reducing your coverage.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Actually employee sponsored insurance is the best way to purchase coverage from a pure cost and taxation standpoint.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I have a few issues with Obamacare

Any time congress (doesn't matter who) passes a 1200 page bill and nobody reads it before voting - isn't good for anybody

Every union that wanted it-- is exempt from it

Any time you have one agency (the IRS) taking your money AND manages your healthcare - it is not good on any level.

There are always better ways to do things - but none of them are happening! From everything I have researched - what you think you are getting or have been promised - is not what you are going to get. There is no government anything, that I have seen that has been managed well. What costs $10.00 to do in the private sector generally costs $1,000.00 once the government takes hold of it.


----------



## lumbermeister (Dec 24, 2012)

The ACA is immoral and does ZERO to solve the root problem - no free market in health care.

So Ted - You can afford insurance? Yahoo! What about all of full time employees who are shifted to part time as a result of the 30 hour workweek provision of the ACA? What about the many doctors who will retire early? Looking for advances in medicine - what about the tax on medical devices which is curtailing jobs and investment?

What about - because this is a government program - unlike the private sector - if it does not accomplish its objectives (if it is a costly boondoggle that ruins healthcare) - it will STILL KEEP GOING REGARDLESS! Remember New Coke - and how fast it was pulled from the market because the public did not like it? What happens when the ACA is shown to drive costs up and doctors out, reducing overall health coverage? What will happen is that politicians will say, "Hey - we need more regulation", and folks like you will say "Amen to that!".

By all means, lets put the same government that runs a bankrupt Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in even greater charge of our health care. Great idea!

Say, the private sector seems to make better cars, computers, and other goods better/faster/cheaper every year. Why not set up a free market system for health care (we did not have a free market pre-ACA - it has always been highly regulated)? Nah - Let's put the government in charge - they are Soooo adept at running things. And, yeah, let's FORCE everyone to comply, like it or not. And… Yeah, like with the IRS and the NSA - we can trust government with our most intimate information, right???

Amazing - Freedom is so rare in human history and we, the beneficiaries of a country that has done so much to foster it, are so willing to trade it away for chants of "healthcare for all" and a few measly subsidies. Prediction (guarantee): We as a country will have LESS quality healthcare, LESS prosperity (lower living standards), and LESS freedom as a result of this ACA boondoggle.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Scott, the two should have nothing to do with each other. Nobody should feel tied to a job due to healthcare, and conversely job should ever be able to hold their employees healthcare over them.

You should be able to negotiate salary based solely on that, not fear changing jobs because little johnny won't get his dialysis etc.

Healthcare should have never became part of an employee compensation package.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

#71 - Pat + 100! But, like said before, I am tired of paying for some lazy slob with my property taxes, just so they can get free health care.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Pat, I was not debating whether it SHOULD have anything to do with each other, all I am saying is that under the current tax code it is the best delivery method from a cost standpoint.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Ted i dont thing Obama will back down from this health care act that is now on the books as law ,im glad somebody finally did something  on a health care reform ,seems like the ones that dont want it is the same one that support the insurance and pharmaceutical industrys now they want me to think they have my interest in mind ,yea right ,


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Sorry Eddie, the ACA (Obamacare) has NOTHING to do with health reform.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

before this law insurance companys could spend what they wanted of the polices on the care it was purchased for now it 80 percent and only 20 for over head and profits ,you can call it what you want its setting some regulations on them ,its a long way from a great law but its a start


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I have always thought that the attack on the insurance industry was somwhat misplaced.

Insurance is really expensive because the Doctor and Hospital bills are really expensive.

WHen it is 15,700 to have your kid get his tonsils taken out.
That is a HOSPITAL GOUGE - - and not Blue Cross bending me over and screwing me on premiums.

At Aurora Sinai Medical Center in Wisconsin, placement of one cardiac stent that is coated with long-release medication to prevent scar tissue from reclogging the artery carries a median hospital charge of *$41,228*, according estimates from the Wisconsin Hospital Association. 
*What do Insurance Premiums need to be to cover this kind of cost?*

The only thing that reduces the Spending on healthcare will be the rationing of it. Gee if the treatment is never authorized and you die - - then the cost of that health plan was Affordable Care… Right?


----------



## craftsman on the lake (Dec 27, 2008)

I'm a retired teacher in Maine. The state pays 45 percent of my healthcare. My wife and I are on it. Together we pay about $15000 a year. It takes most of my pension. It's crazy. Like most people I payed very little for the same coverage when I worked. You don't realize that your employer is paying thousands per person. It's why no one wants to change anything. Why should they, they never see a bill.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

i hear ya dr dirt the last stay at the hospital it was $66,987 ,looked at the bill and 20 bucks far a asprin ,but as Dan said it was paid and wasn't a concern for me but it should of been ,this i beleive will be types that will be addressed as this Act goes foward


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Craftsman, that's a big part of the problem. Too many people aren't emotionally invested in the real cost of health care services and insurance because they take so much for granted. I sit on the fringe benefits committee of a university. We have a highly educated employee population, and it's amazing how many of them have no clue about the cost of their insurance. In their minds, that 25% or 30% of the premium that is deducted from their paychecks is the "cost" of their insurance, so it seems like a bargain. It's the same with the cost of medical procedures. Most folks don't really worry about the cost… all they think about is their copay or deductible.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Charlie i fall into this myself ,its one of the cost that has to be dealt with and I would think it has to be the government that would have to do it because i don't think doctors and hospital or insurance will regulate their self ,


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The problem with the cost Eddie, is that we as people do not regulate ourselves in terms of obesity, smoking, eating bad foods…most of the health cost today are preventable if we all had healthier lifestyles. Me included.

Poor Charlie has to eat all that good food there in Metry at Dragos. It is way too easy to get on the unhealthy track.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Rockey that has nothing to do with cost of health care ,it will make you healthy but the cost will be the same .


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Doggone it, Scott… you busted me!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Sorry, Eddie that is not accurate. Healthier lifestyles will lower health care cost. Metabolic syndrome is the cause of many of our heath woes in this country.


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

Rocky you are highjacking Ted post. Start your own please.


----------



## DavidBethune (Feb 9, 2009)

Some speak of socialism.. In Canada we call it Universal Health Care and we love it. To the FEW that are complaining.. Barrack Obama ran on the healthcare issue "twice" and "WON".. 
It's the LAW now.. so quit complaining. Worried about the cost…
Hell BUSH lied to the country and went to war.. people DIED because of it.. and what did that cost.. everyone is still paying for that..
Your Democratic People have spoken. Need one say anymore..
Obama Care is the best dam thing that's happened in the USA in a long long time..


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Sorry Rocky your way out there if you think that has any thing to do with cost ,,what your saying is so many being sick is the cause of the high cost give me a break ,


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Eddie, I see it as Scott saying being fat causes one to have health problems and that costs money.

Being fat myself I can attest to the fact that being fat does cause issues that cost money. I don't see how this is such a controversial subject.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Pat being fat is why your cost of medical attention is high slim down and you cost will go down,


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Isn't that what Scott is saying and you are disagreeing with him?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Pat the only thing you will see go down is your grocery bill ,im over weight my self so dont fell like the lone ranger


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Eddie, you just contradicted your own post (#90) with your latest one (#92).


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

he says the unhealthy life styles is the cause of high cost of health care , it the reason we are sick thats no doubt but to correlate it to cost is a little off 
sorry pat it was just sarcasm


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

But slimming will not change costs at all -
You will still just make your copays - never looking at the total bill.

So when the insurance company says we will no longer pay 20 bucks for an asprin - the medical practice/hospital will put the sign on the door that " we don't take XYZ insurance"

Just as many medicare patients find when there primary physician retires - that they cannot find healthcare.
My father had to go to the community clinic and try to get a caseworker to schedule MRI's for stroke.

Luckily when we moved him to be close to my sister - her doctor allowed him to be added in with the rest of her family.

I think we need to be cautious about the difference between having an Insurance Card in your wallet and actually receiving Affordable Healthcare.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

If you are healthier will you not have less need (consumption) for services? I think what Eddie is saying the cost of a partucular service may not go down, which is true in some cases but a healthier pool of people will produce overall lower cost.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Dirt i think you are right we need to be very very cautious with this ACA im sure it is full of pit falls ,but it could be end up good. As before we were on a very slippery slope doing nothing


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

im saying they will charge the same it want make any difference what your saying is cost and demand ,


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I agree Eddie. The unit cost of say an xray may go up but the demand goes down so overall ( aggregate) costs are lower.

Insurance premium are based on aggregate cost.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

The healthier you are the easier you recover from surgery, injury etc.

Triple bypass surgery takes a while to recover from, couple that with diabetes and it is harder to recover from. It is also much harder for them to find a good vein in your leg to use (diabetes can turn your veins into hamburger) increasing the costs…


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

You keep on beliving that Rocky that ,thats the reason its as low as it is right ,its a waist of my time to debate something as this with you ,we;ll just agree to disagree


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Eddie I am not trying to debate you sir….just trying to help you and others see how healthcare costs are driven.

Based on your position, every actuary and medical economists on the planet is wrong…they will be quite surprised.

Healthier people have lower healthcare costs.


----------



## Roger Clark aka Rex (Dec 30, 2008)

WOW, what fools we have all been,eating bad foods, not exercising and putting on weight. You know if we all get fit and healthy, we won't need any healthcare at all.


----------



## cutworm (Oct 2, 2010)

Good discussion and civil.
If my healthcare costs go down maybe I can get a sawstop. Or should I get a PM….......

Kidding


----------



## cutworm (Oct 2, 2010)

I do think something needed to be done and first steps are sometimes painful. I only hope we haven't waited too late.
The last info I saw is that we are #1 in health care costs. About 2.5 times greater than #2. If something isn't done healthcare will be for the wealthy only.
Ted. Did you get signed up? How did it go? Hope things went your way.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

cutworm Good discussion and civil. 
thanks for the complement from us on here its not anything wrong with discussion like for instance me and Rockey talking on this it ok im sure on one thing and as most on here know if everybody is agreeing with you than you are in trouble .


----------



## cdbetterley (Sep 26, 2013)

As one vet to another Ted, Thank You for serving! I agree with posters that say use your benefits brother, you have earned those. As for the issue of affordable heath care act being discussed here I will follow nomercadies example and quit this thread.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

If anyone intends to enroll via the exchange and has a question, PM me, I would be glad to try and help.

Or direct with a carrier for that matter.


----------



## cutworm (Oct 2, 2010)

Eddie,
I've seen discussions head south pretty quickly. Even for something as simple as drawer slides. I enjoy hearing different thoughts and also like hearing from fellow woodworkers in other countries too. Their input adds a lot of value. I have insurance through my company but I am interested in how this plays out. I feel that in a country as great as ours no one should have to worry about getting medical care.


----------



## jeepturner (Oct 3, 2010)

Ted, I am glad you can purchase coverage. As a veteran I know that the VA is there for me. It is not there for my everyday health care needs unless I become without means to take care of it myself. They couldn't do squat for my family. 
I was not in favor of the ACA scheme, I beleive it was a conservative gambit to keep single payer off of the table. I was originally offered up by the Heritage Foundation. That plan from the HF was dismissed by them because they didn't think the threat of universal healthcare was real enough. As if the thought of providing basic health care to our citizenry it threatening somehow.
Now that is is law, I can live with it as a compromise position, if it helps us get out from under the threat of one illness in our family putting everyone in that family into poverty. 
I am happy to support it, even when it's detractors labeled it with the Obamacare label. I find it particularly amusing when those who whole heatedly supported the scheme, when they were afraid of the first ladies plan would provide universal healthcare. I suppose they would have called that Hillarycare.


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

if there is one thing I am happy for

its being a "Canadian"

we don't suffer from this deadlock that seems to cripple your country

no pun intended : ))


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

The only thing worse than deadlock is when both sides think something is a good idea, that is when you really have to watch out.


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

I'm no religious scholar for sure, and the Bible is certainly not recognized as a "scientific" piece of evidence but in my humble readings of it, I cannot understand why a "currency" reads "In God We Trust" when in fact, there is no more "God" in it

your a selfish crowd, fat and out of shape, the perfect example of what Jesus and God deplore, a selfish society of class warfare where even if you don't believe, you are destined by greed to fail at what is right, constantly arguing about who is right, and who is wrong, failing in that very goal, ……to do what is right

My biggest fear.

Your going to bankrupt the world through moral corruption.

I live in a small rural area.

When a mans tractor dies, we all help out and make sure his family is fed. You Republicans could care less about your neighbour, so long as you can feed and get fatter at the cattle trough and you wont stop until you have mud jammed into every wrinkle on you.

There are times when your politics dominate the headlines, like you own the testicles of every human being on this planet with total disregard to everything but your own greed.

Shame on you

what an ugly kettle of fish this topic is yet none of realize how lucky you really are ?

2 cents


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

Life is like a baseball game

the game never changes

only the players


----------



## MarkwithaK (Sep 12, 2009)

The way I understand it is that the ACA does more to benefit the insurance companies than it truly does to help the individual. When all this first started there was a lot of people that jumped up in praise of Obama with the naive notion that this was "free healthcare" and since it had the Fuhrer's name associated with it they wouldn't dare question it. I'm all for getting help and support to those that need but lets be honest with what this thing is. And thanking Obama for this? Really? I would almost guarantee that this bill was written with direct input from the insurance companies on some level because this is who will ultimately benefit from this soon to be fiasco….after all now it's a finable offense NOT to give them your money in the first place.

On a personal level I'm dealing with the insurance company B.S. right now. My back is messed up and my doctor ordered an MRI which the insurance company quickly denied. They required the orthopedic doctor to order it. The Ortho doc does just that and guess what….it was denied. She ordered it again and it was denied for a third time. Now they claim that they want me to go through so many weeks of physical therapy first. This week i will complete the prerequisite amount of therapy and just today my Ortho doc ordered another MRI. The problem is that, from my understanding, it's hard to diagnose my pain from just an x-ray. I have heard three different diagnosis from three separate healthcare type people and the main thing they all agree on is that this would be so much easier with an MRI.

In the meantime I have been unable to work, thankfully I have short term disability benefits to fall back on but that won't last long. My doc made the comment today that if they deny the MRI again the only other option I have is to pay for it out of pocket. Isn't that the reason to have medical insurance in the first place?

My point is that just because you have insurance that doesn't guarantee that you will receive the level of care that you may actually need. As mentioned above, this is NOT a sweeping reform of the healthcare industry but just another way to get hard earned money out of American's pockets and into the insurance companies coffers.


----------



## bullhead1 (Mar 29, 2012)

Moron, please don't stereo type people by their political beliefs. That is a kin to stereo typing people based on ethnic background or religious beliefs. Not all Republicans feed at the cattle trough just as all Democrats don't wait with their hands out for public assistance. I have leaned more to the Republican side my voting tenure. I also live in a rural area and yes I care about my neighbors, rich or poor, Democrats or Republicans. I have pulled them out of the ditch in the winter and my wife has provided meals for those that are sick and lost loved ones.
Am I proud of our country and representatives right now? Hell no! I think our political system is broken by politicians with the same mind set as you. Your "I'm right, your wrong" attitude is the problem that we have with all the extremist politicians. The Tea Party is a prime example. But that does not deserve lumping all Republicans into the same basket or claiming various ethnic or religious groups as evil.


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

chicken is chicken where ever you choose to dine


----------



## bullhead1 (Mar 29, 2012)

Sorry, i'm not going to respond to that. The effort doesn't deserve merit.


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

chicken still tastes like chicken no matter where a man hangs his hat ?










anti anything and everything is a mind set….no one wins


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

http://www.artnet.com/ag/fineartdetail.asp?wid=424409379&gid=0


----------



## jeffski1 (Nov 29, 2008)

I'm with RockyTopScott on this one…The ACA is a huge subsidized tax for lower income people…Healthcare companies and everyone in the middle will still be making $$$,it will not lower cost…Does anyone really think corporate America will take a loss on this?...ACA is law and was upheld by the Supreme Court but how in the hell can our government tax a citizen for not buying a product or service…There's no way a majority of people,or I should say young people will give up their cell phones or not get that new car…It's pay day today and my total deductions for healthcare/401k/life insurance and taxes are roughly $1550.00,Folks this was just for two weeks--taxes alone were $1050.00…My wife pays very close to the same-we are nurses…If anyone thinks we should pay more in taxes to support lower socioeconomic individuals your nuts,and buy the way we are not rich or doing great-we live modesty…I went off topic a bit but all I can say is I GAVE AT THE OFFICE…


----------



## Oldtool (May 27, 2012)

Ted,
You have VA benefits, but don't want to lean on the tax payers. Guess what, there's no free lunch in this world, my health insurance just went up $3,800 a year for me, and another $3,800 for my wife, because of Obamacare. So I guess you are already on the tax payers ticket, and you could have used the VA benefits which are already funded.
You seem to be angry with Republicans, but yet you put your trust in a person who makes the statement: "just pass it, we'll see what's in it later!" That's like saying, "just cross the street, we'll look for traffic from the other side!".
I'm glad you got your health coverage, now I hope I can afford mine.


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

People have gathered here to enjoy each other's love of woodworking, creativity, accomplishments. Discussions like this make me sad. One thing that can bring us all together is being used as a format for tearing each other down.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Someone is NOT getting the message, after voting and *failing 42 TIMES* to reject the ACA. ACA was passed by BOTH houses, signed into LAW by the President, and upheld by the SUPREME COURT.

Now the GOP is STILL refusing the House to vote on the U.S. Budget! Not even allowing a vote, and it would pass!

*Get over it already. It is the LAW OF THE LAND*


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

The Moron said, "You Republicans could care less about your neighbour, so long as you can feed and get fatter at the cattle trough and you wont stop until you have mud jammed into every wrinkle on you."

That is not a very nice, civil, or polite thing to say, especially in a discussion that had been very polite up until now. Eh?


----------



## madts (Dec 30, 2011)

That is not a very nice, civil, or polite thing to say, but unfortunately it is true.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

madts: Read post #116.

HorizontalMike: I don't like ACA, but I'm 100% with you on this one. Innocent people are being hurt in this shutdown. Get over it and let's move on.


----------



## Oldtool (May 27, 2012)

Horizontal kid, if it is the law of the land, why can the president exempt certain groups, those that pushed his agenda?
CharlieM1958, if you want to go to a national park, then you're hurt by the shutdown, and even the lap dog media isn't reporting any catastrophes so far. Maybe what we need is less big government in our lives. $700 hammers and submarine toilet seats, who needs that kind of inefficiency running our affairs?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Oldtool: 800,000 folks out of work due to no fault of their own is what I'm talking about. Now I'm in full agreement with you on having smaller government, and some of those 800,000 jobs could probably be phased out over time, but this shutdown isn't fair to those people.

And those national parks you mentioned…. Not only are potential visitors being hurt (I am/was planning to visit three parks this month myself), but the many hotels, restaurants, and retail shops surrounding those parks are losing revenue every day.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

I personally beleive that high-deductible, low-premium plans are the way to go. 
These plans protect people from the catastrophic injuries and illnesses that can cause financial ruin. But since the first $2-5K is typically not covered by insurance, it gives patients (customers) incentive to shop around for medical providers that offer the best value. 
In contrast-Point of service plans do not encourage patients to takes costs into consideration. In fact, they encourage the 'all-you-can-eat' version of the healthcare mentality. We should stop offering tax incentives for these types of plans, instead offering incentives for HDLP plans. 
Lasik surgery, dental care, and plastic surgery is often NOT covered by insurance. I suppose thats why I'm always seeing advertisements/coupons for these services. They have to cater to the free-market economy and offer the price-conscious public maximum value for their services. If doctors had to actually compete on the free market…...prices would come back down to earth. 
All that said, insurance is the probelm. Having the government offer MORE insurance is not the answer.


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

I haven't signed up for anything yet, mostly because every time I try to gather information the website is overwhelmed with heavy traffic. However, I did sort a few things out and now realize I was under the wrong impression. It is not lower cost insurance… it is subsidies. And looking at it, from what little I've been able to gather so far, the subsidies don't amount to much for me. I'm a bit slow to catch on to these sort of things, but I'm getting there. Biggest problem is when I have time to do my research, it seems everybody else here in Illinois is also doing theirs.

Anyway, like I said, it's not what I thought. ACA does nothing to lower costs… it just mandates everybody to carry insurance and passes the buck from the haves (more or less) to the have-nots. At this point I'm not sure what to make of the whole thing, but it looks like I've got until January to figure it out.

Regarding my VA benefits, I appears I might have mislead some here, that I have issues with using those benefits, which is not the case by any means. The VA hospital and services in my area are top notch, to my limited experience, and I am fully aware that I earned those benefits. My only issue is not being insured. I would much prefer to know fellow tax payers are not paying my share, should anything happen to me. And it appears that ACA still leaves fellow taxpayers flipping part of my bill.

Sorry for not replying to many posts directed to me… I'm really busy and don't have time to read through all the posts here, much less reply to them. I never imagined this topic would pick up so much steam.

To all of you partaking in this civil and much needed discussion, Thank you! Just the few posts I have had time to read have been very informative. I'm checking in when I can, but work comes first and I have a lot of it lately. In fact, if work keeps up the way it's been, I might not need ACA after all. Let's hope


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

Some interesting facts from IRS records. 
States vary widely when it comes to giving rates of its citizens, particularly when viewed based on the political affiliation of the state, and the role of religion in a given region. Overall, Utah, Mississippi and Alabama rank highest in terms of giving, while Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire occupy the lowest ranks.
The most generous city in America is Provo, Utah, where residents typically give away 13.9 percent of their discretionary income.
Of the 10 most generous cities in America, six are in Utah and Idaho.
Of the 10 stingy cities at the bottom of the list, eight are in New England.
* Red states give more, and give more frequently, than blue states.*
The eight states where residents gave the highest share of income to charity voted for John McCain in 2008. The seven lowest ranking states supported Barack Obama.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Ted, I applaud your honesty. ACA is good in some ways, and not so good in others. Regardless of whether one is for or against it, I think it is safe to say that a lot of folks, like you, are going to find out it's not exactly what they thought it was going to be.


----------



## the_other_ken (Apr 3, 2010)

Who would have thought that after lurking 1278 days this would be my first post (and not wood related). I feel that I need to illustrate just how wrong the image some people have of the Canadian heath care system is with some personal examples.

1. My dad was waiting for a hip replacement. Yes, there are some wait lists, it is a fact of life. Non urgent major surgery has wait lists. After about 5 months waiting and 1 month before surgery, they found a little lump in his abdomen. Hmmm, lets do a biopsy. Done within a few days. About another week for the results, positive for cancer but stage 1A. I phoned him the day the results were back and asked what they were going to do. He said he'd already had his first chemo. During the chemo he had a minor stroke due to a blockage in the neck. Bang, he was flown up to Calgary in an air ambulance, had surgery on Christmas Eve and was back home in about 10 days. Next was the radiation. Again in Calgary but they have a hostel at the cancer center. He stayed free, but it cost me $10 a night. Once he was declared cancer free, he was put on the short list for the hip replacement which was done about a month later. btw, he is still cancer free about 8 years later.

2. To the person who said a sprained arm is a 60 day wait. I sprained my ankle and saw a doctor within an hour, had an x-ray to make sure it wasn't broken and back home in less than 3 hours. Of course, if you go to the emergency department at a hospital, you have to wait until all the more urgent stuff is handled. But go to a walk in clinic and you just have to wait your turn. max of a couple of hours depending on how busy it is. They will bump you to the top of waiting list if it is remotely urgent.

3. My achilles tendon was acting up got some meds to help it. It affected my stomach and when I went in for my annual physical, I mentioned it to my doctor. Had an appointment with a specialist, about 10 days wait. Had to have a scope of my stomach, again about a 2 week wait, just a pre-ulcer condition, nothing to worry about. Total time was about a month to get a prescription from my original doctor. Not bad for a non-urgent condition.

You can say what you want about the Canadian system but I wouldn't switch over to a private system for a million dollars. Most Canadians feel this way.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Ted gets it. Nicely said.

If you want to be covered effective 1/1/2014 you need to be done by mid December.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Ted- your findings are apparently not uncommon. Two of my friends are both self-employed and self-insured. They pay ~$500mo for an HMO for their families. They both looked into ACA exchanges and subsidies. Although bot are solidly middle class, they both make too much money to qualify for any sort of significant subsidy. And the premiums…...over $1000 for a comparable plan that they currently pay $500 for. 
Like any social program there are winners and losers. I just feel the ACA doesn't create as many winners as the government claimed it would. And I highly doubt that droves of healthy, young people will pour into the system to offset the costs of the old and sickly.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

For a family of 4 the income limit to receive a subsidy is currently $92,200.


----------



## darinS (Jul 20, 2010)

I would also like to thank Ted for his last statements. It does seem like a way to pass on the cost of insurance onto the "haves". Listening to the radio (NPR for those wondering. I like trying to listen to opinions that differ from mine) and their statements went something like this:

For a family of 3 making $45,000 (which according to them puts this family at 245% above poverty if I remember correctly) their insurance cost would be $3,300 a year AFTER all the subsidies. Please keep in mind that these subsidies will be TAXABLE and can possibly start moving people into higher tax brackets.

I was curious and tried looking at what it would cost for myself, my wife, and my son. The lowest bid I found was for about $700 a month. Is this affordable? To some, maybe. To me, not really.

I personally like how the ACA created all these new jobs (working for the IRS, NOT in the healthcare field).

Watch out people. Next thing you know, the government will be telling you that everyone now needs to purchase a car so they can get to their health provider. If you don't have a car, you will pay a fine for that as well. Remember, you heard it here first.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Yep. Sounds about right. $90K is middle class in this area. And the subsidy they were offered was ~$450yr. Not significant considering their premiums will be $12Kyr.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Ted I believe if you have VA benefits then you are exempt from the individual mandate to purchase insurance since you would already be enrolled in a "minimum essential coverage" plan.

Of course you can purchase a plan if you like.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Tedstor, you friends may be better off going direct to an insurance company and forgoing the subsidy and purchasing a high deductible plan and establishing an HSA account.

I am sure they have a CPA that could give them guidance.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Rocky- thats exactly what they do. They are currently paying $500mo for Kaiser HMO. If they go through the exchange…....they pay twice that for comparable coverage. 
That said, I don't see how these exchanges will save anyone a dime. The scheme was based on healthy people (of means) buying plans through the exchanges, and offsetting the costs for the sickly. But if healthy people with money can already get a better deal on the private market…..why would they bother with the exchanges?
Its still early in the game, and hopefully I'm wrong…....but the house of cards is looking shakey.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

You ain't wrong Tedstor.


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

In case we didn't have enough to worry about check out these comments made by the creator of McAfee anti-virus software. 
"For example, anybody can put up a web page and claim to be a broker for this system. There is no central place where I can go and say, OK, here are all the legitimate brokers, the examiners for all of the states, and pick and choose one. 
Instead, any hacker can put a website up, make it look extremely competitive, and because of the nature of the system - this is health care, after all - they can ask you the most intimate questions, and you're freely going to answer them. What's my Social Security number? My birth date? … 
Here's the problem. It's not something software can solve. I mean, what idiot put this system out there and did not create a central depository? There should be one website, run by the government, you go to that website and then you can click on all of the agencies. This is insane. 
So, I will predict that the loss of income for the millions of Americans who are going to lose their identities - I mean, you can imagine some retired lady in Utah, who's $75,000 dollars in the bank, saving her whole life - having it wiped out one day because she signed up for ObamaCare. And believe me, this is going to happen millions of times. This is a hacker's wet dream. I cannot believe that they did this. …"


----------



## Oldtool (May 27, 2012)

Well gentlemen, having read through this string, I do believe there are two sides to this coin, and never the two will see each others view. However I also see a trend in thoughts, that being: if you want to take anything at all, and scerw it up beyond any feasibe recognition, let the government run it.
Remember this: from 1776 to 1976 the United States grew from a fledgling nation to the most powerful nation on the planet, (faster than any power or nation ever throughout history) all the while the government started with little to no involvement, to gradually gain more involvement to the point we are in now,and from what I read here, things are going downhill - Fast!


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

The start of this really needs delayed, too few people know anything about the ACA at all and the infrastructures set up are way to immature to do the job they are supposed to do.

In 6 months I can see alot of stories surfacing about people that were scammed out of everything they had in their bank accounts. If people fall for the old Nigerian prince wanting help to get 10 million of his own money they will surely fall for an Obamacare scam.


----------



## TedW (May 6, 2012)

So Pat, you're telling me the Nigerian prince is pulling a scam? Damn… and I was gonna marry his daughter!

Rocky, sure enough I got a letter today from the VA. I'm covered.

theotherken, 1 post in 1279 days… I think you set a new record. Thanks for sharing your insight. I gotta say that is one heck of a system.

Michael, now that's just plain scary. I do a bit of web dabbling myself and I know I can set up a very convincing scam site in a few hours. No doubt there are already plenty of ACA scams already in full swing.

Well, too bad about the Nigerian prince. He was going to make me rich and his daughter was going to bear my children. Oh well.


----------



## MarkwithaK (Sep 12, 2009)

Ted I'm happy to hear that you saw through all the hype surrounding this issue. Unfortunately not everyone that was in full support of this mess at the beginning has done their due diligence and still see it as "cheap healthcare".


----------



## FatherHooligan (Mar 27, 2008)

Driving from home to Winnipeg a couple of days back felt massive chest pain pulled up to a emerg in the town I was passing was immediately taken in triaged and they started running a whack of tests. Determined it was nothing major patted me on the head and sent me on my way. No rationing of care, no wait, first class treatment and friendly compassionate providers… didn't ask me for my credit card or cheque book. In fact because all my records are centrally stored they could immediately bring up my entire and extensive medical history. The guy over in the next bed evidently (guessing here because I don't know him) economically disadvantaged (that's Canadian for poorer than dirt) was receiving the same level of compassion and care. I guess because both of us were paying exactly the same…a percentage of our tax dollars. I am almost certain my medical history would have bankrupted my family many times over in the US here it only mattered so that the correct care could be provided. I hear people declare that our system 'rations' care…that night both the dirt poor guy and myself received comparable care… from what I am reading here I would have been worse off than the poor guy in the US because the state/hospital would have paid his bill but I would have been stuck directly with the cost of the hospital stay and it would seem that my medical history would have realistically precluded me from obtaining insurance… it beggars the imagination! Previous posts identify the health care systems in Europe…the NHS in the United Kingdom and the healthcare system in France appear to be incredibly health care oriented. Now they are far more mature cultures than ours on this side of the ocean so perhaps they've a more mature understanding of what makes a civilized country work. It seems they realize that economics is not the measure of success as a society but that a good economy allows them to make adult quality of life decisions for all their citizens. I am very grateful that Tommy Douglas stuck to his guns and followed the European maturity and not the opportunistic nature of the new world. I am not saying their systems are perfect, I'm just saying if I had to be sick I have a pretty good idea where I would want to live. I hope the US citizens can shake some sense into all of their politicians and bureaucrats so they remember they are to serve all the citizens not just a select section.


----------



## bullhead1 (Mar 29, 2012)

After reading Mark's and other north of the border friend's posts, I am beginning to think of migrating north instead of south is not such a bad idea. I live I South Dakota and went to graduate school in Grand Forks, ND. Our winters can sometimes be fairly mild or mostly painfully brutal. Yes Mark, I wish we could shake some sense into are politicians and turn the ship around. Unfortunately, to turn a ship around with broken steering and inept captains at wheel is extremely difficult. I am afraid the US leadership has gotten so arrogant that it believes it has to be the world police officers and saviors of the poor and deprived. I am not advocating that we neglect the needy and believe they need a safety net. I think right now a majority of the general public doesn't know if Obamacare is good or bad, will work or not. There are now many that can get some form of coverage that could not before. Is it the right direction to our health care problem? I don't know. Will it solve the rising cost of health care costs? I highly doubt it. I say the boulder has already been pushed off the top of the mountain and its too big to stop, but don't blow up the mountain by this insanity in Washington to try to stop it. I say let it move forward, let it ride it's course, modify it, go to a socialized system or whatever. All I know is I believe the current health care delivery, cost and coverage system is in need of change.

By the way Mark, what are the winters like in Winnipeg? Or would Calgary be better?


----------



## FatherHooligan (Mar 27, 2008)

The winters are fantastic, my favourite time of year! Calgary is great, and you can't beat being so close to the Rockies. Can't beat the fishing in our 100,00 lakes though. Ice fishing and scoring pails of delicious perch and walleye in jig time make the winters seem all too short. Housing prices are the lowest in the country in Winnipeg, I'm in Brandon and houses are a bit more expensive here. The winters have been too mild for my tastes lately, but I guess that has its upsides too.

I think it was your Thomas Jefferson ( one of your early prime ministers as I recall) that felt your country should undergo a 'revolution' at least once a generation, I suspect he held that belief precisely so you'd not find yourselves in the situation you now have. If I am not mistaken that is why your constitution protects the right to bear arms against your government. Not that I am advocating armed revolution, I am just recalling my limited understanding of your country's history.

I was astounded to learn that your federal government has done this brinksmanship shutdown stuff 17 times already in your past! How do your citizens tolerate your politicians doing that? Can't rational individuals run for office? I understand that this type of shutdown occurred once in our Commonwealth (in Australia if I remember the article correctly) and thus resulted in the Governor - General dissolving parliament and dismissal of the country's prime minister. It hasn't happened since. What do your politicians say when they are taken to task by their local ridings? We've an appointed senate here that acts as a house of "sober second thought" and is intended to prevent such destructive partisanship from crippling effective governance. Does your parliament not have similar safe guards in place? Do you have a office akin to our governors general? I gather your president is somewhat parallel with our monarch' Queen Elizabeth. I have to admit that a friend of mine tried to explain your electoral colleges and the nomination/election process and I could not follow the logic of their rolls and structures. I watch your interminable elections and am amazed that it takes one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world seemingly forever to make inconsequential shuffles in the elected officials. Is t true judges and sheriffs are elected? If I recall several years back we'd actually started our election about the same time as a federal election in your country and we'd managed to elect and then have a non-confidence vote and complete another election campaign and election cycle before you first election was finished. The length of time those parties spend not running the country but campaigning astounds me. I only vaguely understand our campaign funding rules, I have found your funding rules completely opaque to my understanding and am amazed that corruption of the electoral process by special interest groups doesn't just cripple your election system.

I have to admit large gaps in my understanding of the American political culture and certainly hope I've not offended anyone by something I've said here as insulting anyone is not my intent.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Mark

Both your post were excellent. Nothing in there that I found offensive.

In my view the politicians in this country are not trying to run it, there trying to take it over. Most of them are in it for themselves and couldn't care less what the people want .

On the other side of the coin the people keep re-electing the Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's and many of the same corrupt people over and over again. So I guess we get what we deserve. They (the politicians ) keep offering the free bees and handouts and we keep taking them.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

AlaskaGuy

I believe it is mostly name recognition, they sell their souls to get a major party to support them then once they get their name out there and a foot in the door they are as hard to get rid of as a vaccum cleaner salesman.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Pat never heard it put that way but you may be right ,we have the best the politicians that money can buy


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Mark, 
I have always highly regarded Canada as a close ally and friend of the US. I'm sure its healthcare and other systems serve you quite well.
But remember….Canada has 1/10th the population of the US. Its population isn't nearly as diverse, and is the population is highly concentrated along its southern border. 
By contrtast, the US is a country with a population of 335 million. Our greater numbers of people, with different religious and ethnic backgrounds make social and economic consesnsus harder to reach. And socialized healthcare would be logistically MUCH harder to (effectively) deliver given the larger geographic area that our population inhabits. Not to say it can't be done…....but its no small task either. 
Just something to consider when people say "why not just copy Canada/Europe/Wherever???". As far as I know, none of the "big" countries have a healthcare system to be envied. I think these wonderful social programs that Canadians and Europeans love are just easier to dole out to a small(er) population.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

AlaskaGuy i have to agree with ya,but you lean toward it being their fault its our fault for putting them in there .its like the old saying be careful of pointing a finger because your other three or pointing at you.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Tedstor we could do the same here as other countrys on health care ,they all have there problems with them. but yes Canada is a great country and a very good neighbor


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

eddie

I said "On the other side of the coin the people keep re-electing the Harry Reid's, Nancy Pelosi's and many of the same corrupt people over and over again".

That means I'm blaming us for keepin them in office.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

*Sorry AlaskaGuy* you are right ,i scan thur so much readings that sometime i miss a lot of points but you are right


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Mark, don't worry… no one in the U.S. really understands the electoral college either! 

As for the Canadian health care system, I only know what I hear from my Canadian acquaintances. The negative comment I hear a lot is that it's great for emergency care, but the waiting periods are excessive when it comes to things like seeing a specialist for a non-life-threatening condition, getting an MRI, or having non-emergency surgery. But I'm guessing that probably varies somewhat according to where you live. Specifically, I've heard that about the Toronto and Edmonton areas.


----------



## fatandy2003 (Apr 4, 2012)

Tedster, great point. Imagine if all of Europe was on the SAME healthcare system, run by the same central controlling government. How would that work? Living in Italy right now, I guarantee it would not work (Finland same as Romania same as Ireland same as Greece… well you get the point). BUT if you cut the federal taxes and allowed the States to tax their own populations and discuss whether their State need universal State healthcare… well, that would kinda be like how Europe makes it work now (or in Italy's case, DOESN'T make it work and just hemorrhage money).

Charlie and Mark, the Electoral College was developed before the idea of universal suffrage. The EC was supposed to have a feel for what their state's needs were and voted on the President as a small group of educated men… Doesn't really make sense in today's election format.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

The electorial college also had a few other reasons behind its being. It would have taken forever for results to get from the southernmost state and northern most state to the capital, it was also a compromise that allowed the will of the smaller states to not be over run by the will of the larger states. Remember back then the founders feared a strong centralized government and some even wanted the states to be entirely independant, much like Europes many smaller countries.

A little bit of trivia, back then US Senators were not directly elected by the people either but by the govenor of the states. The system closely followed the UK's house of Lords/hous of commons system.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Thought that it was a funny coincidence - - the HHS number for Obamacare is 1-800-F-You


----------



## FatherHooligan (Mar 27, 2008)

Tedstor you make some interesting points. Believe me I understand the difficulties of delivering medical aid to a small population over a huge area. I work for a command and control centre for prehospital care. We have about 1500 field personnel, services about 700 000 people over a quarter of million square miles. Belive me I get it 

You mention the disparity between our populations, I am not certain of the ratios of incoming immagrants to total population but I think Canada accepts a proportionally higher number of individuals from other countries which actually makes it easier for these new views to 'dilute' the traditional views as in a small population small additions have a dissproportionalte affect on the means or averages etc.

Irrrespective of of the numbers which, respectfully, I belive are a bit of a red herring. An individual or a society can always find statistics or trends or reasons for NOT doing something it takes an enormous amount of commitment, vision and time to deviate from the present course onto a perhaps preferred but somewhat unknown course. Tommy Douglas (known here as the father of modern healthcare) endured enourmous backlash against the 'red' or communist idea of socialized medicine but he did it anyway. With his shepherding and the good will of many Canadians universal healthcare became not only the law of the land but one of my countries defining characteristics.

You identify that none of the 'big countries' have centralized health care and mention many of the European countries that have made some very ineffective economic and political choices and are now suffering from the lack of options they have because of the state of their economies. To some degree it is no different than an individual anywhere whom finances a lifestyle beyond their earning capacity and when the desire to move further upscale is halted by their poor financial state the reality of the poor choices comes crashing down on them. Having a vibrant economic climate and lots of resources shuld not be the aim of a society but rather that the society should value the stability that economic security provides them so they can make 'adult' societal choices. I use adult not in a deragatory way for those states who are currently in trouble, but as a shorthand for the mature long term planning that an adult should be able to do as compared to a passionate but inexperienced choices of youth.

Have to leave it here I am being called away.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Here is a "did you know" thing.

In the early 1990s (can't remember exact year), the IRS lost 6 Billion dollars of taxpayer money - no idea where it went. At that time Ronald Reagan took the purchasing ability away from the IRS and let the ARMY handle ALL of the procurement for the IRS.

Now they are going to manage your healthcare-- ?


----------



## Sumdume (Aug 22, 2010)

Ted, I appreciate you opening this discussion. I tried to read all the messages. I am very interested in knowing what the TOTAL annual cost of the insurance would be. I do not mean to get personal but can you post the premiums you were quoted and what the out of pocket cost were for the insurance you were interested in. I understand if you do not wish to post that information.


----------



## Woodbum (Jan 3, 2010)

Ted: Thank you for your service and for this post. The response that you got was highly predictable but unusually civil. The ACA is a topic for much discussion. I also support the fact that it puts affordable health care within the grasp of so many more people that really need it. I have pretty good health coverage through my employer; but I am one of the lucky ones. The opposition have hung the OBAMACARE moniker on this piece of legislation intending it to be an insult. Will it still be called Obamacare in 10-15 years when the country has embraced it and the program actually works? I think not. Change is hard, and the change for affordable health care for some reason in this country has been met with fierce opposition for years. My thanks to those who had the courage to put forth this legislation, and then to defend it against all opposition. I may never need to use the benefits offered under the ACA, but it is good to know that this safety net backup health insurance plan is there in the event that my job would end and I would need a bridge of coverage in the short time left before I am eligible for Medicare. Thank you also for having the balls to put forth such a controversial subject for discussion, even though I am a staunch believer in keeping this site for woodworking threads only. Hope things work out fot the best for you.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

While I am against the ACA because I do not believe that it actually addresses health care I am a believer in if you are going to do something then you need to do it right and I think the ACA is so far from right it is pathetic.

The vouchers cover bronze level plans from what I understand, with the bronze level plan you are still responsible for 40% of the total payment. If someone has trouble affording insurance to begin with, how are they going to afford 40% of the bill for a hospital visit? I do think people should have to pay something to keep them from abusing the "free stuff" but 40%?

I have what is comparable to a gold level plan (thought it was silver before but its gold) and a kidney stone ended up costing me about $1200 out of pocket last year, again with a gold level equivalent plan.


----------



## Biff (Nov 19, 2012)

Check with us after you've seen your premiums. Thanks to the President, I will now be paying a MINIMUM of 15% more. Yes, I can pay less…if I want to dump the doctor I've seen since I was 14 years old!


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

*Here is a "did you know" thing.

In the early 1990s (can't remember exact year), the IRS lost 6 Billion dollars of taxpayer money - no idea where it went. At that time Ronald Reagan took the purchasing ability away from the IRS and let the ARMY handle ALL of the procurement for the IRS.

Now they are going to manage your healthcare-- ?*

Reagan hadn't been president since 1988 btw.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Ok maybe it was after Uncle Ronny or in the late '80s, It was a busy time for me. The years kind of went together. I do know that when I sold computer equipment to the IRS around that time, my IRS procurement officer sent me to the Army.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Anyone that is all for the Affordable Care Act care to comment on post #168? I would really like someone that is all for it to give me their thoughts.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Mike- GOP votors are too busy working and caring for their families. they don't have time to hack computers. ;0 I think typical government incompetence is the more likely culprit.

Pat- There is no argument to reply with. The people who will be forced to buy insurance will gain little/nothing, and in fact, will simply lose a portion of their income. Hospitals, pharma, and insurance companies win. Everyone else- lose. Someone that can't afford a $300mo premium (without a subsidy),won't be able to afford a $1,500 out-of-pocket bill either. 
And i wonder what the lapse rate among the ACA exchange customers will be?? I'm guessing that if one million sign-up….......500K lapse within a year. Probably more. 
I sincerly hope I'm wrong and ACA is an unbelieveable success. But the whole scheme depends on the average American schmuck to do the "right" thing and MAINTAIN an insurance policy. I don't see it happening. I'm guessing the average, healthy, American would drop their health insurance plan LONG before they drop their smartphone plan or $150 cable package.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Tedstor - got to disagree with you.

By the time the fed is done with all of the regulations and paperwork that they will incorporate into this, insurance companies and all of the medical industries' overheads will skyrocket. This whole this whole thing is just starting out. When you start out with a web page that cost well over $300 million and fails as bad as it does - hold on, its going to be interesting.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

OK- so in other words….. no one wins. You might be right.


----------



## b2rtch (Jan 20, 2010)

Ted, I have the best insurance thought my job but I fully agree with you and I am glad that you finally get an insurance. I believe that it is obscene that in our country so much is spent for useless and immoral wars and so little for the people who pay the taxes.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

*Pat- There is no argument to reply with. *

I know, very few will ever admit they were wrong though. Most (and I include both sides) people will just resort to name calling, stomping their feet, and bringing up irrelevant stuff.


I'm guessing the average, healthy, American would drop their health insurance plan LONG before they drop their smartphone plan or $150 cable package.**

You are damn straight, I keep hearing about poor and the income disparity gap widening but look at what poor people had in 1950 vs what they have today. Air conditioning, multiple cars, expensive smart phone data plans, flat screen TVs, free food. My dad was what they would call poor back then (born 1950), he had to collect dandelion greens for dinner all the time. Back then you did what you had to do to survive, today if you starve it's your own fault.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Pat, I will comment since I have experience implementing ACA.

What you are describing is the "actuarial value" of a plan or the AV for short. This value provides an "average" value of the plan based on a myriad of market basket services. For the Bronze plan that is a minimum of 60% (+/- 2%).

All of the plans cover preventive service at 100% which are those described by the US Preventive Service Task Force (Google USPSTF). These are part of "Essential Benefits".

The plan could still be a Bronze plan and have a $25 copay for primary care services done in an office setting.

Someone would only pay 40% of all cost if they used all of the market basket of services, which is unlikely.

The Metallic tiers and associated AVs for each plan are really there to describe the relative value of one plan to another and also are used to determine which plans members are eligible for based on where they fall within the Federal Poverty guidelines and hence the applicable subsidy they are eligible for as well.

It is a very complex issue to say the least.

I am not advocating one way or another on your post, just trying to clear up the discussion with some facts.

I personally believe Obamacare will eventually crater under its own weight because is was not designed well at all.

It will NEVER reduce the cost of insurance or health care services. Not going to happen.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

The funny thing is that the far Right wants the ACA to fail, yet the far Right fails to understand that if/when the ACA fails America will NOT be going back to the same-old same-old. That time has passed.

The only way forward will be the eventual implementation of a Single-Payer Health Care System. Mark my word as THAT will come to pass in this country, like it or not.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

I think you're right Mike. And to be honest, I have always opposed the ACA for two reasons:
- I see it as a half-measure and a colossal waste of time and money. If the fedgov is going to take over healthcare…...then they should take over the WHOLE enchilada. This insurance scam is just that- a scam.

-I don't think the fedgov has the money or constitutional power to effectively run a national healthcare system. A lot will have to change before they do. And until then, we'll be spinning our wheels and flushing BILLIONS of dollars down the toilet.

Once this rickety system collapses (and it will), there will be no turning back. At that point, too many people will be sucking from that teat, and the only option will be full-fledged nationalization. Maybe that will be a good thing? Probably good for some…..bad for others.


----------



## b2rtch (Jan 20, 2010)

What is "Single-Payer Health Care System"?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Bert, Medicare would be an example of a single-payer system in most people's lexicon.

It is really a single "funded" program with many payers since we have Medicare Advantage programs.

There is confusion about what "payer" really means.

What is implied with a "single -payer" system is that one entity, the federal government would make and enforce all the rules.


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

*The only way forward will be the eventual implementation of a Single-Payer Health Care System.*
Mike, You are probably correct. In my opinion a single payer plan was the intention and goal of this administration all along.

I doubt you ever listen to Rush Limbaugh or other similar talking heads, but many of them predicted that single payer was the goal of this administration as far back as 5 years ago.

And really, if you want to have socialized medicine, the route we went down with ACA was probably the most expensive and difficult way we could have gone about doing it. It was/is bound to fail. It will collapse under its own weight.


----------



## b2rtch (Jan 20, 2010)

Thanks Scott


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Having worked around the fed for a long time, they will see ACA - not as a failure but as an opportunity to control all of your everything. You will be left with 10-15% of your pay and they will take care of your food, medical, taxes, housing, jobs, and you will retire when they tell you - for about five years until you come down with an incurable disease - or prescribe a blood pressure medication or cholesterol medication that kills you - oh wait!

They do that now, unemployment, section 8 housing, the medications, taxes, social security and Medicare, food stamps and welfare - just to name a few. We are not all that far from it.

Pretty soon we will not be able to buy tools without a government exception - because they are sharp and we could cut ourselves - and that will raise our health care expense - and as you know, they have to protect us from ourselves (and save money). The StopSaw will prove their case for them. Buying an oil based finish is difficult enough.

This is the mentality that they are already using on us and we are voting them in and lapping it up like flies to honey.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I just hope we don't start seeing PSA's like this one


----------



## SCOTSMAN (Aug 1, 2008)

You guys in the usa have a vey greedy health system whats the point of working all your life and having to sell everything you own to keep well in times of need ? I currently and all my life have paid generously towards the best system in the world our national health where we get healthcare at any expense with no questions asked and no money to pay seems some of you confuse obamas plan with socialism/comunism LOL .Healthcare free at point for all is a human right IMHO anmd also MOST here and not a waste of money. I have paid as most here have for others all my life while in business and don't regret one penny paid socialism is not comunism we have a wonderful system here. I am not sure your greedy health system will ever accept free care for the needy but starngely enough you the same people don't mind being ripped off big time with your crazy unsustainable weapons policy which in terms of cost is rediculous you are in a state now you spend so much on weapons you run out of money when it comes to using them and, need to borrow from the Chinese when you get involved in illegal wars with Iraq for example we also spend too much on weapons crazy or what ? Please consider this spend your money wisely at home on your own people and forget policing the world healthcare is a fraction of warcare.Stop the jealous hatred of the poor in your country thats a mad kind of greed which brings you nothing but unhappiness at the end of the day.end of rant. Call me all the names you want Alistair


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The PSA's are already out there





Alistair - - it is all about where the costs really are.

You do not and NEVER have had FREE healthcare.

I pay 455/month to insure my family of 5… so less than 100dollars per person per month.
I have to pay 500 dollars out of pocket each year - then only 10% of the bill.

The plan throughout the UK and most of Europe - is directly taken from your pay.

I don't think I am paying MORE for my healthcare than you are in Scotland.
Just that you have 100% paid in taxes up front, and I pay some as a premium (each check just like taxes) then a copay at the doctors office. I would suspect that even after paying Social Security, medicare, and my personal health insurance, + federal and State taxes, I take home 58% of my pay.

Had to get my oldest (14) a sports physical exam for swimming, my Copay, was $ 7.92. Hardly an oppressive sum.

The poor are and have been covered 100% since the mid 1960's under medicaid.
Seniors and pensioners under Medicare.

There is not a hatred of the poor, nor are people left to die in the streets.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Scotsman: "...You guys in the USA have a very greedy health system whats the point of working all your life and having to sell everything you own to keep well in times of need ?..."*

Scotsman,
We just have those that revel in spreading fear. Nothing more. Nothing less.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Scot- No one dies in this country from treatable ailments. Our gutters aren't lined with the bodies of people that needed an apendectomy- and didn't get one. One way or another, if someone needs treatment, if someone wants treatment, they'll get the treatment. Oh- I'm sure someone can drum-up a story about some diabetic that died because the local health department wouldn't drive their 400lb ass to a hospital that was 2 miles away. We are a country of 330mm, so exceptional cases are out there. But in 99.99% of cases, folks get what they need, regardless of their ability to pay. 
We Americans are just quibbling over HOW it gets paid for. In the end…..SOMEONE pays. 
You make several good points though. We should start staying out of other people's wars. Maybe we should have sat out WW1 and WW2  j/k


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

The Health Insurance Policy Portability Act of 1996 was a good step in the right direction. It closed a lot of loopholes for people that insurance companies were using to screw people out of coverage. I personally got loopholed in 1989 to the tune of $147K.

The shortfall of HIPPA is that is didn't extend to individual policies, only group policies.
I changed my job 3 months ago and was denied individual coverage due to my pre-existing conditions-even though I've been with BCBSAZ for years. My only option was to purchase a HIPPA policy to the tune of $1273.00 per month premiums. This, with a $2000 deductable and 70% coverage after that.

With the ACA, the insurers will no longer be able to deny indivdual policies. An individual can buy the same policy someone in a group can. The equivelant to my current $1273 per month policy, come January 2014, will now cost me $278.00 (No subsidy to get that price either, since I earn well above the minimum $'s)

I don't like government mandates, but the insurance industry is GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY. And, if they can screw you out of a buck, they will add that buck to their Tahiti-party slush fund in a heart beat.

ACA may not work in the long run, but hopefully, whatever replaces it will work nicely.


----------



## NaFianna (Feb 11, 2010)

I do not live in the USA, but there are two things most people world wide know about about the Health Care system there.

1. If you are in USA on holidays DO NOT GET SICK, it may be the last time you ever go on holidays.
2. Every health care professional in the world considers working in the USA, 'cos that's where the big money is.

Is this true?


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*"An individual can buy the same policy someone in a group can."*

DS, this is not true. One item reported by the press and politicians that is just false.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

HorizontalMike *post 180 * i think has hit the nail on the head ,it not a good plan ,it s riddled with hole that dose nothing to reign in cost ,not yet but it will and the public option single payer option is what should of been done to start with .just a thought i dont care for the ACA as it is but could evolve into something ,at least it was brought out in the front now ,and has to be dealt with


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

@eddie,
If you stop to think about it, there is/was no way that a "Single-Payer" system could ever be offered up from the beginning. Too many crony-capitalists clamoring for profits.

FWIW, "Greed" is a terminal illness.


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

Rocky, while technically you are correct, I will be buying an Individual Policy and NOT a Group policy, The costs and benifits are very similar. The price is definately NOT going to be 5 times the group rate.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I am curious.

Not asking from a political perspective but from an economic / operational aspect, what issues/concerns/problems does everyone think a single payer system will solve ?

How would it lower cost? Improve access? Increase health outcomes?

I think there is a misconception and preconceived notion about a single payer system.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

HorizontalMike yes i knew it would not make it thur on the start ,they did have it in the bill at first but was taken out thats when i knew it would not be such a good bill but its on the front burner now ,


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

People are under the illusion (delusion) that a single-payer system in the US, will work as well as it does in these other (much less populated) countries. 
They haven't thought about the operational/economic properties of the issue. They just want to be able to walk into a healthcare providers office whenever they want, get 'first-class' treatment, and walk away without a bill. The particulars of the issue (like who IS paying the bill) aren't their concern.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

hey RockyTopScott , no misconception and preconceived notion on single payer plan here with me ,just it wasnt working out be fore this bill was passed it was out of control at least its something that has got to be delth with now when as before it wasnt


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

If it was not working before the bill, as you say Eddie, how will it be better now?

What elements made it out of control? How should they be changed?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

RockyTopScott money or should say the love of it by some ,now we all have our hand in the cookie jar


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The exchange of money from one source to another will not reduce cost, improve health access or improve health status or outcomes.

The quality of care will not get better merely via a financial shell game.

What and how will things get better by centralizing the money? How will it work?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

you think it was all good the healt care industry, drug industry and insurance industry ,but wait now these are people that we are talking about now at least thats what the highest court says ,so maybe they are resposiable enought to manage thing on there own ,i mean they have a past record to prove that 
i see you changed your name i liked the other one better


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

You referring to me? I have always had the same name on LJs. RockyTopScott. No other name.

How would a single payer change the cost and quality of healthcare?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

yes i was referring to you,come on what ever you name is , sorry i did have you mixed up with this other one from Tenn.love that state beautiful there good folks but you can do better than that ''How would a single payer change the cost and quality of healthcare?''


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Eddie, cost and quality determine value to most folks. I presume (maybe incorrectly) those that advocate a single payer system believe it will be better and / or create value for all.

I am asking how so? What dynamics will create more value than what we have now?

I'm glad your experience in Tennessee has been positive. Home sweet home to me.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

@eddie, I think he has always been Scott T. Moore, though his claims to live in Tennessee are different than the past. Maybe THAT is what you are remembering?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Praying for you Mr. Howell.


----------



## TravisH (Feb 6, 2013)

All I know is I will continue to have pay more for others as I was "privileged" to choose a school I could afford. I picked a diverse curriculum and used electives to get experience and diversify my ability to find work if needed. I worked to pay of my student loan debts during college and within 3 years of graduating. We waited to purchase a house we could afford even though lending institutions were more than willing to give us 3x what we borrowed. I have always contributed to 401k as much as I could, started a Roth during college, and tried my best to do without now to enhance my future. I bought and paid for all my cars, waited to have children till we could afford it. I try to maintain an acceptable weight, diet, exercise, etc… and in return will be forced to support an ever growing population of moochers that complain they aren't being given a fair shake in life as they buy their lottery tickets, have babies, pursued little education or flocked to worthless degrees, and consistently well just suck at making informed responsible decisions. Yes there are examples of people I feel compassionate for just so many when you start to follow their life decisions from early on you realize that they "worked" to get in such a pickle.

Best part government wins no matter what… I keep doing what I can and they keep taking or I break and join the crowd with my handout for "them" to support.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Never give in Travis. Things usually are at their worst right before they get better.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

no my mistake it was some one and all i remember was he was from tenn , RockyTopScott cost will be there , it will cost some nothung because they are poor ,not by any fault of there own ,thats a fact there are poor and some work out of it some work as hard and dont .we will have to furnish them health care at cost to us .i dont have a problem with that ,if it cost me some thats ok ,as far as cuting the cost some of it is going to have to regulated they cant do it to them selfs


----------



## TravisH (Feb 6, 2013)

It was clear long ago that I am an ant in this grasshopper dominated country. I will never give in just hate the trend so blatantly obvious since I started paying attention to things 20 something years ago.

I really have no problems with trying to get people set on the right course in life or helping someone out in the time of need. My issue is those that have no ability to ever stay that course. I have family and friends that fall into this category. They have made decisions to pursue life styles (small niche farming, artist, jump from job to job always searching for happiness, etc…) that will not and can not ever give them stable income, insurance, or retirement benefits. They just live in the moment and selected this life style. They have the ability to acquire frivolous things, drink fine wine, take trips, but don't care about seeing to future needs or what ifs. Save 500 bucks why invest it or save as getting something disposable now satisfies a current want. This is fine but no one should ever have to foot the bill for the way they have decided to live let them reap what they have sown.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

TravisH i worked for 32 years for one company had several other job before that i have always worked for a living ,ive seen people that worked and lose it all and end up homeless ..seen some so broken from life they are homeless are at the best just getting by, i know people that work two jobs and are still poor ,i was blessed to have a good job and make a fair wage , i never wanted to be wealthy or desired it , its nothing wrong with it comes from hard work and living right ,never seen a lazy person wealthy for any lenght of time that lasted, and im am considered wealthy to these and as i compare our lifes i am ,so if it cost me some to cover there s thats fine ,no the math aint going to show as much on the bottem line of their profit 
sheet but it will mine .


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

My biggest gripe with the ACA are the penalties if you don't sign up as I think it should have been a tax break for individuals who do sign up; the lower the income the higher the tax break as they are the ones that need both the most.

I believe that this was originally suggested by Senator John McCain!
Does that sound too liberal or just plain common sense!


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

oldnovice I think its a lot of work to be done on this ACA before its all said and done ,theres a lot thats wrong with it ,Senator Mc Cain may be right ,


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

It is a good idea, except lower income people don't pay very much in taxes to begin with.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

eddie

I know people that have worked their whole lives too and by all means should be very well to do but have made such poor decisions in life they are broke.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Pat, I do not agree with your inference that the poor are poor due to their level of intelligence. That is way too simplistic to make that assumption, IMO.


----------



## SCOTSMAN (Aug 1, 2008)

I someone in the usa gets say cancer and is retired I have been told they may have to sell thir homes to pay bnfor an operation or treatment that's sad in my book. Also I never said we don't pay ! I repeat that I said I paid in taxes fopr others for many years and don't regret the system we have anyway what I say is we don't have to pay at SOURCE for treatment no matter what it costs. We are uinder great pressure from illegal and health migrants who never paid a penny coming here and getting free treatment many of them staying with eight nine and more children with more than one wife etc etc they are making sometimes thousands weekly on childrens and unemployment benefits it sickens me.I don't mind paying for our own who have contributed to the system all their lives but not new pennieless incomers who have never paid a cent towards UK.I also added that if you didn't spend such a large portion of your GDP on weapons crazily then you could have the best healthcare system in the world and then some.MY 2 cents.Alistair


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Alistair - I do not know your heath care system - it could be the greatest or less than that, don't know and that is not the issue - in my mind.

My gripes

The taxing authority now takes care of taxes AND health - not a good thing.

The way it was rammed down our throats - the people that voted on it had not read it and discussed it openly.

The concept of pass it now and fix it later rarely works and never works well.

The way it has been implemented - we have been paying for it for several years - in advance, and before it is in service has already cost more than twice of what was projected. So, in fact, we are paying for something for 10 years, using it for 6, before going into full swing costs twice as much as originally thought - and this is going to work. It is bankrupt before starting.

And finally - costs the individuals much more for less services - unless you are broke, then it doesn't cost you anything. To summarize, if you actually make a living and are responsible and you use it, it will make you broke, if you don't, you get fined and don't have heath care.

This is such a great plan, I can hardly wait to see how this unfolds. But have no fear, there will be changes and they will be just as well thought out. The people in power do not have the best interests of the people in mind as you might think and they profess, it is power - or it would have been done entirely differently.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Pat i know people that have had wealth and was foolish with it and lost it ,and know people that are lazy and play the system for a free ride too.but i know far more that are kept in poverty by greed of others ,it just a strange thing that this is never brought up .the wealthy that get tax breaks and a lot of corporations that dont even pay taxes and banks that are given millions to ,not from poor decisions but greed ,


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Mike where did I make that inference?


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

I someone in the usa gets say cancer and is retired I have been told they may have to sell thir homes to pay bnfor an operation or treatment that's sad in my book.

Nope. Not is most cases. Older Americans qualify for Medicare…...a gov't run insurance program.
During the height of the ACA debate, the American media cherry-picked a bunch of extreme cases in order to fabricate a crisis. Stories like 
" I broke my leg in 7 places and needed $10K-worth of treament to get fixed. I wasn't able to work, therefore I couldn't pay the bill. Thus, I fell behind on my mortgage payments and lost my home" 
In reality, this person lost their home because they couldn't work…..and lost their income. Short-term disability insurance is what this person needed to keep their home…..not a healthcare exchange.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Your point about people coming here and using our system has been running rampant here for yours. The people that have no money go to our hospitals with a cold, spend thousands in care and we have paid for this. It is these people that have always gotten free health care. The legal hard working folks, on the other hand, have to pay full price - until they have no money and then get it free.

The propaganda machines tell a completely different story and it is twisted far beyond reality.

As a note. for many years I did not have health insurance and when I had to get help for my daughter, I paid full price (several thousand dollars in cash when all was done) because I could not buy insurance at the time - where I would have paid $25.00 for the same thing. It was still better than what we are getting.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

dbray45 ''The people in power do not have the best interests of the people in mind as you might think and they profess, it is power - or it would have been done entirely differently'' you have that right but then we put them in there


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Did we? I wonder. There have been many cases (in Baltimore, MD) in the past where there was a majority vote of dead people voting - but nothing was done. It turned out that one year, there was a 90+% turnout in head count. This would be extraordinary.

But then again, in the original Constitution, only land owners could vote.

Here in Maryland, they bus people in to the poles and none of them speak English, they vote, get back on the bus, and go someplace else - maybe another polling place???? or 2 or 3 or 4
The polling equipment is supposed to be untouched until all votes can be validated, in one year, in several precincts when they went to validate, ALL of the machines had been reset to 000000. hmmmm
They say your vote counts - but theirs counts many times.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Alistair

I take issue with your calling something a basic human right, then going on and saying but for us not them.

You are throwing around the basic human right terminology a bit lightly there and it loses all meaning.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

dbray45 here in Louisiana dead people vote all the time


----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)

I grew up Dirt Poor. I got an education. Worked 3 jobs to get it. I've worked my butt off. I've always paid my own way. Always had Health insurance. Don't Need or Want the Government to give me anything except what it's supposed to and that is a Strong Defense to protect EVERYONE! Health Care is NOT a Right. How in the world can you call yourself an American and think that it is. Have we totally forgotten our History???? It's up the the individual not the government. It's ridiculous for people to think otherwise. This country is going down the tubes because of the entitlement mentality. We are responsible for taking care of ourselves. No one else. I'll help anyone that's having a tough time and trying. But we have generations of WELFARE BUMS that have never looked for a job let alone had one. If a man does not work he does not eat. If he does not eat his health will suffer. That's his fault not mine. Saying it's not my fault that I can't afford to pay for my health care is B.S. I worked for everything I've got. No entitlements here. Ask the Brits and the Canadians and the French about Government Health Care. I'll check back with you in 5 years when you're on the "Waiting Lists" See how you like "ObamaCare" then. If you get signed up by then!!!!

Rant Over!!!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Entitlements today are less about helping those in need but rather buying votes with handouts.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Here is an example of a bad decision of someone I know. A fellow engineer got out of college, got a job that started at about $50k, within 3 months he decided that he wanted a Porsche Boxer. He was somehow able to get the loan and had $850/month car payments. After a couple years he decided he couldnt afford that car but it still wasnt completely paid for. Traded it in for a Acura TL, which is not a cheap car, had that loan rolled into his new car loan, now he is on another car and I bet he is still paying for that Porsche Boxer.

Another coworker one day told me he had credit problems, a few months later he got a home equity loan, used the money to buy a new laptop, a racing bicycle, and a Jeep Commander…...

People will do stuff like this and then complain about paying $50 for a Dr visit..


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Pat i hear ya sounds like hes heading down a bad road ,Here is an example of a bad decision of someone I know ,they run a company it employs way over a 100 thousand they pay very little taxes they pay their workers such a low wage they have to have food stamps to live but then they them self make millions upon millions they are the largest employer of a whole state , Louisiana
.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Eddie, I lived in Louisiana for 10 years near New Orleans and in Baton Rouge, is it one of the oil companies?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Had no idea the LSU health system paid so bad.

http://www.acinet.org/oview6.asp?soccode=&stfips=22&from=State&id=&nodeid=12


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

love New Orleans ,like to visit but not live there ,spent a lot of time in Baton Rouge it a collage town thats for sure good people down there. i live in the northern , i lived for 7 years in Alabama in Decatur,right close to Tenn.. really loved living there would of stayed there but all the kids live here ,dont know what i was thinking  itsnot oil companies they usely pay enough that theirs no need for food stamps


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Pat it not LSU that link dont have it on there , but you shold know you probable been there before


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I figure you are most likely taking about Walmart then I have to disagree. Someone very close to me works for Walmart, they started entry level, never had to use food stamps, they get health insurance, a nice amount of paid vacation/decent sick leave policy/and a personal leave package.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

remember this is Louisiana go and find out how many in Louisiana work there ,there are many more states that they are the biggest one employer


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

My major gripe is that the congressional health plan should have been made available too all as *we are paying for that too*! Or, make congress drop their plan and force them to use the ACA as they surely can all afford it.

Regarding health care in Canada; I have one observation that was related on the radio by Paul Harvey back when I was still living in Illinois. Paul Harvey broke a leg while in Canada. He was taken to a hospital, the leg was set, put in a cast, and after his visit to Canada returned to Chicago. He told about this on his radio segment when he got the bill for $7.00! I wonder what this would have cost in Chicago!

My father who immigrated to the U.S. in the '50's and my uncle, who lived in Germany, were twins and had similar heart/health issues. Both of them never complained about the level of care they received but my father did complain about his healthcare costs when compared to his brother in Germany. My father had even considered going back for a visit just to to get lower cost comparable care. Both lived until the were 95 and neither passed due to heart failure.


----------



## b2rtch (Jan 20, 2010)

My 90 years old father lives by himself in France. 
Every day (except weekend) a nurse and another woman come to visit him to make sure that he is OK and or to give him his medication and to do his laundry, cleaning and cooking. If needed they drive him around for grocery shopping or to see his doctor and the like.
Everything paid by the government.
Not too bad.
In France people pay a lot of taxes but then the government takes care of the people unlike in the USA.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I would prefer to keep my money and make my own choices on health related items.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

oldnovice i to have some major issues with that ,maybe sense the ACA its there it can be done it was in there at the start ,

RockyTopScott what about those that dont have any ,


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

What the majority does not realize is that we all pay for those who don't/can't/won't!

*Whether it is high insurance premiums or taxes, your choice!*


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

oldnovice thats a good point ,


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

affordable health care? why would you want it? For emergency care I guess. We have the "greatest" healthcare in the world and spend more money on healthcare than most other countries combined, yet we rank like 34th in health as a country compared to other industrialized countries. Seems our healthcare really ISNT that great. Maybe because its filled with evil, money driven, powerful people that only care about selling drugs and surgeries and making billions of billions of dollars. We don't have a health care system…..we have a sickness care system, and our sickness care system is nothing more than a business. A business making TONS of money. Dont be fooled - the Sickness care system doesn't care about making people healthier. And now everyone can get more drugs and more surgeries!!! YAY! What a joke. Our nation, as a whole, would be better off with LESS people using our "health"care system (except for emergency care).

boooooo…..


----------



## b2rtch (Jan 20, 2010)

""Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it"" 
I believe the same is true if not worse of capitalism.
Any good system fails as soon as people get involved in it.


----------



## GregInMaryland (Mar 11, 2010)

This well worth the time to watch it all 




Greg


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

When corrupt people get involved Bert, I agree. Good people don't lie, cheat and steal their way to success.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

RockyTopScott, the same goes for every form of government. Look at the corruption that was rampant in the old Soviet Union. Their form of government was very similar to a feudal system when you look at it, you had a ruling class and a peasant class that had to take whatever was allowed them, they couldn't better themselves, they couldn't complain for fear if they did they would disappear.


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

Paloalto security systems might be a group to invest in. The government will have to find someone to secure a system they can't run. A system with a bug infestation is a system with multiple doors open to hackers. Whichever company fixes this will be king of the security world. What a huge file of identity theft information a system this size is. Goodness. Do I worry too much?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I agree Pat, we have alot of corrupt self serving politicians and goverment officials in our own country.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Ditto on *Pat's* comments. When Meg Whitman was running for governor it came to light the she had an undocumented alien in her household staff. She spent $40,000,000 of her own money and lost the election. She is just one example of the lack of ethics that some people have when seeking political office and some, way too many, win their election.

We had a secretary of state in Illinois that had 50 million dollars stashed under his bed that was discovered after his death. Just another example of oh so many!

*"Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"* must be true!


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

Oldnovice, according to my information, Meg Whitman spent almost 150 million of her own money and then got railroaded. The illegal alien in question presented Meg with fraudulent documents indication she was a citizen. There are laws in place that prevent the employer from asking for or even trying to obtain any further documentation. A handy little law we have Jerry Brown to thank for.

She might not be the most amicable person in the world; many ultra successful people are not, look at what an ass hole Steve Jobs was, but they get results and make things happen. As far as I am concerned, her wealth and power just means she was damn good at what she does. We could use a whole army of people like her to possibly fix this ACA boondoggle.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*crank49*, you are correct she did spend $150 million on her campaign. She got the money from her off shore account on which she paid no taxes. *Legal YES, ethical NO!* As far as her alien goes, employers are allowed to do full background checks on prospective employees, at least that's the way is was when I was hired by HP (four CEOs before Meg took the helm).

IMO Steve Jobs was not what you proposed, he was from another planet that was driven by perfectionism!

And, lastly, I would rather have Bill Hewlett or Dave Packard on their worst day before Meg on her best! Ethics are missing in upper management of many companies and in also in Washington D.C.!


----------



## b2rtch (Jan 20, 2010)

" Good people don't lie, cheat and steal their way to success" 
Don't we all more or less do that?


----------



## SCOTSMAN (Aug 1, 2008)

If you were a member of a golf club, and from it's infancy collectively you made a new club into a great club after many years of work and sweat and putting your money in to make it good, then when it was a fabulous club with everything you could want suddenly everyone from outside is entitled legally or otherwise to walk straight in freely taking all the benefits and not paying a dime wouldn't you get mad.
Our health system was built up from scratch we all payed and don't mind our neighbours those within uk living here that have contributed all their days and are now retired or redundant or sickness befalls them early in life we account for that.But we have loads of people coming here and walking straight into this country most of them discard and damage their passports and paperwork so that they cannot be returned as know one knows were they came from they ask for political asylum and are granted this imediately they can bring in four or five wives who get all the benefits,most of them pregnant and have each eight or more children some living in great mansions as they need to be together most of them muslims and plot aGgainst us and hate us they get literally thousand of pounds a week in benefits, and they have been caught using their friends children claiming them to be their own we need to carry out dna checks on them. It overloads our system to the point that we who are rightfully able to use it need to wait weeks and months to see a specalist it is so wrong next month we have Romany Gypsies coming here legally as they have recently joined the European Union they are reknowned liars thieves pickpockets etc we are afraid this will cuse chaos to our already overloaded system what can we do it is terrible here at the moment in some schools there are up to thirty translators translating all the different languages the children speak this holds back our own children in these classes to the point it is detrimental to our childrens education.rant rant rant Alistair


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I don't cheat or steal. Lies have come out of my mouth before, yes.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Alistair it sounds like your system is suffering the same way ours is.
We have hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Then we get the illegals.

The Visa holders are able to bring their aged parents from India to the USA, and they get Pension and medicare benefits, under SSI (Supplemental Security Income) because the are 'jobless' They then move in with the kids to be the live in nanny, and the SSI payments allow them to afford half million dollar mansions.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Bert we all fall in there more or less,but there's a difference from practicing lieing to get wealth at stealing others that didnt have it to start with ,its as we all know there are self serving representatives in our goverments representing their own pocket s


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

SCOTSMAN i hear ya we also have problems with some of the same issues ,they will have to be dealt with some where along the way . but just curious when a country joins the EU are they all under the sane heath care system or dose each have its own


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Eddie - - Each country in the EU has its own healthcare as well as their own pension/social security programs.

EU really just handles some trade and finance issues - not social programming…. yet anyway.
Based on Netherlands, Germany and France friends input.


----------



## Aggiehunter34 (Oct 24, 2013)

Healthcare is not for our government to decide. It isn't the governments responsibility to take care of your medical needs. We the tax payer will still be paying for this either way. Congress and Obama need to worry about decreasing the debt ceiling instead of doubling it again.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

thanks DrDirt as just wondering knew they had adopted a international currency but wondered on the social networks


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Alistair, I agree with everything you said in post 259, but hate to tell you over here you would be called a right wing nut job, a racist, and probably a few other names.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

hay Pat i would agree to with post #259 its a problem that has to be dealt with,but then ive been called all those thing and a few more too,as to your friend at Walmart its nothing wrong with that its some of there other policies that i was referring too but it was Walmart ,its not even listed on that link you posted and chances are you want find it in northeast of this state its 5068 and this isn't even the most populated part of the state .


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

oldnovice you only have to look at the way Steve Jobs treated his first daughter and her mother to realize he is an A1 asshole.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Pat*, believe only 1/2 what you read as both Lisa (also the name of one of the Apple computers) and her mother will both set for life (a part of $8.5 billion will be theirs) and neither will have to consider the *ACA*!

Read a "The Bite in the Apple" by Christian Brennan and I think you will change your mind!
Lisa's stories about living with him they did share a good relationship even though the early years were tenuous.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

There have been several dozen credible items that could have been done to greatly improve, reduce cost and otherwise make health care so much better and more affordable - all but eliminating the need for Obama Care but that is not what these people wanted. There was no desire to help anyone but themselves and their votes.

This can be drastically illustrated by the fact that (from current numbers) 60% of the insured people have lost or are losing their current plan and will have to go to a lessor plan that will cost them as much as twice as much. Other government plans, like England and Canada, cost the tax payers about 1/2 - 3/4 of what we were paying before Obama Care. A 4x premium for poorer care is ridiculous.

The numbers don't add up for responsible people that are trying to make a livable income. For the kids (21 - 35) they get hit harder - and they have no money trying to raise their kids. My head hurts!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

David, this just quickens the pace toward a single payer health care system. These "Private" insurance companies are cutting their own throats by insisting on keeping their obscene corporate profits at all time highs. All under the guise of "capitalism" (crony capitalism though).


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Yep- I just read that 300K people in Florida lost their Blue Cross insurance plan ONLY because the plan didn't cover mental health and maternity. WTF would a single, non-psychotic male want mental/maternity coverage? Heck, why would a non-psychotic woman want such a plan if she had no plans to have kids?? 
Doesn't matter. Big bro knows best. You will have maternity coverage…...and you WILL like it.

Anyway, Blue Cross will offer these folks a plan that adheres to ACA….......at considerable, additional expense (of course).

"If you like your current insurance…..you'll be able to keep it" 
"This legislation won't cost you ONE-THIN-DIME" 
"This bill will be deficit neutral"


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Mike - Lets put an example of what I am saying on the table. Under current FEDERAL law, an insurance company may not offer a plan that crosses state lines - every state has its own plans. The insurance companies TESTIFIED to Congress that the premiums would drop significantly if this law were eliminated. The reason the law is in force is because they (Congress) feel that a policy that crossed state lines would give certain states an edge over other states because of their wealth or poverty. They are probably correct BTW but the cost savings to everyone would be reduced - regional economics versus macro economics.

Obama Care, in their crony wisdom, only allows certain insurance companies (their friends, contributors), to offer insurance under the Obama "umbrella." The others' policies were canceled. Now they have added something like 20,000 more pages of regulation on top of the original health care regulations, and Obama Care. This adds cost to everyone - a lot of costs.


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

Ted , you and some others in this thread seem to think that you are entitled to have others pay for and take care of you. I for one am sick and tired of having people like you as a drain hole on my wallet. I have no responsibility moral or otherwise to provide you with food, clothes, a job or health care. I am sick of all of you leaches. I owe you nothing. Take care of your own problems.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Some of us served our country in the military Edward.


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

I can't base decisions on information I get from politicians. That leaves me with a free fall feeling of nausea. Does anyone have a cure for this feeling …


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Can we vote in Mickey Mouse and Goofy to the House - oh wait!!!!

How about Donald Duck - then we would have a quack in the … - never mind.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Actually, the way the plans were created is the Feds allowed the state to determine a "model" plan in each state based on "essential benefits". These are core coverage provisions that must be in each plan and are based on the most prevalent plan in that state.

The Feds then set up the metallic tiers and created a worksheet where carriers can design plans and see where they fall within the actuarial value ranges for each metallic tier. This is how the sausage was made.

If a carrier had a plan that did not contain the "essential benefits" and it did not meet certain "actuarial values", the carrier was required by the Feds to remove that plan from their product portfolio.

This is why you are seeing in the press that people are being dropped from their plans…it is not because the carriers decided to do this, but rather because the feds mandated certain plan designs. More centralized decision making at the federal level.

"If you like your plan, you can keep it" was never going to be true…the law just did not allow it.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

I only have two questions about the ACA, a.k.a. *Obamacare*, why don't the people in Romney's home state want to give up on *Romneycare*? The last polls indicated that they were more than pleased and did not want to go back to the way it was before Romneycare?

When registered Republicans were polled on whether they wanted or liked Obamacare the majority didn't want it or like it and yet when they were asked the same about the Affordable Care Act they were overwhelmingly in favor of it.

*No one pointed out that these were one and the same!*


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I think the difference is those in Mass that had coverage actually got to keep it and were not forced into new plans they did not want to purchase. The Mass solution actually dealt primarily with the uninsured and really did not affect those with insurance, at least not as much as the ACA.

This is how I understand the basics between the two plans.


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

And that's what the VA is there for HMike, I guess you want in my pocket too.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Yes Edward, I even served for YOUR life and liberty as well. I already paid for YOURs, so pay up.


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

The air must be pretty thin up there on your high horse if you think I owe you anything


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

prattman you have no moral obligations ?


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Edward*, I don't know what world you live in or if you are very naive, but you pay for the uninsured every day! High premiums or taxes, one way or another you pay. If you don't have insurance than WE are paying for you.

Get out of the prison work, the inmates are rubbing off on you!
You do have a responsibility as a human being to act like one! Give it a rest!


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

I have worked in a maximum security prison for 22 years protecting society from the very worst that mankind has to offer. I pay a lot more than most in taxes and for my own insurance. I take care of MY family and YOU should take care of YOURS without feeling like you are entitled to have something handed to you for free that I have worked for. Life is what you make for yourself. Humanity ??? Self preservation is as human as it gets.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

They don't want you to hand it over for free Ed, they want the government to seize it from you and give it to them. If you have more you must have theirs, no way you worked hard, saved and invested to protect your family. Clearly you stole it. You are just greedy Ed. I'm so ashamed of what you have become. C'mon man, give it up for humanity.


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

Sad but true, Scott, sad but true.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

prattman self preservation is something every living being has , but they dont all have morals only humans do have the sole right for that just some know it and some dont but self preservation and morals are two diffrent animals


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

@eddie,
I am not sure you can expect "morality" from those who exploit prisons and prisoners for personal profit, especially in America.

*The U.S. imprisons around 730 in every 100,000 people - the highest incarcerated population in the world - Department of Justice data shows. Once again, the U.S. has beat any other nation in terms of its number of prisoners and prisons. There are currently around 2.2 million people behind bars, "equal to a city the size of Houston," noted Bloomberg News. There are 4,575 prisons in operation in the U.S., more than four times the number of second-place Russia at 1,029.

According to California Prison Focus, "no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens." Ample studies in recent years have detailed the swift rise nationwide in the for-profit prison industry.*


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

How about we just let them loose, and give them your adress and tell them how charitable you feel toward them.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

If you have the keys Ed, I have the address. Deal?


----------



## remdds (Mar 19, 2011)

Like most of us here I respect your service and believe you have earned certain benefits.

However, the affordable care act is just a name for income redistribution. I don't know you
or your particular situation but I wonder what it means when someone says they can't afford
healthcare. Does that mean they can't afford internet access, cell phone, health club, cable T.V.,
x-box, air conditioning AND medical premiums?

The meaning of "living in poverty" has changed. I am a healthcare provider and I have seen many 
times where someone could not afford treatment because they still have to pay off their vacation.

A very large percentage of these people simply make choices to not want to pay for healthcare.

By the way, yes healthcare is overpriced. In many cases because of crazy regulations, greedy 
lawsuits, 3rd party payers and now senseless intervention by our government. Your healthcare
costs more than it did 10 years ago. I am making less than I did then. Someone is making more money
but it's not me.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

There are many healthcare people that do not have a clue what they are doing or do not care about the people that they take care of. This is a problem that the health care community decided many years ago that they would monitor and take care of internally - if they have not. This and the economy is why the costs are so great. People, as they start struggling look for way to pay their bills, malpractice has become a way to do this.

I am not saying this is right or wrong - just the way it is. If the medical community were to do a better job of getting the hacks out of the profession, I think you would see the judges take a different position in the courts in how they issue the awards.

The caveat to this - you are seeing fewer doctors, because the good ones are leaving their practices because of the costs - causing a lower expectation going through the med school system. Obama care will push more out - probably why I am not hearing the benefits of going to a nurse instead of a doctor now.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*DONE AND OUT OF HERE!*


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

David, as supply (fewer doctors) goes down what will happen to the cost if demand remains constant or increases?

The main problem with the cost of healthcare is providers are not paid for outcomes using evidence based protocols, but rather the # and mix of services they perform. The more they do, the more they bill and the more they make.

The financial incentives are not aligned with the desired outcome. Until they are the cost will continue to escalate.

As the cost of claims goes up, the cost of insurance will too at a much faster rate than the cost of care due to leveraging and utilization.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

But Insurance is expensive because the Claims they have to pay out are huge.

Lots of reasons, with shifting costs and covering indigent a the emergency rooms etc.

However at the end of the day - it seems the doctors live in the same McMansions on the hill with the insurance providers.

Insurance is expensive because treatment is expensive.

The affordable care act, does NOTHING to lower the cost of healthcare. 
It is not the case that January 1 2014, it will cost less to get your appendix or tonsils taken out than it would cost 12/31/2013.


----------



## PineChopper (May 21, 2012)

LOL, just wait until Osama care really kicks in and we'll all see how Unaffordable it really is for absolutely NO coverage. $5,000 deductible???? What a joke.
No wonder congress and their minions exempted themselves.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Oh, the problems abound. Sadly Obama Care addresses none of them, just piles more crap on the pile and it all smells real bad.

And we lose!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

PineChopper - The out of pocket for most families will be $12,700…..the maximum.

DrDirt - you are dead on.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*WAFJ!*


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

Sadly HMike, its not a joke.


----------



## stephan (Mar 6, 2012)

One of the reasons why health care insurance is so hight is the fact that its for profit, when a companies main goal is profit rates will never go down. There is more than one study that shows rates would drop 25% if medical insurance companies were not for profit.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

For that to be true, the medical insurance companies would need to be clearing 20+% profit margins. 
My understanding is that these companies operate on razor-thin margins, and remain solvent through volume (and the denial of claims/slashing of services).


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

President Nixon created HMOs to deny people health care insurance claims.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Here is what a frequent contributor to MSNBC (you know that uber conservative news channel) said about insurance company profits in 2011:

According to Ezra Klein of The Washington Post "The insurance industry is not a particularly profitable industry…That's not to pretend that 3.3 percent is nothing, but it's hard to see how that's a primary driver of health-care spending, much less the growth in health-care spending."


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Speaking of HMO's -
Good to hear that Obama wanted Obamacare to be as good as Kaiser Permanente

Obama lies like nixon - and supports the same policy direction on healthcare.

http://kaiserpermanentehistory.org/latest/president-obama-cites-kaiser-permanente-model-learn-more-about-why-aug-25/

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/health-exchange/2013/03/21/a-model-for-obamacare/


----------



## Eddie_T (Sep 23, 2012)

BCBS in my state advertises Obamacare insurance as low as $39.95 per month with subsidy. Sounds good unless you're in the group taxed for the subsidy. Or maybe Obama will just borrow the money or have the Fed print up some. Stand by for health care rationing and death panels.


----------



## stephan (Mar 6, 2012)

Forget about the so called 2-3% profit of insurance companies for a moment. The real cost are in executive compensation. Insurance companies pay out billions in compensation to CEO's and executives. One example is Aetna which payed out over 13 million annually to its CEO. Not for profit its not just about the bottom line [ Profit ] its the overall cost of running the company and how its regulated.


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

As far as I can tell Aetna has a quarterly income of about 36 million and pays out claims of about 25 million.
Maybe a CEO who manages a company to this level of competence is worth 3 million per quarter. Not for me to say. 
But, I will say that I don't agree with the whole idea of assuming anyone who makes a pile of money is inherently wrong and no good. Some of the wealthiest people in this country's history were also very generous and funded great public projects.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

What a person negotiates for an income is his business. When I had a company, everyone thought I made all kinds of money. The fact is - employees, by law, had to be paid before I was. The company's money WAS my money (no investors) so if an employee did something that cost, it literally was my money that they lost. I took 100% of the risk and if there was a profit - that was when I was paid.

Anybody that works the hours that these execs work, takes the risks and has the responsibility that they have, many are under paid. There are exceptions - Chain saw Al is one of them - he should have gone to jail for what he did to Sunbeam and its investors - and the courts awarded him 5 million in severance pay - there's your problem.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*David: "...What a person negotiates for an income is his business…."*

Then why is it that all the Tea-Terrorists and the GOP are so hyped up about eliminating "entitlements" as they call them, when in fact those "entitlements" are negotiated contractual agreements?


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

And why are the democrats touting how evil all these other people are and exempt themselves from everything including taxes?

It is a wonder of the ages--

Suffice it to say, everybody on the "hill" talks a good game but I don't see anybody making a move to return it from the socialistic direction we are running to. There IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*"when in fact those "entitlements" are negotiated contractual agreements"*

So federal entitlements, say food stamps, involve 2 parties, have an offer, consideration, an acceptance and a meeting of the minds?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…entitlements ain't no stinkin contract.

I suppose if you factor in a lot of entitlements are just buying votes it might come close, but these are not the result of any contract.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

David chain saw AL was a theif and stole money from the ones that made it for him . some just never get it that there are diffrent kinds of wealth and he is a very poor man .


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Tax breaks are a whole different thing. When farmers were producing more than what the country needed, the government paid farmers. Unfortunately, this never went away and has become a problem.

In the '50s and '60s the highest federal income taxes were 78%, then they gave tax breaks to those people that took their money and invested and used their money. This sparked productivity, companies, and more people working - and wealth (if they invested wisely). Now the mentality is to take their money and GIVE it to people that are not working. This takes away productivity, prosperity, and the desire to work hard and earn a living - why should they? Also, to compensate for mistakes and things beyond their control, the fed granted tax breaks to people that lost money - Bill Clinton's last executive order in office (so I am told) was to limit losses to $3,000 a year. This eliminates any ability to recover from the loss and move forward.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

ACA mandates that insurance companies pay out *in actual medical claims* 80% - 85% of the premiums they take in. (The lower percentage is for individual and small group plans because they are more costly to market and service). These percentages are roughly in line with what the insurance industry was already paying out *before* the new law took effect.

I fully agree that executive compensation in big business has gotten ridiculous. But when you look at those salaries as a percentage of company income, they are really just not that significant. Any way you slice it, 15% to 20% in *gross* profit is hardly obscene when you consider that all the expenses of doing business come out of that. Administration and claims processing alone require a huge amount of labor, not to mention brick-and-mortar costs.

Don't get me wrong. In *theory*, a single-payer system where everyone contributes and there is *no* profit margin would be the most efficient way to handle health care insurance. *But*, as already stated a number of times in this thread, the cost of *insurance* is really just a reflection of the cost of health care *services*. Somehow, the cost of services is what really must be addressed, and there are many, many factors involved in that. Blaming insurance companies for the high cost of health care is like blaming your local service station for the cost of gas.

IMO, the best part of ACA is that it offers some protection to individuals who have previously found themselves screwed due to age and/or pre-existing conditions. Nothing is free, of course. Giving more affordable coverage to older, sicker folks means the young and healthy must pay more. That's why we're starting to hear a lot of flack from people who were perfectly happy with their high-deductible plans who will now be forced to pay much higher premiums for marginally increased benefits.

The bottom line, IMO, is this: Just because you think the current (pre-ACA) system is broken is not a good reason to blindly accept ACA as a good fix, and to label everyone who points out its shortcomings a social Darwinist who would leave the poor and the sick to die by the side of the road.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Charlie: "....Somehow, the cost of services is what really must be addressed, and there are many, many factors involved in that…"*

I agree. And the ACA is but ONE step in the correct direction. Controlling costs/payments of services, for example medicare/medicaid reimbursement, is one way *IF* we start mandating that doctors and medical professionals accept such patients. Their ability to "choose" not to serve this population should be illegal.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Charlie is correct about the various factors…..but

The ACA has no real provision(s) that will control cost…that is simply a *ruse.*

As you have indicated before Charlie, you sit on an employee benefit committee, if I remember correctly, so you seem to have the closest grasp of the real world and how it works.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Charlie -to label everyone who points out its shortcomings a social Darwinist who would leave the poor and the sick to die by the side of the road. you are right that would be very foolish about as foolish to think that they are not there but not all 
IMO no big fan of the ACA but You can't implement a solution until you first identify the problems. It hasn't any thing been done to control cost but it will have to be addressed now


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

It was a federal law, don't know if it was changed or it is just ignored, that if a service or product was available from the private sector (outside of the government), it had to be purchased. Just like the processing of income tax forms could NOT be processed by anyone outside the U.S. - last I heard they were being processed in India.


----------



## Oldtool (May 27, 2012)

http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X1MDMTE4MzMxNzEzMQRhY3QDbWFpbF9jYgRhbgNvcGVuTGluawRjaANlbWFpbARjdANhBGV0A210ZgRnZANDYWI3NTZAeWFob28uY29tBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi1VUwRtbwMwBHBrZwM5MjgxZmE4OC1hZWJkLTM4YjktYTY3Mi0wMjFhYzgxZjJjODMEcGxhdGZvcm0DWUhPTy1VTlAEc2VjA21pdF9zaGFyZQRzbGsDbWFpbAR0ZXN0AwR0cAN0ZW1wbGF0ZS5tdGYuZW1haWwuMDYzZDM5YWUtNTEzMi00YmYxLThlNjAtM2EyNGRiYjE2NTEzBHRzAzA-?418887546130957662/SIG=141inhq4b/**http%3A%2F%2Ffinance.yahoo.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe-exchange%2Fobama-overlooked-10-million-americans-could-lose-health-185034418.html

That about sums it up ….........


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

More can be found here:  LINK


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Wow. It is just amazing how the Obama haters can NEVER offer a fix, only a NO!

RIP… GOP


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-insurers-keep-enrollment-numbers-quiet/

White house orders private insurers to NOT reveal enrollment numbers.
Dems' seem to think that a program whose rollout is going badly….. their case is somehow helped by a Valerie Jarrett Gag order?

So the insurance cannot "Defend" the latest claims that the Obamacare legislation is cancelling policies that people were happy with.

It shouldn't never have been the presidents job to DECIDE FOR YOU - - what a product you buy must include.
Killing those policies was because those "cheap" policies are what the Indestructable millenials bought…. and that was precisely who Obama needs in the Obamacare pool to subsidize the older sicker folks that participate.

The gag order ensures that while the Presidend goes out to Vilify the "Horrible" plans by Irreputable companies - like he claimed yesterday in boston. The companies will not offer any rebutal.

The solution is not goverment run healthcare. The republicans know this - that is why their plans to *FIX* it have been to kill it.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Be careful of the plan you choose.
US News and World report (so pretty far from Fox News) reported how many top hospitals are ONLY associated with 1 or 2 of the insurance plans that are in the exchange compared to the dozens of insurance company options offered.

*If I had a doctor I liked - (and were forced to go to the exchange) I would ask him which policy/company he is associated with/included in as a network provider.*

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare

The result of our investigation: Many top hospitals are simply opting out of Obamacare.

Chances are the individual plan you purchased outside Obamacare would allow you to go to these facilities. For example, fourth-ranked Cleveland Clinic accepts dozens of insurance plans if you buy one on your own. But go through Obamacare and you have just one choice: Medical Mutual of Ohio.

And that's not because their exchanges don't offer options. Both Ohio and California have a dozen insurance companies on their exchanges, yet two of the states' premier hospitals - Cleveland Clinic and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center - have only one company in their respective networks.

A few, like No. 1-rated Johns Hopkins in Maryland, are mandated under state law to accept all insurance companies. Other than that, the hospital with the largest number of insurance companies is University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland with just four. Fully 11 of the 18 hospitals had just one or two carriers.

"Many companies have selectively entered the exchanges because they are concerned that (the exchanges) will be dominated by risky, high-using populations who wanted insurance (before Obamacare) and couldn't afford it," said Wilsensky, who is also on the board of directors of UnitedHealth. "They are pressed to narrow their networks to stay within the premiums."


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

People will lose coverage

Many will lose their job

Providers will retire or quit

Access to care will be reduced

Cost will go up significantly

Everyone's pain will increase

REFORM YOU CAN BELIEVE IN


----------



## Illinoiswoodworker (Mar 24, 2013)

But I don't want to lean on fellow tax payers… I want to pay my share.

So what do you think is going to happen when the young people don't sign up and opt to pay the $90 fine? obama has said numerous times that is what will pay for the people that will actually be utilizing any health care services.

If the government shuts down, I know it's the Republicans in Congress who are to blame.

Right, do you believe everything that barack and the demacRATS tell you? You are delusional. Have fun in fantasy land…..


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The ACA is merely a law that redistributes wealth.


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

Hmike, you sir are a communist.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Ed, please…... *WAFJ* just hurts my head.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*@prattman: "...Hmike, you sir are a communist…."*

Geez @prattman! Get with the program already!

Godwin's Law dictates that you invoke the term "Hitler" at this point of your diatribe, NOT a reference to "communism".

Get it right man!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

*Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies1[2]) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 19902 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion-regardless of topic or scope-someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.*


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

So would Howell's law be if you cannot offer an intelligent rebuttal you simply submit a post on Godwin's law?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Gee Mr Moore, is Alpharetta near Lilburn, Georgia? Ya'll sound like you are related.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I'll make you a wager Mike.

If you can prove I am Scott Moore from Alpharetta, Ga, I will delete my LJ account forever.

If you can't, you leave forever.

I'll give you 3 months.

Deal?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Scott, I would RATHER see you actually do some woodworking. This really IS a woodworking site.

You have been on LJs for *FIVE YEARS* and *you have all ZEROS*, nada, not a thing, ZIP.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Scott,
Not a woodworker huh? Why are you still on LJs then?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Scott, 
Really, do some woodworking already.

All of those ZEROs in your profile coupled with the attitude you are exhibiting, just makes you look like such a Troll. Surely you have some kind of talent other than to stir up trouble online.


----------



## JGM0658 (Aug 16, 2011)

To get back on topic, it is called Affordable Care Act, yet it is squarely aimed at the insurance companies. Insurance companies do not care about affordable *AND* quality care they only care about the affordable part to pocket more money. How is this Act going to reduce medical care costs and still force health providers to give quality care? 
If you ask me, this Act should have included tort reform. Quality care in the US is so expensive because for a hang nail providers have to take an MRI, PET, CAT scan, Full CBC, etc. Just in case they get sued.

I know that for some people "socialist" is a curse word, but it seems to me the US is going ass backwards to end up in the same place as Canada. With this Act a lot of your money will go to pay for those who cannot afford insurance. How is this different from socialism?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Know anybody that worked at Camp Bullis?

Went to school at Michigan State?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Jorge: "...I know that for some people "socialist" is a curse word, but it seems to me the US is going ass backwards to end up in the same place as Canada…."*

I agree. FWIW, the VA medical care in America is actually a shining example of heallthcare, once you take the time to consider just how under-funded it is. And it is probably the best example of socialized healthcare in America.

I just wish America would fully fund the VA, all vets would surely appreciate that.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

You are correct Jorge, tort reform is one element to reduce heathcare cost.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

All that money spent on cash for clunkers and solyndra should have gone to the VA.


----------



## bbrewer (Dec 28, 2012)

HM, I shouldn't have to consider how under funded it is it is. It is a prime example of what government health care will be, really under supported, poor care and the government saying if we just spend more money, we'll make it even better.

Maybe all the problems have been taken care of, but every vet I know has problems with support, not from the direct contact, the bureaucracy. Everything takes months or is lost forever.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/09/veterans-die-waiting-for-benefits-as-va-claims-backlog-builds.html

Our veterans are treated like ******************** and it is now becoming the law of the land.


----------



## prattman (Aug 8, 2012)

Hmike, I never said you were a Nazi, just a communist. There is a marked difference.


----------



## RobS888 (May 7, 2013)

Scott: are you threatening to disclose mike's address or actually visit him?
That is the first threat I have read on this site, this is not what we come here for.
Also, your tagline removes any credibility you might have had on this topic.

prattman: this isn't the daily caller, go there if you want to be so mean to a fellow countryman.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

No threat Rob, just a wager. Just flushing out the bully.

If you look closely at Mike's profile he has actually disclosed his location.

Mike claims I am someone I am not , but would never admit his error.

You may disagree, but Mike is a bully with a continuous set of bully responses.

The wager I offered that he failed to accept proved he could not back up his rhetoric. This is what bullies do when they have nothing substantive to respond with.

Look through the forums for his new bully response of "WAFJ". Bully talk, plain and simple.

I could care less what you think of my tagline, but I am an expert in the delivery and financing of healthcare. Read all of my post in this thread and come back and we can debate the topic. Good luck Rob


----------



## stephan (Mar 6, 2012)

Are you really against government funded programs? Then you would have to get rid of the fire department, the police department, the library, public schools, social security and the list goes on. People may not want to admit it but we are a democratic socialist form of government.


----------



## danoconnor11 (Dec 27, 2012)

How would you like to go to work and have your pay rate or salary change at someone else's discretion. Doctors tend to take on huge amounts of debt and overhead to go into practice and if they accept insurance they are given a fee schedule that tells them how much they can be paid for each procedure or treatment.

I see a lot of folks blaming docs for overcharging as the problem. I don't buy it. As far as having to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients. These are the ones with the most red tape and prove the hardest to be compensated for treating. We had to train our volunteer EMTs on how to write up run forms so those insurers couldn't deny reimbursement. So now an 18 year old has to understand the perfect way to word the way he took care of a patient so the volunteer ambulance service wouldn't get stiffed. Either way the patient got to the ER.

The money is going somewhere but with insurance capping what they pay to docs and hospitals, and insurance companies being capped on profit allowance, I'm not sure where.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*bbrewer: "... HM, I shouldn't have to consider how under funded it is it is…. AND… It is a prime example of what government health care will be, really under supported, poor care…"*

You sir are quite uninformed as to the level of care the VA provides, or you would NOT have made such an oxymoronic statement. If you consider the VA as delivering poor care, THEN YOU SHOULD BE LOBBYING FOR MORE AND INCREASED FUNDING and not denying your accountability to support our American Veterans.

I can attest to the fine level of medical care the VA provides, even surgically when needed. I have placed my life in their hands more than once.

*oxymoron*
a rhetorical device or figure of speech in which contradictory or opposite words or concepts are combined for effect. - *oxymoronic*, adj.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*RockyTopScott: "...Look through the forums for his new bully response of "WAFJ". Bully talk, plain and simple…."*

FYI,... "WAFJ" = *W*hat *A* *F*unny *J*oke

Yup, 'dat be 'dat boolee talk all-rat. Uh huh,... 'shore,... yup it iz!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I just learned a new thing, bully ebonics. Quite enlightening.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Think of the poor kids that had H-mike as their science teacher.

Or the parents that had to deal with him as Principal - - he would be the Junior high version of Dean Wermer.


----------



## bbrewer (Dec 28, 2012)

HM, nothing oxymoronic about my statement. I think the VA is underfunded, or perhaps I should say the funding doesn't reach the right places, and has not given proper or sufficient care to veterans. With the new health care law there will be handfuls of money thrown at problems that never reach the people that need the help.

HM "You sir are quite uninformed as to the level of care the VA provides" I'm not uninformed, like my post stated, I know many vets and know of their experiences.

HM " not denying your accountability to support our American Veterans." Please explain how my feeling that the veterans do not get proper or sufficient care is denying my responsibility to support American veterans.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

In addition to our vets, there are many others in need that could be the recipient of much better services if the federal government was not flush with fraud, waste and abuse.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Even more *WAFJ* continues! *8^)*


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

Found this in the rules.

Because of their divisive nature, political and religious debates, and thus postings, are prohibited at LumberJocks.com. Please refrain from starting or taking part in such discussions.

Going back to the shop. You all have fun now.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The OP included political connotations, hence the lifecycle of the entire thread.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Come on Scott! Learn to do some woodworking already! You have five years on LJs and nothing posted, so take some WW-ing classes and be a real LJ.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I would show you the pic of the crib I am building for my grandson Mike but it has a cross in it and I am afraid your eyes would catch fire due to your belief system.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Some new info on the ACA and the ability to control cost.

Perhaps the person in this video might know a bit about it.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

I've used VA's medical services. They were good. Probably as good as the private physicians I've encountered. 
Were they world-class? I dunno. My ailment(s) were fairly routine. I'm guessing ANY doctor would have probably solved my problems without killing me. BUT- if I HAD to use ONLY VA facilities for the rest of my life, I'd be ok with it. Not estatic, not happy. But OK with it.
But I have no idea how efficient/inefficient the VA is. For all I know, my procedures cost the taxpayers 10X more than they should have. Like any federal department, the VA is a HUGE bureauacracy. Mangement on top of management, supervisors on top of supervisors. etc, etc. 
If we expand that model past veterans to the entire country, I'm guessing the level of waste/fraud/abuse would be staggering.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Tedstor, what I have heard from vets is it depends which VA facility you go to. I have also heard anecdotal stories of vets actually moving to be near a facility of choice.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Tedstor: "...I have no idea how efficient/inefficient the VA is. For all I know, my procedures cost the taxpayers 10X more than they should have. ..."*

Nice try Tedstor, but "under-funding," especially chronic under-funding, actually tends to promote MORE efficiency, not less.

"...For all [you] know, [your] "...procedures cost the taxpayers 10X [LESS] than they should have…"


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Those budget concious folks like Sepulveda at the VA ?

He resigned in discrace last year - now will not even state that he EVER WORKED FOR THE VA - while taking the 5th.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/30/21250261-va-official-who-resigned-in-spending-scandal-repeatedly-pleads-fifth-at-hearing

Sepulveda said he was exercising his "privilege to remain silent" - and he refused to even acknowledge whether or not he ever worked for the VA.

He stepped down from his position last year amid revelations detailed in a congressional report that two 2011 conferences held in Orlando, Fla., near Walt Disney World, cost taxpayers $6.1 million, and included spa treatments, helicopter rides, and expensive tickets to shows.

Conference planners at the event also spent upwards of $50,000 creating a 15-minute video that parodied the Oscar-winning film "Patton," about the World War II general.

Although the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing was short on new revelations, one exchange concerned the fact that the VA spent more than $400,000 on consultants - to determine whether or not they were wasting money.

------------------
Findings of the House oversight report -
Department employs over 300,000 people, and has a budget which has increased 41 percent
since 2009, reaching $140 billion for fiscal year 2013. Despite the size of the Department's
budget and staff, it is plagued with a backlog of veterans' disability benefits claims, which
totaled over 840,000 in May 2013.
-----------------
So this is the backlog of the program tha "only" covers 22 million Veterans… how will Obamacare cover the nation?


----------



## JGM0658 (Aug 16, 2011)

how will Obamacare cover the nation?

I think it will, since everybody will be forced to have insurance. The problem I see is that insurance and HMO companies I am sure at the moment have a battery of lawyers looking at the Act and trying to find the loop holes.

I am thinking this will create a second tier of care level, something like: "ah, you are under Obamacare, well let us take care of this person who has good insurance, then we will get to you". People under Obamacare will have huge deductibles, hospitals and health care givers will know this and will assume they will not get that portion of the bill, so first go the ones who have small deductibles, and then go the poor schmucks under Obamacare.

This in turn will engender more lawsuits, and on and on…...I really don't think the ACA has done anything to reduce medical care costs.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I really don't think the ACA has done anything to reduce medical care costs.

That is it in a nutshell - everyone focuses on the cost of insurance, but insurance is expensive because the medical procedures they are covering are expensive.

From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/health/american-way-of-birth-costliest-in-the-world.html?_r=0

From 2004 to 2010, the prices that insurers paid for childbirth - one of the most universal medical encounters - rose 49 percent for vaginal births and 41 percent for Caesarean sections in the United States, with average out-of-pocket costs rising fourfold, according to a recent report by Truven that was commissioned by three health care groups. *The average total price charged for pregnancy and newborn care was about $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section, with commercial insurers paying out an average of $18,329 and $27,866, the report found. *
Women with insurance pay out of pocket an average of $3,400, according to a survey by Childbirth Connection, one of the groups behind the maternity costs report. Two decades ago, women typically paid nothing other than a small fee if they opted for a private hospital room or television.

That is not an *INSURANCE* scam shafting folks….it might be "The machine that goes "BING" "


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Mike- out of curiousity, why do you feel the VA is under-funded? Isn't everyone's favorite program going to be underfunded in their own eyes? 
And how do you know they are a basket-full of efficiency? 
I personally never received a bill for any of the services I received. So I have no idea if those services cost more/less than typical market value. Did the VA give you a bill for your services? Maybe they do, and I just didn't get one. 
I'm not saying the VA is a model to emulate, or not. I'm saying I don't know. But I DO know that the typical federal departments that I've worked for have been FAR from efficient (DOD being the worst). So admittedly, my feelings stem from anecdotal 'evidence'.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Any entity that receives that much money and is a government entity and has no real accountability is surely wrought with inefficiency.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely think they should get what they need, but how do you determine that?

The government does not do zero based budgeting, which it should, so the increase in spending has little to do with actual need.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Tedstor - We both live in the DC metro area. We both are intimately aware of the waste in the federal govt. I have used the VA (in different cities) in the past, the people there do an amazing job with sometimes 1/2 of what a regular hospital gets for budgets. As a whole, the VA hospital system is drastically underfunded and have been shutting down hospitals over the last 30 years to compensate.

One of the main things that the federal govt is supposed to be doing, per the Constitution, is the defense of the country - no where in the constitution is healthcare even eluded to. The only exclusion to this is that the govt should take care of our military members especially those injured or worse in defending our country and way of life through the VA hospitals.

This should have been the lesson for our lawmakers and to not go there - they did, now we are going to pay - in many ways. Many people firmly believe that we need this and as I said many times, be very careful of what you ask for - you may get it (but it is rarely what you expect or want).

Time will tell on this and the people doing it are not backing down with their vision of control - err - healthcare (sorry for the slip up)


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

As another note - all of this is an extremely personal thing to everybody - in different ways (as it should be). Having an open discussion is a great thing - that we can still do in this country (I think). One thing we cannot do is personally attacking one another for what we believe or not (even if I think you are wrong). Everyone of us are entitled (one of the few entitlements that we should have) to have our own opinion.

Many thanks to all


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Oh, and my view on the military - every young man should serve. I did, even when it was seriously unpopular at the end of VN - because it is something you do.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*DrDirt posted:*

Findings of the House oversight report -
Department employs over 300,000 people, and has a budget which has increased 41 percent
since 2009, reaching $140 billion for fiscal year 2013. Despite the size of the Department's
budget and staff, it is plagued with a backlog of veterans' disability benefits claims, which
totaled over 840,000 in May 2013.

So the budget is an estimated $450,000 per FTE? And we are not sure they are inefficient?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Tedstor: "...Mike- out of curiousity, why do you feel the VA is under-funded? Isn't everyone's favorite program going to be underfunded in their own eyes? ..."*

David's answer shows the stark reality of under-funding at the VA. I will add to that the fact that those wars that our previous President blessed us with will require massive increases in VA funding for the next +25-years due to all of the increases in injured veterans coming home from those wars being added to existing veterans of other wars.

*Number Of Disabled U.S. Veterans Rising -- CBSNews 2/11/2009*

Increasing numbers of U.S. troops have left the military with damaged bodies and minds, an ever-larger pool of disabled veterans that will cost the country billions of dollars for decades to come - even as the total population of America's veterans shrinks.

Despite the decline in the total number of veterans - as soldiers from World War II and Korea die - the government expects to be spending $59 billion a year to compensate injured warriors in 25 years, up from today's $29 billion, according to internal documents obtained by The Associated Press. And the Veterans Affairs Department concedes the bill could be much higher.

Why?

Worse wounds. More disabilities. More vets aware of the benefits and quicker to file for them.

Also, ironically, advanced medical care. Troops come home with devastating injuries that might well have killed them in earlier wars.

Time is also a factor when it comes to disability compensation costs. Payments tend to go up as veterans age, and an increasing number of soldiers from the Vietnam War will be getting bigger payments as they get older and are less able to work around their disabilities.

The number of disabled veterans has jumped by 25 percent since 2001 - to 2.9 million - and the cause really is no mystery.

"This is a cost of war," says Steve Smithson, a deputy director at the American Legion. "We're still producing veterans. We've been in a war in Iraq for five years now, and the war on terror since 9/11."

VA and Census Bureau figures show the previous six-year period, before hostilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, saw a more modest increase of 4 percent in the number of disabled vets. Veterans can make claims for disability benefits long after their military service has ended.

Today's veterans - disabled or not - number nearly 24 million. That population is projected by the VA to fall under 15 million by 2033, mostly because of dying World War II and Korean War vets. But costs are expected to rise.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Someone lives in fantasy land if one thinks our service men and women faired better under "O" vs "W". Purely delusional.

Link


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

David, 
I'd argue that VA hospitals have been shuttered for a few, valid reasons:
1- The hospitals in question have become old, obsolete. Its cheaper for the VA to refer a vet to a local hospital, than it is to build a new hospital in the middle of nowhere. 
2- The VAST network of VA facilities has become less necessary. Tens of millions of men were drafted into the military between 1940 and 1970.A MUCH higher percentage of the population served in those days. Many/Most of those men are entitled to VA services. Many have died and/or don't use the VA facilities because thay have their own means of receiving medical treatment. Ever since I got a job that offered ins, I haven't used VA. Mainly out of convenience. 
Which makes me wonder about the general claims of SLASHED VA budgets. Why would the VA need a bigger budget if such a tiny portion of the country now serves in the military? I could see the need back in the 50s/60s/70s. WWII, Korea, and Vietnam created A LOT of veterans, many with disabilities. But the modern military hasn't seen anything like those conflicts. The armed forces is small compared to what it used to be. Yet- the VA needs the same amount of money (or more) to serve a smaller number of veterans??? The math isn't there. 
I know-I'm a communist, American-hating prick for even questioning VA or DOD expenditures. But wasted money is wasted money. I didn't spend 5 years in the USMC to keep bad people out of the US, only to see it collapse from within. I'm very concerned that will happen…..for a variety of reasons.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Mike,
You'd puke if you knew how many servicemembers receive disability from BS, non service related, ailments like sleep apnea. 
Most servicemembers never see a second of combat. Yet, so many become "disabled"?? 
Its become SOP to document every little bump and bruise recieved during an enlistment. When it becomes time to separate from the military, its also near-SOP to dole out 10-20% disasbility for said bumps and buises. I know a guy thats "disabled" from a skin condition that causes him to have moles on his arms. 
How's that service-related? Its not. Its genetic. He said so himself. 
In other words, a lot of those increased levels of "disabled" vets…...are scams. Sorry to say it. But I've seen it first-hand…..many times. And why would these guys turn-down free money when its practically shoved down their throats by military doctors? DOD doesn't care if VA's books get crammed with frivilous claims.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Tedstor, 
You must have been typing when I posted an answer to your question about the need for increased VA funding.

SEE POST #376


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Mike- I don't know, it doesn't add-up. 
-More men were killed/wounded on Iwo Jima ALONE than in Iraq/Afghanistan COMBINED. I just don't understand where all these new disability claims are coming from. 
-My assumption is that most of the 1940-1970 vets have already made their claims- if they were going to make them. And by 2033, any remaining vietnam vets will be in their 90's. Korea and WWII vets will be long extinct.

Greater minds than mine have pndered the issue, and I'll leave it up to them to figure out. But when people blindly say that ALL VA funds are well-spent, I'm left a bit skeptical. Far too often I've seen the complete opposite. Overall, I believe its a worthy endeavor to care for/compensate veterans. The taxpayers thanked me heartily with the GI Bill and a VA Loan. But if the VA were ever seriously audited…...I'm pretty sure someone would go to jail.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

H-mikes post 375 - quotes a *2009* news story about estimated increases in VA demands.

100% true -

Cue post 366 from *2013 *so 4 years later that shows the VA budget increased *41% since 2009 *to 140 Billion.
.

So they added nearlyl 40 Billion dollars so far.

One constant in government whether Local State or Federal…. they will 100% of the time tell you they always need more money.

So the question of *How much the VA is underfunded? *is still unanswered.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*"So the question of How much the VA is underfunded? is still unanswered"*

If at all.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

The reality is this -
A hospital, regardless of the amount of patients, that provides the care that our veterans need, requires a specific level of equipment, supplies, and staff. The VA system provides a level of care that most regular hospitals cannot - because of the unique nature of the injuries and the like. They also do a lot of other things, like long term care for our veterans.

I don't know if you are a communist or not - don't really care. It has always been my contention that if the fed runs it and costs $1,000.00 the private sector can do it for $1.00.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*"... It has always been my contention that if the fed runs it and costs $1,000.00 the private sector can do it for $1.00…."*

Well the CURRENT health care system IS private, so why do we have all of the runaway costs then? If "private" is so good, why has/is it failing so badly? All of the other developed nations are doing a better job and at reduced rates than what America does. The increased taxes for a single-payer system adds up to LESS than all the for-profit deductibles and co-pays. Shoot, just ask the other LJs on here, that live in Canada for example.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Even true with Obamacare - every state has its own insurance. They do not cross states lines - federal law says the insurance companies cannot. If this were allowed, the costs could be averaged across a broader spectrum, reducing the costs a lot (per the insurance companies).

There are many other things that could be done but the laws do not permit it. Overall, 28 different things were outlined - specifically - and the Democrats ignored them all. There is a different agenda here that they are not tell you - too many things do not make sense.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Whether you believe the propaganda or not, the fed controls the health industry and the insurance companies - and has for many years. It is highly regulated - and these regulations cost everyone.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The last four years (2005-2008) of the Bush presidency the VA expenditures went up 28% while the past fours years of the Obama presidency (2011-2014) indicate an increase of 22% in spending at the VA.

But I guess when your presidency kills more soldiers (post 376) you don't need as much money to take care of the wounded.

LINK


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Keep in mind that the original bill for Obamacare was 30,000 words or 1200 pages. The first round of additional regulations that are not that available, contain something like 1.4 million words. We haven't started yet.

And you really think it will cost less


> ?


 Give it a week or two, that will change.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Even cost within a state - e.g. Colorado - If you are in denver you pay one price.
But if you are in the resort areas around Keystone your rate is 50% higher than in denver.






News story on Al Jazera…. not my favorite source - but they are first out there making stories on the state run exchanges and reporting enrollment there, while the rest are more focused on the "healthcare.gov" site.

An Obamacare navigator in Colorado said she hadn't signed up anybody for the new program because it's too expensive.

"So far, no one," says the Obamacare navigator. "Thus far everybody has taken a look at the rates and they've walked out the door. There's sticker shock. They just can't afford it."


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

The smaller the sample, the more the change - econ 101


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

DrDirt.

The states created the various rating areas in each state. Some have few and some have 30+.

The costs (rates) are approved by each state's department of insurance. The federal exchanges looked to the states to ensure rating practices were fair and valid.

It is more a function of the cost of care in a given area as well as the age of the population because the rates were "community rated" in each rating area which means everyone in that rating area that was, say 25 years old, all paid the same rates for the same plan.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Scott - I get what you are saying, but I would have expected that inside a state, on the state exchange - there would not be a policy variation. That if you would be a 27 year old "indestructable" that whether you lived 40 miles up the mountain in Winterpark, or in Aurora. there wouldn't be a 50% insurance premium difference.

Just never expected that there would be that big a difference for such a small distance.

If the "treatment cost" is the driver - than I would suppose you demand that for In network non-emergency surgery, they go to one of the med centers in Ft. Collins, or Denver propper.

Suppose it is much like when long distance phone calls were cheaper to europe than city to city in the same state.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

Should we consider doing away with the duplication of services (VA hospitals) and migrate such veteran's benefits to a suitable ACA exchange?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

An ACA Exchange is NOT a physical entity.


----------



## Smitty_Cabinetshop (Mar 26, 2011)

I realize that, thank you. Give veterans credits at the exchanges. Why continue to fund / maintain facilities vs. spending funds on veteran's benefits?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

FYI, if you didn't already know, the VA has already combined the Tri-Care services for military retires with the VA services for the disabled and non-retires, thus already eliminating many hospitals/services, as you are suggesting. You can combine only so much before you overload the remaining services/facilities.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

VA and Tricare are considered essential health benefits so folks with this coverage are exempt from the mandate.

They will purchase only if they want coverage elsewhere.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

DrDirt,

The ACA only allows a certain amount of variance in premium for older members vs younger so the younger age group premium is probably inflated so the upper age groups get set where they need to be.

In essence moving the baseline to cover the upper end cost projections.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Well, at least the ACA is easy to understand. LOL. Really. I truly thought it couldn't get any worse than the tax code.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The ACA Is the tax code…..wearing a latex glove…...it will be alot more than a little pressure you feel when they are done.

Hold on tight.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

I see a few post that say something like " my so and so got sick and the government payed for all of it or the majority of it".

Where does government get money? Largely from the middle class. The middle class gets hit up for everything. Sooner or later the government is going to break the middle class and then who going to pay for everything?

Ted, why/how do you suppose the ACA will now make medical insurance affordable for you?


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

*The ACA Is the tax code…..wearing a latex glove*

Rocky that's funny.
Brings to mind exactly what we are all about to receive from our government.
Now just bend over. . .


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

AlaskaGuy,

ACA gives tax credits to some referred to as APTC ot Advance Premium Tax Credit.

The Treasury dept will pay these to the insurance company monthly, which lowers the cost for those eligible.

Healthcare and health insurance is going up, but is being subsidizes with tax money.

Wealth redistribution, period.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

The VA should be left alone to take care of our veterans.


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.

A cancer patient in San Diego who has lost her coverage and will be forced to change doctors and treatment center has asked "What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician."

For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Death panel by default.


----------



## Oldtool (May 27, 2012)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/?partner=yahootix

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/11/04/2015-will-be-even-worse-for-obamacare-than-its-2014-rollout-as-a-result-of-new-yokes-that-the-white-house-saddles-onto-participating-insurers/?partner=yahootix

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/obamacare-paper-phone-web-apps-stuck-in-the-same-queue-memos-note/


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*RockyTopScott: "...Death panel by default…."*

NO! Screw the Corporate whores! THAT is why we require government oversight!

NO Sarah Palin Death Panels here!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Read the law.

There are provisions that will create deficiencies in care….just wait and see.

The woman in CA is just the beginning.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Rocky, you never follow the law, so what is your point? We are NOT talking about your TILT!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Be informed. READ THE LAW and all the related publications issued by CMS.

CMS.gov/CCIIO
REGTAP.info

Register, read all the notices, FAQs and presentations. Listen to the calls like I did today.

Come back when you are informed.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Just because Sarah Palin used the term death panels is not the same as there not being said panel.

I don't really trust that 15 people! All appointed by Barack Obama, to determine payment and treatment standards to control medicare costs….not medical costs in general -but SOLELY to limit the money spent on treatment of the elderly, is not a process I relish at all.

I don't believe any of those jokers in washington can tie their own ties - - nevermind a "Blue Ribbon Panel" of presidential appointees - appointed to 6 year terms on the board.

To claim that this role is any different than the rationing board role of 'NICE' in the UK is laughable.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

You are so correct DrDirt.

The two main factors in reducing healthcare cost are the unit cost of services (price controls) and utilization (rationing).

There are many more factors but these are the two main ones.

Who wants a group of government cronies deciding which treatments are acceptable and which ones are not.

"If you like your treatment, you can keep it. Period"


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

I recently changed jobs and had to buy an individual policy. I was first turned down because 
I have diabetes and the pre-existing condition clause of the HIPPAA act of 1996 only applies to employer policies and not all people with continuous credible coverage. (Had been with BCBSAZ for about 4 years prior)

I ended up buying a portability policy with BCBSAZ (AZ has no high-risk pool type plan) and the coverage went down and the premiums skyrocketed to $1273/month for what compares to, but fails to qualify as a Silver plan on ACA. (about $300/mo come Jan 1st, if, and that is a BIG if, I can successfully process an application before Dec 15th)

Two days after I applied for the plan, I had a heart attack and was in the hospital. Since the plan had not yet issued, I could not provide insurance information so was listed as a CASH PAYOR-they treat you different after that, I learned.

The hospital said they would accept $21K in cash in leau of the $66K total bill. But then, an amazing thing happened-the policy issued and covered the hospital visit. The insurance did not pay $66k, but DID pay $32K

I am curious why the hospital might accept $21K from a cash payor but can bill for and receive $32K to the insurance co. What changed about the value of services rendered that it was now $11k more valuable?
If the services were worth $66k, or $32K or even $21K, shouldn't it have that value regardless of who pays, or how it gets paid?

This, I think, is why we are in this mess. There is rampant greed by both the insurance companies AND the medical providers. They charge really high and then discount the charges depending on who and how the bill gets paid. In other words, they have a "don't leave any money on the table" internal policy. I am sure the hospital is losing money on all the uninsured patients that parade through the ER on a daily basis. No doubt that is where the other $11K is going.

The funny thing about this is that they would have accepted $21K cash from me as the total amount due for services. Now that they got paid $32K for it, I still owe them an additional $4473.00 for my deductable plus the remaining 30% up to my out of pocket maximum, (Making the total payment to them almost $37K).
Seems like they could dismiss my portion and still be ahead 11 g's.

GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY… Don't they know I WORK for a living?


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

DS

There's more that one way to look at it. They probably look at it as there are out 29000.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

You cannot look at a single case (cardio stay) and determine where the real price point is based on an insurance carrier's contract with the facility and what they would accept up front in cash.

Hospitals sell bad debt for pennies on the dollar so there are a lot of issues that go into determining their cost basis and offers to the uninsured.

I am not saying what you experienced did not happen DS, all I am saying is you have to look at the hospital cost and insurance cost in a much larger context to see how the healthcare economic model runs, not just a solitary case.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

And THAT is why healthcare "insurance" should/will be eliminated and replaced by a single payer system, as it is in all the other major/advanced countries on this planet.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/61721/the-two-maps-that-show-how-badly-american-health-care-is-trailing-the-rest-of-the-world









Perhaps most interestingly, the ten most efficient systems-Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Israel, Spain, Italy, Australia, South Korea, Switzerland, and Sweden-all provide universal health care, through single payer, two-tier, or individual mandate programs.

The United States, in contrast, does not. Not only is our health care system notably inefficient, but we also fail to provide health care to all of our citizens.

What happens to these other citizens, the uninsured? As was recently reported on PolicyMic, some resort to crime in order to access health care through the prison system. Then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney famously asserted that emergency rooms should function as a suitable alternative to insurance for the uninsured.

These alternatives beg an important question: who covers the cost of the uninsured. If the uninsured individual, who is already probably working class or poor, must pay, they will undoubtedly be buried in bills that will haunt them for the rest of their life. If the government must pay, they are fronting a cost that could be paid for through a tax. If the hospitals must pay, they are losing out on money that is not accounted for in the efficiency statistic above, and our health care system is even more broken than we realize.

Fortunately, universal health care in the form of a universal mandate will be a reality in the United States starting January 1, 2014. There is nothing left to do now but wait and see whether Obamacare will bring us up to speed with other, efficient universal health care systems around the world.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Fortunately, *universal health care in the form of a universal mandate will be a reality *in the United States starting January 1, 2014. There is nothing left to do now but wait and see whether Obamacare will bring us up to speed with other, efficient universal health care systems around the world.

Another commentary from someone that seemingly has not read the law. Not surprising.


----------



## JGM0658 (Aug 16, 2011)

Mike, sorry but your info (as is most of the information that is picked singly without an overall view) is flawed. While your map shows health care cost (% per GDP capita) it does not show the *quality of care nor the availability.*

If yo do not have insurance or the money to pay for health care in Mexico, you better not get sick, trust me on this one. You would not believe what goes on on the state run hospitals. Incompetent doctors, understaffed. lacking of materials, etc. A veritable nightmare.

Health care costs in the US are out of control, but the alternative, might be worse. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it…


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Of course the %GDP maps are a wonderful tool to hide behind.

Other countries government plans cap care and send you home to die. I suppose that one can cap/limit your healthcare spending versus GDP - - but is not a measure of *efficiency*.

Somehow I don't think the hospitial sending you home is somehow "Better" than insurance denying a claim.

http://www.freemarketcure.com/singlepayermyths.php
Single-payer is popular among the political left in the United States. Leftists have emitted tons of propaganda in favor of a single-payer system, much of which has fossilized into myth.

Here are some of the more prominent single-payer myths: 
Myth No. 1: Everyone has access to health care a single-payer system. 
Myth No. 2: Claims of rationing are exaggerated. 
Myth No. 3: A single-payer system would save money on administrative costs. 
Myth No. 4: Single-payer will provide fair and quality care for everyone. 
Myth No. 5: Single-payer leaves medical decisions to patients & doctors. 
Myth No. 6: Single-payer systems achieve better health outcomes. 
Myth No. 7: The U.S. systems also engages in rationing. 
Myth No. 8: A single-payer system will not hamper medical research. 
Myth No. 9: Single-payer will save money as patients seek care earlier. 
Myth No. 10: The free market in health care has failed in the U.S.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Wow Dirt, talk about a RIGHT WING propaganda link! Geez!...


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

In Russia, during the days of the USSR, hospitals - in order to save costs - actively shared needles, many times without the required cleaning - unless your family paid for these out of pocket. But then, who do you trust????

I do not know about now.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

More importantly a single payer will not change American's eating and exercising habits which are at the core of metabolic syndrome in our country which is the largest contributor to heart disease, diabetes and other complications.

BTW I am as guilty as the next person.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Imagine if you went and had your car tuned up and when they changed you spark plugs they over torqued them and cracked a head.

The mechanic comes out and says it will cost you another $800 to have this fixed.

Would you not expect them to cover the cost and hassle of repairs…in other words pay for their mistake?...correct the outcome? Sure you would.

Why do we not hold medical providers responsible (via a global fixed payment) for the outcomes?

No, the more you need the more they charge. Bad model altogether.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I have no doubt that once the IRS has your health care, they WILL regulate what you eat and charge you more depending upon your diet.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*GOP View of Universal Health Care*


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*@Jorge: "...Mike, sorry but your info (as is most of the information that is picked singly without an overall view) is flawed. While your map shows health care cost (% per GDP capita) it does not show the quality of care nor the availability…"*

Here you go Jorge, RE availability. Do note that Mexico ranks as one of the TWO countries that are poor, and that ONLY the United States alone does NOT offer universal healthcare.

*List of Industrialized Countries*
Free-market countries: 30** as per the OECD,
... and their status regarding universal health care,
health care for all.

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea, South
Luxembourg
(Mexico)
Netherlands
New Zealand 
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
(Turkey)
United Kingdom

 United States

LEGEND
(Countries) = classified as low-income

= Countries without health care for all, AKA universal healthcare.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

H-mike - sure my source was as "fair and balanced" as Policymic ;-P

If you publicly complain about losing your insurance - you can even get personally attacked by White house staffer Dan Pfeiffer and Move-on.org.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Israel, Egypt, Russia (and other block countries), Romania, and China are civilized countries and not listed one way or another. Do they not count?

Or are they left out because the real point would change direction?

Norway, Sweden, and Finland make up the Netherlands - was this an extra to make it look better?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

DS: You are right about this being a big part of the mess we're in. As Scott said, though, it's not so much a matter of greed as it is a simple matter of recovering costs.

Theoretically, the cost of any particular treatment is the same for everyone. But since many can't or won't pay that cost, doctors and hospitals have developed a convoluted and inherently unfair system where they can squeeze as much as possible out of each market segment.

Perfect example:

I take cholesterol medication and get blood work done every year. The bill for lab services is around $400, but is discounted all the way down to something like $50 for the insurance company. So, as an insured individual, the cost is $50. If I was uninsured but had the ability to pay, that same service would cost the full $400. If I didn't pay because I was poor, uninsured, and /or just a deadbeat, the cost would be zero. In the end, the lab maintains a moderate profit level because those three very different cost scenarios happen many times each day, and tend to average each other out in the long run.


----------



## fatandy2003 (Apr 4, 2012)

HMike,

I am very confused about what your map and lists have to do with offering health care?

In the map, you show a bunch of pretty colors showing countries like Libya, Algeria, Romania, Iran, Colombia, and Peru (to name a few countries) that have health care costs equaling less of their GDP than America and Europe. I have been to some of those countires and prayed that I didn't get sick the entire time I was there because of how poor their "health care" was.

Your list offers a bunch of countries that tax their citizens at far higher rates than the US and does not offer the quality of care given. I live in Italy and have witnessed first hand what the "single-payer" system has done, both in terms of running the government out of money and the services offered by health care providers into the ground.

I would actually offer that, if someone would like to live in a country with a single-payer system, they are more than welcome to move north across the boarder or to Europe. In order to make a better life for his family, my great-great grandfather spent every penny he had in Germany, to put his family on a boat to move to the US. He worked his tail off in Bayone, NJ to give his son the oportunity to move to South Jersey and get a better job… etc… blah, blah, blah… Not trying to lecture (or even invite anyone to leave the country), but simplying saying that the "wealth redistribution" rhetoric being spewed is not in keeping with the US Constitution, which is what the "RIGHT WING" LJ members are arguing for…

Ultimately, I think this entire thread should have been closed out when the author offered his response in post #131…

Cheers,


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Andy, you are a lieutenant in the US Navy, serving in Naples, Italy. The US military provides your health care, as it did I when I served. I hardly think that your tourist status in Italy qualifies you to compare the over 47 million non-elderly Americans that were/are un-insured in the US with those who actually have some form of universal health care coverage in Italy.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I am Curious about Hmikes position.
As a retiree and getting what is for you "Free" healthcare through the VA as a vertically integrated organization.

Can you tell us:
WHy should we be so in love with Obamacare exchanges, administered by HHS - - funded and controlled by the IRS kicking back to special interests to redistribute wealth - - and limited in spend by the IPAB panel of 15 people Obama personally appoints? I mean it really sounds* DREAMY*!! As in "full 20 minutes and pick a favorite color" dreamy.

What is going to be so awesome about this trainwreck - that you have no participation in yourself?


----------



## fatandy2003 (Apr 4, 2012)

And I am very glad that they do! However, I live out in the economy, have Italian neighbors and friends (some of them doctors) and also have American friends (who are not, nor have ever been associated with the military) that live here in Italy. I believe my ACTUAL experience living in the country and ACTUALLY going to Italian doctors and hospitals qualifies me to assess the mess the single-payer system has made of the Italian health care services. As for the "over 47 million non-elderly Americans that were/are un-insured in the US", how many of them do you think will opt out of ObamaCare and just pay the penalty? how many of them (like the author of this thread) will find that they do not qualify for subsidized insurance under the ObamaCare system and will actually see that insurance for them will now be even more expensive than it used to be if they suddenly decided they wanted health care?

I like your style though. On every discussion about redistributing wealth, you offer up massive amounts of half true, partially researched "facts" and just attack the "qualifications" of the people who hold an opposite view. So, I would like to turn the tables and ask you: What, in your current state in life, makes you an expert on how ANY of the counties with socialized health care "compare the over 47 million non-elderly Americans that were/are un-insured in the US"?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Wow Andy, you are being provided the *Ultimate in Socialized Medical/Health Care* that America provides (via military), and is ACTUALLY SUCCESSFUL AT, yet you still want to deny 47-million Americans a chance to have health care? BTW, I am proud to be covered by the VA's socialized health care system. FWIW, I was too poor to afford a college degree BEFORE enlisting, but once honorably discharged, I earned all three culminating in my PhD. And knowing that those with commissions have to stand in the same line as I, makes me smile. We are equal after all as it should be, FOR ALL.

Would YOU have joined the Navy if you were told that you would be "UN-insured" during your tour of duty? I think not. The 47-million UN-insured deserve that kind of equality as well.


----------



## fatandy2003 (Apr 4, 2012)

It's funny, successful is not how I would define the health care in the military. The wait lines are months long, I haven't been able to see an eye doctor in 2 years due to the ineptitude of the scheduling programs. Not to mention the military doctors are not your "no. 1 graduates" from medical school. All that to say, if I was "UN-insured" I would shop for a health care plan that fit my family's needs.

Back to my questions: As for the "over 47 million non-elderly Americans that were/are un-insured in the US", how many of them do you think will opt out of ObamaCare and just pay the penalty? how many of them (like the author of this thread) will find that they do not qualify for subsidized insurance under the ObamaCare system and will actually see that insurance for them will now be even more expensive than it used to be if they suddenly decided they wanted health care?

I will assume that you are dropping your accusation that I am not qualified to "to compare the over 47 million non-elderly Americans that were/are un-insured in the US with those who actually have some form of universal health care coverage in Italy" ?


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Not at all Andy, after all you appear to be of a particular political tilt. That explains it all, IMO.

Good luck cutting lines ahead of those with more need within the military. I don't care for such folks, as I find them too self-serving. Thank you for being honest about this. For me, I'll continue to support universal health care for ALL.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Notice Andy, your post actually came true.

He did not answer the question, but rather attacked you.

Alas, we still don't know what makes Mike an expert on socialized medicine on other countries other than a chart.

You got it right Andy. Good job.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Have no idea why people say Obama is lying - - - this is still the whithouse.gov position as of 30 seconds ago
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titlei

*"Nothing requires you to change… PERIOD*"


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

As Smittys Cabinet shop posted on another thread… it is dead on here.

*A truth to keep in mind: A liberal's disdain for corporate greed is only matched by a conservative's distrust of unrestrained government.*

The Conservatives here are not claiming that the pre ACA healthcare system was even close to a perfect system - however - we do see that everything the government touches seems to turn to crap - filled with exemptions and back-room deals - Union carve outs, and pandering to corporations.

The idea that the IRS is going to somehow administer the healthcare budget for the entire population from their complex in Virginia…. is not something we think will be a "Move in the right direction"

They could have EASILY crafted a simple bill during the February 2010 meeting that Obama held on TV with Dems and Repubs from House and Senate to talk.

Both sides already agreed on many of the needed reforms - No booting the sick, and covering pre-existing conditions…there was even Republican support for a Mandate.
However that wouldn't achieve the goal of Income redistribution - and medicaid expansion that the president wanted.

For Obama -this was NEVER about providing healthcare.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Oh, we don't want to look at the military health care - when I was in, in the 70's, my wife injured her back. She was told that it was all in her head and she was just trying to keep me from being deployed. As it turned out, she have a dislocated spine and should have been in traction.

They wouldn't let her see a Dr. or Medical Officer, the best she got was a physician's assistant or corpsman. After her spine went back in place, and after a seriously inflamed or infected spline, all they could say was "oops!" Then they told her that she would be in a wheelchair before she was 35. She isn't in a wheelchair but only because she won't let them win (she probably should be) because three of her disks are all but gone. The pain she goes through on a daily basis is unreal - but she deals with it - without pain pills.

We don't want to cross that bridge at all. That's about 34 years of serious pain there! The attitude was that unless she came in your sea bag, it didn't matter (if you were enlisted), and yes, I was told that. If you were an officer, your wife was treated very well and got excellent treatment.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

A 12,500/day bill is not about Insurance Company profits. - - And Obamacare does not attempt to address this.

Just as lowering Student loan rates doesn't make College more affordable either.


----------



## fatandy2003 (Apr 4, 2012)

Thanks for all the Laughs Mike. I am bowing out as I feel I have provided valid, pertinent points to the argument and have only been met with angry banter. I do not appreciate your wild assumptions that attempt to cloud the discussion. I will leave you with this: As an officer and a leader, I have never met a sailor I was not willing to serve, but I will not do their job for them, and thus explains my opposition to redistributing wealth.

Enjoy your angry banter. It's shop time for me…


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

If you think I want to go back to that environment, you are seriously mistaken - AT EVERY LEVEL!!!


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Mike, you can have your position and you and I will disagree on that. I have seen all sides of the coin first hand. I think there could have been real changes that would have improved healthcare in this country to be the best in the world - bar none.

The real agenda is not being presented - which I expect will be soon. You may get what you ask for and I hope it works for you. I have seen it, don't like it, and really appreciated what I had - and will never see again.

This country is going down a slope at a break neck speed that will become far worse than what the USSR ever thought possible. Hope I am wrong but I am not seeing anybody that is in a position to stop it - to even try, they are too busy drooling over the potential power that they think they may get - letting it run its course.

I am done with this thread -


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

David,
What does the USSR have to do with any of this? Is this your version of invoking Godwin's Law? Russia is not even a free market economy, so what gives? Give me a break…


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Communism is socialism without religion. The USSR was total redistribution - didn't work. Demonizing capitalism and pitting the haves and have nots against each other was how the USSR got created - see the pattern?

In this country, until lately, the idea was that if you didn't like where you were, it was up to you to find a way - and fix it - or not. Now, the attitude is, "I don't have it, you do, give me some - or your a bad person!" That is how socialism and communism (I don't like your religion so you have to worship the govt) take hold. Now that more than 52% of the U.S. population are on some kind of government subsidy (not talking ACA), the people that want the handouts out number the people paying for it.

In a free society, that doesn't work - ever.

Bye


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Actually David, I misspoke. What I should have asked is whether or not you were promoting a return to McCarthyism with your comment:

*"...This country is going down a slope at a break neck speed that will become far worse than what the USSR ever thought possible…"*

BTW, just a little refresher for you and the others above:

*McCarthyism*- The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents.










*"...During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists…."

Although far-right radicals were the bedrock of support for McCarthyism, they were not alone. A broad 'coalition of the aggrieved' found McCarthyism attractive, or at least politically useful. Common themes uniting the coalition were opposition to internationalism, particularly the United Nations; opposition to social welfare provisions, particularly the various programs established by the New Deal; and opposition to efforts to reduce inequalities in the social structure of the United States…"*

Boy this sure sounds like all of those Republican House of Representative investigations of anything and everything "Obama", doesn't it… (redundant question, requires NO response).


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I would say your picture accurately reflects where this country is headed.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/fda-ban-artery-clogging-trans-fats-20814618

Get ready, the nanny state will soon outlaw woodworking due to health concerns. We are on a very slippery slope.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Well according to that map of healthcare costs vs GDP Lybia and Mexico are great, now let me ask you where would you rather be if you had a heart attack here or either of those places?


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Today Obama said he was sorry to all the people who are loosing their insurance -(yea right). But I certainly agree with him. He is SORRY.

There was a story on the radio today about a guy undergoing cancer treatment for some time now and making headway. He just received a cancellation notice from his insurance company. This was due to the new rules in the ACA. He is loosing his doctors and place of treatment.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I had to come back for this post - could not resist (just for Mike)

Say what you want - they happily announced on the TV last night that because of the high rate of heart attacks, the govt wants to eliminate trans fats. So far in my life time, just to name a few, the govt has been against eggs, then egg yolks, then they came out and said eating just egg whites is bad, now they say eggs are really good for you; salt has always been a winner - shouldn't have it, cannot live without it, and lately, they are now saying it doesn't have any affect one way or another; beef has been good, bad, and I don't know where it is right now.

The govt is now going to regulate you not with just taxes, but with your health care, the two are run by the IRS - are merged from the start. What you eat WILL be monitored. This could be much more than a nanny state - but don't worry, the transition will be slow and phased in. The movies and TV are trying to kill the Thanksgiving turkey, targeting the children - and all the other trimmings on the table will be regulated - or just not done because it is easier than fighting with the kids. The use and targeting of kids is a tactic that was used in Nazi Germany to actually spy on the parents - easy enough to do - just ask the class who had turkey, or ham, or rolls for Thanksgiving dinner. It is subtle, quiet, and effective. -How's that for a scenario? Sound scary enough? Conspiracy theory - it has been done and quite effectively. All for the rationale of the govt IS helping you to be a better person or how to indoctrinate (instruct) your children how Mom and Dad need to be told that YOU don't want to eat those foods - because they are BAD. I heard this from my kid 20 years ago. The difference was that it was OUR choice whether we eat those foods - now it will be law.

Here is what WebMD says have (or may have) trans fats (no doubt - will be on the chopping block from your diet - so much for freedom of choice) :

The FDA label ruling and consumer awareness of the dangers of trans fats have led many food manufacturers to reformulate products to reduce or eliminate trans fats. Today you can buy cookies and soft-spread margarine with zero trans fats. But trans fats still exist in some products. Carefully read nutrition labels and chose brands that don't use trans fats and are low in saturated fat in these products:

Cookies, crackers, cakes, muffins, pie crusts, pizza dough, and breads such as hamburger buns
Some stick margarine and vegetable shortening
Pre-mixed cake mixes, pancake mixes, and chocolate drink mixes
Fried foods, including donuts, French fries, chicken nuggets, and hard taco shells
Snack foods, including chips, candy, and packaged or microwave popcorn
Frozen dinners

bon apatite

The questions will be - if you are found to be eating trans fats after it is against the law, will you be taxed more, your insurance go up, or will you be shot (it is killing you anyway)???

For me - I don't eat most of those foods anyway - it is the idea that we won't have the freedom of choice to eat what the hell we want.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

There was also a time when margarine (soft tasty plasticy goo) was considered the healthy alternative to butter.


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

I tend to look at what we eat in terms of what would have been naturally available to humans throughout evolution to decide what is good and bad for you.

Eggs, a good example. If they were really bad for you, humans who liked to eat eggs would have become extinct.

I doubt Neanderthals hydrogenated very much vegetable oil to make it look and act like lard and butter, so I'm' going to bet that stuff is really not good for you; Or at least is unknown in terms of long term affects.

Of course, if the government tells me anything I have to eat or not eat they can kiss my ol' rusty.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The progressive Utopia will continue in the Courts - - if your kid throws a tantrum demanding a Happy Meal and you refuse - The court appointed shrink will deem you unfit.

This is the direction of the "it takes a village to raise a child" mentality.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I heard trans fat drones would be deployed.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Guys…. Hmike is never wrong. The sooner you realize this…the sooner this discussion can end…and the sooner you can get on with your lives. It's something I've accepted a long time ago.


----------



## JGM0658 (Aug 16, 2011)

Sorry Mike, I do not know where you are getting your info, but it is wrong. Nor can you use contradicting information about the same country to try and make your point. Mexico has the 10th largest economy in the world. It is not a "poor" country, it is just a country where the wealth is held by few, mainly crooked politicians.

Even so, you cannot say "oh look, even Mexico has universal care (as an example of how good is the ACA as per your map example comparing the GDP)" and then turn around and say, "Of course Mexico does not have good universal care, it is a "poor" country." Meaning Mexico has a low GDP. These are contradictory facts.

Clearly as a Democrat you are hell bent on supporting an universal health care for the US by taxing the "well to do", unfortunately, this act did not address the high cost of health care but the inability of obtaining health insurance.

If I look at my crystal ball, I am predicting the ACA will raise health care cost. Insurance companies, in order to make up the loss of being forced to underwrite risky members will raise costs of insurance to doctors and hospitals, and at the same time provide insurance that just meets what the law requires for individuals. Having ********************ty insurance is not "affordable health care" it is only that, ********************ty insurance good for nothing.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

as for my opinion….why spend more money on healthcare so MORE people can have it? As a whole, we'd be a healthier nation with no (medical) healthcare system at all (except for emergency care)! Its a broken system that doesn't work. Its a business that treats symptoms of diseases instead of making people healthier. It's sickness care…not health care. The argument and discussion is always about how to get more people healthcare…blah blah blah….the real discussion should be how the hell do we fix our "health"care system.

We spend more money on sickness care than most countries combined, yet we rank like 34th in overall health. So lets spend even more money on it, and get even more people using it to get healthier….wrong

Also in this "great" sickness care system we have…...obesity is now considered a disease…..WAFJ (winks at Hmike)


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Hey David! You listed many many ways that the Government should NOT be in our lives, yet you MISSED the biggest ONE issue of too much Government…

*Why should Government, being so over-bearing as you insist, be in the business of banning abortions and birth control, or allowing companies to ban such?*


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

Well, for that matter why should the government be in the business of giving my tax money to institutions that provide, promote and encourage abortions.; even to the point of killing live born infants.

And by the way, the only thing wrong with McCarthyism is that we stopped it too soon, before all the commie vermin were eliminated.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Government should not be in the business of any of these things nor should they be paying for them. They are the responsibility of the individual (period). If you want an abortion - get one, not my business - it is not my business to pay for your abortion either - same with birth control - if you don't want babies, close your legs or buy the drug yourself. If you are gay - so what, I am not in your bedroom - not my business-- and it shouldn't be the government's business either.

The government should not ever be in direct contact with the individual - it is bad enough for taxes - make it 6% of every dollar you make and call it a day but keep out of my life.

Look at the FDA approved drugs out there - these are no longer safe to take - and Drs. prescribe them - even if they do permanent damage or kill you. And you want to give these people your healthcare mandating that you MUST take them-- oh please!

Wake up! the land of OZ it isn't, this is reality AND CONTROL!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Crank,
Why should my tax monies be supporting churches and other religious institutions? Tax exempt? Geez, they should be paying THEIR fair share of Government taxes for being in this country as well. And a "tax-exempt" NFL?


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*Crank49: "And by the way, the only thing wrong with McCarthyism is that we stopped it too soon, before all the commie vermin were eliminated."

+1,000,000,000,000,00,000,000*


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Separation of church and state - this way the government does not control any church


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Mike the whole "quack" thing doesn't bother me. It just makes me sad for you - sad that you're really that uneducated in this particular topic. (I worry about your health). But don't worry, you aren't alone. Most people are uneducated…including most of our healthcare system, government, teachers, etc etc etc. Not that these people aren't intelligent, they just got dooped into believing and abiding by an allopathic paradigm - a paradigm that is flawed down to its very "dogmatic" core. A paradigm that rules our "health" care system. Sad. 
I am confident with my knowledge of human biology/physiology that I consider myself an expert in the field, especially in matters dealing with human health. Your'e "quack" taunt just reveals your insecurities and the deeply imbedded issues you must be dealing with personally. Mommy or daddy problems?

If you're right, you have no reason to get mad; if you're wrong, you have no right to. So you're either wrong, or confused. Its ok. I forgive you. Now get back to causing trouble, mister!!

(i'm sure you'll have a witty come-back….sadly I won't be here to see it. Won't open forum topic again. Just had to stop in for old-time sakes)


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Churches get their revenue from donations and tithes, money that has ALREADY been taxed.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Donations to churches are deductible from your taxes


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*"...Churches get their revenue from donations and tithes, money that has ALREADY been taxed…"*

The very same could be said of every business. Their services/products have been purchased with monies already "taxed". You make NO sense Scott. Please explain how that is any different.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Understood, the post was referencing "tax exempt", which of course I am not.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

It is not different Mike, EACH and EVERY dollar should just be taxed once. That is one of the problems with our tax code.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

If that were so, ALL dollars would HAVE to be single use and throw away. If that were not to be, then the government would have gone broke back in 1796 or so. You know, when those dollars were taxed THE FIRST TIME.

Sounds too much like The Company Store where you could ONLY spend Company Dollars


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Come on Mike - This is just semantics let's get back to the real topic.

The government's only reason to be involved with our lives is for the control. Otherwise, the way it was done, the costs, the plans, all of it - doesn't make any logical sense. There would have been serious discussions over a period of time and a real comprehensive plan would have made - NONE OF THIS HAPPENED.

This whole thing was pushed through in a back door way - that no one read (until it was passed ??? really)

Would you go out and sell your house, take a job in a different state that you found in a 2 line classified add (without calling them and interviewing), buy another house, call the moving company - put your wife and family in the car and as you're driving out of the driveway - tell them that your all moving ….?

Not if you want to keep your family! That would be better than the way this was done. Think about it! This whole propaganda machine - right down to the "keep your health care" line was a lie from the start because they knew that they could not pay for it if you kept your insurance (only they keep their insurance). Look at it as a "too good to be true" aspect and look at how it is falling apart.

We have been paying into it for 6 years - for a 10 year plan (effective for only 4 years) - there's a thought out plan to keep. It is already over budget by over 100%, without the web site that will be a billion dollars - if we are lucky. Want to talk Ponzi Scheme-this is it.

There are 1,000 better ways to put a viable health care system in place and this is the opposite of all of it.

Let's put it another way - if they didn't have a different motive for doing this AND THIS WAS THEIR PLAN - that would scare me more.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

"*Let's put it another way - if they didn't have a different motive for doing this AND THIS WAS THEIR PLAN - that would scare me more.*"

Be afraid…. be very afraid.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Looks like the luster has already worn off.

LINK


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

At the outset, the goal of Obamacare was to INSURE the UNINSURED.

As it appears now, all we have accomplished is to UNINSURE the INSURED.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I recall being told that the DC exchanges were working well and people liked the options.
Of course the average wage in the beltway is way above the rest of the country.

However now it comes out that even in DEEP DEEP blue DC - - a whole 5 folks have signed up! (not just in the first day…. nope - TOTAL FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER = 5

-------
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/08/report-d-c-obamacare-exchange-enrolls-5/

Grassley and Hatch contacted CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, Kaiser Permanente, UnitedHealthcare and Aetna. CareFirst reported two enrollees from Oct. 1 through Oct. 30. Kaiser Permanente reported three enrollees from Oct. 1 through Oct. 31. Neither UnitedHealthcare or Aetna had any enrollment data as of Nov. 4 and Oct. 24 respectively.

"With numbers like these, it's no wonder the Obama administration hasn't wanted to release how many people have signed up for ObamaCare," Hatch said. "With data from D.C.'s four participating health plans in, there's been a whopping five people enrolled in the city's exchange. That's right - five. Whether it's significant problems with the website, people being forced off the coverage they had or skyrocketing costs, these numbers are even more proof of what a disaster ObamaCare is and why it should be delayed."


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I know first hand that folks just are not interested in enrolling unless they have many health issues.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

I sure hope you guys lose weight while shaking in your pants… It will improve your bootstrap healthcare… LOL!

And McCarthyism is the answer huh… ROLMAO!


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

DrDirt, it isn't quite fair to compare anything in DC to the rest of the country. I live close enough to know DC is a freaking basket case and they can't do anything right. Not to mention every single politician, appointed chief of whatever etc will be arrested for bribery at some point in their career.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Keep in mind that the pay scales may be higher the DC metro area, they don't go as far. When you consider the my property taxes for a 1200 sqft townhouse (excludes the basement) are $2,600 a year and I don't live near the city, it's higher the closer you get to DC. Then we have Maryland income tax and a county income tax (piggyback tax). Another note, the property values for tax purposes - are the full fair market values at the time (every 3 years) of the assessment.

Also on this, inflation figures do not include food (never could figure out why not). My food bill for just my wife and I is about $600 - $700 a month and gas is around $3.40 a gallon (this is around $400 a month for me because of the distance I have to commute to work).

This is why the military, if stationed here gets per-diem that is substantial.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Mike - I have healthcare, I have been told it is going up, but they won't tell me how much - 
The way I look at it - the more I am charged, the less money I have to spend on other things - like my house, going out to dinner, helping my kid with her house - and I get calls from charities 4 time a week.

Charity contributions are not going to happen, going out to dinner - nothing expensive, even helping my daughter would suffer. If feeding my explorer gets too high, I will by a used care that gets better gas. If I am not spending money, neither are other people and the first to go are entertainment and hobbies, then it starts cutting deeper into quality of life. Its all a matter of economics - gotta take care of the family first, everything else is second …


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

David,
I agree totally, and I think the rich individuals and mega-corporations and their owners, are cutting their own throats in that they don't pay their employees a livable wage that would support those same employees buying the products that those employees produce for said corporation.

In other words, the rich corporations and rich individuals lose their respective customer base financially and end up wondering why folks are not buying their products.


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

I sure am glad I don't spend all my time grieving over what other people have.

I really don't have time for that. 
It's a full time job trying to keep the ahead of the tax man so he won't be taking my stuff and giving it to folks that will vote for democrats.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Mike - 
You miss my point, your focus is against the corporations. When I got my first job, it was minimum wage, I lived at home - it was not supposed to be a "living wage." It was an entry level, bottom of the barrel, learn what is expected of me, and learn what I needed to do to live the way I wanted to. Every company has them, as well they should. They are not supposed to be long term career positions. They are designed to kick you in the ass so you move up to a position that IS a career and livable income. Gas station jockeys, burger flippers, and stock people are not designed to be livable wages. Most waiters and waitresses are not either, until you get to places like Cheesecake Factory and the like where the wages are very different - but so is the quality of what you do.

The one thing that does the most damage to the economy is the taxes. The more money in the hands of people (and their families), the more that is spent. The more that is taxed out of the wage earning population and the companies, the less they spend - and growth stops. The more you give to people to not being productive in their own right, the less there is a reason for anybody to work - why the hell should they?

I know this guy - he used to be a neighbor. He was given a 2,500 sqft house, on welfare, and has 5 kids. He does nothing for his money and lives much better than I do. Just because the government feels that he is more deserving of this - and I work for my money? I asked him about him getting a job - he told me that when he worked, he got minimum hourly wage. To live like he does now, because he would lose this, he would have to make at least $150,000 probably $175.000 a year - and that wasn't going to happen - way too much work.

Those mega-corporations that you speak of - you know, like Montgomery Ward, that could not compete - that is out of business. 30 years ago, they were a premiere of department stores. Look at JCP, they are where Wards was 35 years ago, barely hanging on. Macy's was the premiere over JCP, their stores (in this area) are looking like JCP did 5 years ago. Companies come and go (if they do not turn a profit).

You may want to re-focus your efforts to look at what the government is really doing - killing our way of life and the best country in which to live - bar none - if you want to succeed and potentially be rich.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*I sure am glad I don't spend all my time grieving over what other people have*

I agree Crank….you would have to think the ANGER and ENVY would start to wear on you and you become BITTER and RESENTFUL of those who are successful and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

All along WISHING and HOPING the government would SEIZE their wealth and give it to you and others not rightfully deserving so we would have SOCIAL JUSTICE and EQUAL OUTCOMES.

I am not sure where…but I think I have heard this type of person somewhere before….let me think a minute….Quack…......Quack…....Quack…...


----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)

HMike you can walk into any VA Hospital and be taken care of for FREE!!! I already HAVE PAID UP for over 50 yrs. Besides HealthCare is NOT a priviledge or a right. If you were injured during your service then Yep WE OWE you to be restored to the best health possible. Once that's achieved the rest is up to you. If it's not possible to restore you back to health because of your service, then yes you are OWED FOR LIFE. No argument here. But…Just because you served does not mean you are ENTITLED to anything more than any other American. Some were not able to serve.

A REAL American does not feel Entitled or owed!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

REAL being the operative word Taybul…good post.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Scott, I see your post (at least until they delete them frequently). Still squirming huh…

TaybulSawz, welcome to LJs. I see you are new. You are welcome to your own opinion, even when they don't match the facts, but welcome anyway.

I also would like to point out though, that your ragging on veterans benefits ON VETERANS DAY, is a cheap shot that I find offensive. That alone makes me doubt that YOU ever served, or you would have been much more sensitive to the timing of your "opinion."

Like I said, welcome to LJs…


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Looks like the ACA isn't doing to well with the enrollment.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

I guess you were NOT paying attention Scott, or maybe it was one of the dozens of your deleted posts. I said a long time ago that America will end up with a "Single Payer" system for health care, and ONLY THIS WEEK has the GOP talking heads in Congress and the House (who have tried 43 TIMES to kill ObamaCare) are now accusing who else but "Obama", for undermining "his own" ACA so that America can go to a "Single Payer" system.

Give me a break… Tea-Baggin' Boehner and his cronies repeatedly try to torpedo the ACA and THEN claim Obama did it underhandedly… ROLMFAO!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Did Obama undermine it or is he really that incompetent?

If the website can be fixed in a month or so, why could it not be fixed in the past 3 years?

It is either intentional or incompetency. Pick one. Either way, bad for those he promised it would help.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Wow, Republican denial-of-service-attacks exPALIN a lot Scott, a lot!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Why does are Military not get to have their children covered up to age 26? The ACA forgot about them.

TRICARE, the Department of Defense program that provides health coverage to active duty and retired military members and their families, only covers young adult dependents up until age 21, or age 23 if they are enrolled full-time in college.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Bill tells Obama to honor his commitment.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)




----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Yup, do NOTHING "Conservatives" in the back ground DOING NOTHING!


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

That do nothing conservative has been telling that brilliant, hope-n-change democrat that he was fixing to bust his balls for the last 3 years and you see what the results are.

Now who was the blame for this fiasco?
He who warned it wouldn't work or he who ignored the warning?


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

Former President and future First Man suggested the direction of ACA be turned over to a division of government that has always been an example of tightly organized efficiency, but the Post Office said they were already working out a deal with Amazon. Seems the Post Office has discovered the private sector has it "goin on."


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Even a rat knows to jump off a sinking ship. ObamaCare = Sinking ship. Just give it time.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

You know - when the budget thing was going on in October, I called my Senators and Congress people (all Democrats) and told them not to bend, don't cave on Obama Care. They told me that they weren't and thanked me for my support - until they looked me up. All of them asked why I supported them on this - they knew I have been very critical of them. I told them that once this goes through, it would be such a mess that we would get Republicans the next election - they all hung up on me. Little did I know that this would play out as it has.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)




----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

The deadline looming at the end of November to have site up and running is unlikely to be met.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

So, if only a hundred make the deadline - all those millions of people have to pay fines and are not covered until the next year ???


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Yes, unless they delay the mandate effective date, but here is the problem…....

Most of the plans the insurance carriers designed have calendar year deductibles, so if you move the deadline to say July 1, 2014 then individuals will pay a premium for plans with calendar year deductibles and will have only 6 months to satisfy the deductible and get benefits. Not a fair proposition.

The plans have to be approved by both CMS and the various state Departments of Insurance so there is NO WAY to have all the plans altered for a few month delay. The delay would need to be until 1/1/2015 so the premiums will match up to the benefit period. If not people will be screwed and the carriers will reap the benefits because the premium and accounting periods will be 6 months and the premiums paid will be based on a 12 month plan. It has to do with how reserves are set but that is a discussion for another time.

If they pass the "you can keep it" law as some in congress have proposed, it won't matter because the old plans already terminated would have to be refiled at the state level and receive approval. I can tell you first hand that is not a fast process….it takes months.

Citizens, the administration, Congress, the insurance carriers are all painted into a corner with really no way out at this point. It will all most likely implode.

On top of the fines many who lost coverage because the law changed the plan requirements will now be without coverage where they had it before. The uninsured will actually grow,


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

This has the smatterings of a bait and switch from the start. 3 - 4 years of planning to provide this - at 3 times the proposed cost?

My daughter, when she was 4 years old, was better than this - any 4 year old is better than this.

Unless the goal was to take it away from state control.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

According to this, the techies are saying the site is done.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I think we all see now why Congress exempted themselves from this. Some may have actually read the law and looked at the process CMS developed.

And to your point about states control David, the left believes the federal government is the end all to be all approach to controlling the citizens.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

The fact that congress can make laws and exempt themselves from them…...is ridiculous. Who decided this rule? and how in the hell has it not changed yet????


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

3 - 4 years of planning to provide this - at 3 times the proposed cost?

Ain't government swell?

But don't worry…"This legislation is deficit neutral" 
LOL. Who actually EVER believed that??LOL


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

A fine fine joke - matches this pretty well

The kids filed into class Monday morning. They were all very excited..
Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on salesmanship.

Little Sally led off. "I sold Girl Scout cookies and I made $30" she said proudly, "My sales approach was to appeal to the customer's civil spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success."

"Very good", said the teacher.

Little Debbie was next. "I sold magazines" she said, "I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events."

"Very good, Debbie", said the teacher.

Eventually, it was Little Johnny's turn. The teacher held her breath.

Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher's desk. "$2,467", he said.

"$2,467!" cried the teacher, "What in the world were you selling?"

Toothbrushes", said Little Johnny.

"Toothbrushes", echoed the teacher, "How could you possibly sell enough tooth brushes to make that much money?"

"I found the busiest corner in town", said Little Johnny, "I set up a Dip & Chip stand and I gave everybody who walked by a free sample." They all said the same thing, "Hey, this tastes like dog poop!"

Then I would say, "It is dog poop. Wanna buy a toothbrush?"

I used the President Obama method of giving you some crap, dressing it up so it looks good, telling you it's free and then making you pay to get the bad taste out of your mouth."

Little Johnny got five stars for his assignment…………bless his heart!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Here is an interesting piece of news about who is trusted for information on Obamacare.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Direct from CMS

Marketplace Monthly Enrollment-Related Information, 10-1-13 to 11-2-13

Number of completed applications through the Marketplaces - 846,184
Total number of individuals included in completed Marketplace applications - 1,509,883
Number of individuals determined eligible to enroll in a Marketplace plan - 1,081,592
Number of individuals who have selected a Marketplace plan - 106,185

To date, 106,185 persons have enrolled and selected a Marketplace plan-this includes those who have paid a premium and those who have not yet paid a premium.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

dakremer Congress didn't exactly exempt themselves from Obamacare, they are required to have coverage just like you and me. They simply voted to keep their employer provided coverage that any other government employee has.

This exempted themselves thing is a well played political stunt. I forget who wanted it added into the bill that Congress would have to use the health care exchanges and they did not want that to be part of the law. To say exempted themselves from it is is like saying I am exempt because my employer provides coverage.

Above all else I believe in using the facts in an argument.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Pat - my understanding is that the congressional staff still go to the exchanges - it is just that since (most of them) will no qualify for any tax rebates.

They will get some kind of stipend - to pay for part of their coverage, just as if it were "Employer Provided Insurance"

SO they are on the exchange - with a voucher covering some XX% of the premiums.

Because the elected officials and their staff are not per se FEDERAL EMPLOYEES - like the average Joe working at Department of Energy. Their positions are not through OPM or paid at the GS levels.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

But they have been part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) as well as the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) for a good while now, i believe since 1986 when the older Civil Service Retirement System was phased out (the one you hear people quite about how great a retirement system the government has).


----------



## StumpyNubs (Sep 25, 2010)

Come back to us, Ted. We miss you.


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

I was just thinking about Ted myself.
What I was thinking was that he will now have no choice whether he can afford health insurance. 
We are all required by law to have it.

My son's sister-in-law, who lives in PA, was finally able to get into the Healthcare website and got a quote for her family's insurance. For the tiny increase in cost of only 30% her family of 5 can have health insurance with an "out of pocket" maximum yearly expense of only $36,000. Her comment was something like, "I think I am going to vomit."

Well, I guess this is CHANGE we can believe in.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Change…..is all that you'll have left in your pocket.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Pat - This is the story I an looking at - - -

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/11/11/congress-and-obamacare-a-big-double-standard/

Members of Congress and their staffs must be enrolled in the Obamacare exchange plans effective January 1, 2014. Under Section 1312 (D) of the Affordable Care Act, *they can no longer get their health coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), *the largest group health insurance program in the world. Because they lost their FEHBP coverage, they also lost their generous FEHBP subsidy, amounting to roughly $5,000 for individual coverage, and more than $10,000 for family coverage. Just like ordinary Americans who lose their employer-based health insurance, Congress and staff would only be eligible for the exchanges' income -related subsidies.

*
*>
>
>

So, in August 2013, President Obama came to their rescue. The White House pressured the U.S Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency that runs the FEHBP, to give Congressmen and their staffers the *same employer's subsidy in the exchanges for next year *that they would otherwise get if they had remained in the FEHBP in 2014.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Folks are losing their coverage and their hours as well.


----------



## MrRon (Jul 9, 2009)

Ted, You must recognize Obamacare is socialized medicine. For it to provide medical care to EVERYONE, someone has to pay for it. Obamacare takes away from the middle class and rich and gives it to the poor and illegals. That is not the democratic way, it is the socialist way. Socialism is one way of attaining equality, but at the expense of those who have. Obamacare is unconstitutional. He rushed it into law without asking or telling the public what to expect. Now the problems of implementing it have come back to haunt him. The truth is; the majority doesn't want it. Only the poor who don't work want it and they don't want to pay for it. They are happy to let those who can afford insurance to pay for their insurance. If they want insurance, they should get a job and stop depending on everyone else and government to provide for their needs. I could use public assistance (welefare), but because I'm a few dollars above the poverty line (social security only), I have to depend solely on myself. I see people paying for their groceries with food stamps and loading it into their 2014 SUV. I have to shop for store brand foods and always watch for bargains. I worked all my working life and retired at age 69. I had to keep working to survive. No one gave me anything. Like you, I earned it. I don't like Obama trying to take it away from me and giving it to those who don't have.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

Well, I'm sure the millions of people who have received cancellation notices from their health insurance companies can breath a sigh of relief.

The Prevaricator-in-Chief has just announced that he has decided to allow the sale of canceled individual health insurance policies to existing customers. This, he thinks, will help satisfy public discontent with "Obamacare."

What a joke.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Just out-

Obama, under executive privilege, has stopped future insurance cancellations until after next year's elections. Then - well it will be after the elections so who cares. If anybody else, like Congress wants to make a change to Obamacare - its the law of the land, get over it.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

For the most part, those cancelled policies are gone because the carriers did not file them with their states for 2014 effective dates.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

oops


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Dr Dirt

You are correct, I did not remember the situation correctly, but congress is not exempt from Obamacare. While I think it is stupid that the employer provided insurance is eliminated for the staff, for the elected officials I couldn't care less.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Obamacare's top 10 list


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

OH,... FWIW,... I am STILL… ROLMFAO as you CONservatives scramble to come up with a viable explanation.

Please…please… please hurry up. My stomach muscles are about to collapse after so much laughing… PLEASE!


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

Viable explanation of what?

Obama lied, he knew he was lying, and now millions of people have their lives tossed up while he tries to find a way out of the hole he dug for himself.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)

Ted, how ya comin' on that Ocare signup?


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

A viable explanation for what, H.Mike?

As far as I can see, Dems got exactly the plan they wanted, promoted by their egotistical inexperienced partisan star, Mr Keepyourplan Nevermyfault, without any concern for what any conservative representative or citizen wanted. In fact when any conservative offered help or advice they were shut out and ostracized for even thinking they could be a part of this. They made sure it was written in such a way no conservative could support it. They wanted to be sure they got all the credit for this plan so rather than looking to history and designing it for bipartisan support, where they could share credit for bringing everyone into the fold or blame any problems on the other party, they went exactly the opposite way. *So now the Dems own it.*


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

HMocrats are crazy….


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I like it dakremer, very nice.


----------



## Gene01 (Jan 5, 2009)

Obama is not the first to discover and admit to himself that he really does not care whether his utterances are or are not, true. He does not even care that they should be proved true, unless the process were to benefit him and his ideological brethren.
Several employers of the "Big Lie" come to mind.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

So now we're talking about ammending the bill to address the "you can keep it" flaw/lie??

What happened to "Its the law of the land….deal with it"??

I guess its good that they are addressing that particular trainwreck. But is it too little, too late? 
I was under the impression it took the insurance companies the months to set rates/coverages for the upcoming year. Since they were told, via law, that these policies will no longer be legal in 2014, they didn't bother doing this analysis. Now thay have 6 weeks, with holidays sprinkled-in, to:
Figure rates
Contact cancelled policy holders
Resume coverage

Sheesh.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

A mess of epic proportion. It is only going to get worse.


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

If anyone cares, I FINALLY got through the account creation and application process on the ACA website, Healthcare.gov

They never did fix either my first attempted account or the second account.

I had to change my email on the previous acct to something bogus, then create an entirely new third account using Google Chrome (With IE8, the site was getting worse, rather than better)

It went right through in less than five minutes. FIVE MINUTES to do what couldn't be done in the last 6 weeks.
Now I can finally see the plans and prices specifically for ME. Yee Haw!

I could care less about Obamacare, I just need to buy an insurance plan cuz the old one won't be available anymore come Jan 1st. Plus, it should cost way less than my old plan.

For all you guys in the heated debate about who is, or who should be paying for things, have fun storming the castle!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

DS, let us know what you find out about the cost.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)




----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

A ticking time bomb.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

OBAMA: I recently received a letter from a woman named Jessica Sanford in Washington State and here is what she wrote. I am a single mom. No child support, self- employed, and I haven't had insurance for 15 years because it's too expensive. My son has ADHD and requires regular doctor visits and his meds alone cost $250 per month.

I have had ongoing tendonitis problem due to my line of work that I haven't had treated. Now finally, we get to have coverage because of the ACA for $169 per month. I was crying the other day when I signed up, so much stress lifted. Now, that is not untypical for a lot of folks like Jessica who have been struggling without health insurance. That's what the Affordable Care Act is all about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAN SUSTEREN: But now the bad news. It turns out of the Washington State Health Exchange made a big mistake. "Washington State Wire" reporter, Erik Smith, is here with the rest of Jessica Sanford's story. Good evening, Erik, and tell me what is the rest of the story? Did something happen to that great deal insurance for her?

ERIK SMITH, "WASHINGTON STATE WIRE": Within just a few days of that speech in the Rose Garden in front of the White House, Jessica Sanford started to get a terrible surprise. What happened was that the Washington State Health Exchange made a terrible mistake in its calculations. Everybody who signed up for health insurance policy and purchased it with government subsidies through during the first 23 days of operation of the web site, the figures were all wrong.

But that was just the start. Not too long ago, just last week she got another letter from the State Healthcare Authority saying that she doesn't qualify for any subsidy whatsoever and what that means is that suddenly she can't afford health coverage. She is going to go without.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Period.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Hold on….we ain't done just yet.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*How 3 coders created a DIY fix to HealthCare.gov*


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Who would have thought that H-mike would put forth the evidence that a motivated private sector can in 3 days do what the "contractor" collecting millions and millions from crony capitalism Still hasn't accoplished in 3+ years.

Begs the question - Why didn't they bring on a team that actually knew website construction?

Maybe Whoppi Goldberg said it best on Leno - -
On NBC's Tonight Show Monday, The View co-host said, "I don't understand how a four-year-old can upload videos and put a whole website together and these guys can't do jack"

Yet liberals still wonder why people believe the government is incompetent.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

56% say healthcare is NOT the government's responsibility.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

ACA is not going away, so get used to it.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

So this Jessica Sanford in Washington state can not afford the "free plan"?


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

Sad thing is I bet she would still vote for the jackass who lied to her for 3 years and used her for his own glorification and now left her with nothing.

Hmike, of course this crap is here to stay. They have destroyed the entire industry, removed any remote possibility that there could be any kind of normal market competition and seen to it that all their big bucks organizers and bundlers and contributors have the inside track on profiting from the piece of ******************** called ACA so there are enough fat cats going to get fatter to keep it going forever.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

At least she would NEVER vote for that AWOL SOB that daddy bought the position for.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

I always thought the House GOP was on drugs,... now I know how my fears are actually the truth. I guess the misdemeanor part is part of the NEW healthcare for the GOP (crime minimization in health care for the GOP).

 
*Rep. Trey Radel arrested on cocaine charge*
Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla., is "profoundly sorry" after being arrested Oct. 29 and charged Tuesday in Washington, D.C., for misdemeanor cocaine possession.

"I struggle with the disease of alcoholism, and this led to an extremely irresponsible choice," Radel, who's serving his first term in the U.S. House, said in a statement Tuesday.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

And this has what to do with the ACA Mike?


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

Nothing, of course.
He's just flailing at anything he can find negative about republicans.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Please let's not get into a Democrat vs, Republican hall of shame flame war. We'll be here forever!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Yeah, DRUGs have NOTHING to do with health care, or the abuse there of huh… LOL!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Well I will give you that Mike, the ACA has nothing to do with health care either.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)




----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

What condition does cocaine treat?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Boredom?


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

The underlying message for me is about the government saying, "We will take care of you." Part of that is the implied "Trust Me" that goes with it. Another implied message is that the people in charge are capable of doing what they say. Along with all of that is an assumption that the people in charge want to and will do what they say. I just polled my feelings about the things I listed above and found 100% of me doesn't think ANY of it exists. Then there is the sneaking suspicion that they don't know what to do anyway.

It doesn't matter who comes on television to give their sound bites anymore. I picture them all in clown shoes.


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

RockyTopScott,
My current premium for an individual policy which would be equivelant a SILVER plan is $1273.00
After Jan 1st, I can get a GOLD policy for $421.00 from the same insurer. This is the same price they quoted me without going through the ACA Marketplace. (I do not qualify t oreceives a subsidy, however, it appears that I DO quality to pay for someone else's subsidy)

Other plans, including PLATINUM plans will run me $350 to $525 per month. The primary differences being deductibles and provider networks. I am still trying to find out which provider networks my doctors are on. This is made all the harder since they too are adjusting thier networks because of the changes and not all the information is updated.

BCBSAZ says my Doctors are NOT in the Alliance Network, however, when I asked my Dr's front office, they said that they are joining the Alliance Network Jan 1st specifically to address patients like myself who are being forced to buy new policies.


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

DS, it will be a common occurrence that carriers will "shrink" the size and scope of their networks, particularly in urban areas. Also, some provider are taking risk thru Accountable Care Organization (ACO) structures which helps to lower cost somewhat.

I would make sure the hospital system your doctor has admitting privileges at, will be a participating provider.

Good luck.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I heard George W. Bush was actually doing some programming of the website in his spare time and that Boehner, McConnell, Rubio, and Cruz had a hand in development of the flow charts used to design the interconnections with the other government agencies.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

DS, it's probably already been addressed in this discussion, but one of the features of ACA is a limit on how much an individual can be rated up (charged more) due to advanced age and/or illness. Someone still has to pay for those claims, however, which means rates have to increase for younger, healthier people.

In theory, I have no issue with this. The whole idea behind insurance is everyone chipping in their share so they can make a claim when the need arises. Where the problem comes in is that one of the main pillars of ACA is getting more relatively young and healthy folks to buy insurance. But with the provisions of the law making it more expensive than before in most cases (unless one qualifies for a subsidy), that's not likely to happen.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

It has YOUR attention "d"oug, with the little "d". You just can't leave it alone, huh.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

"*It seems its not even about the welfare of our country anymore. Its just a game to see who (dems or reps) can have more control *"

I couldn't agree more!


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

also, it's "lowercase d" not "little d" - you didn't change the font size. God, I hope you didn't teach English to our poor children.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

"d"oug, you know its a little "d" so just stop with the distractions already.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Also, my name isn't Doug


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## BlaiddDrwg (Jun 26, 2013)

I just saw this thread and it hits home for me. If ACA had started a couple years earlier, I would still have my home business, but when my wife lost her health care I had to go back and get a full time with benefits because we couldn't afford the plans that covered pre-existing conditions.

We have taken the first baby step to a much more efficient and cost effective health care system, single payer.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

If we end up with single payer Steve, it will be neither efficient or effective.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*"...Also, my name isn't Doug…"*

I know, I know, it's *d*oug with a little "d". HOWEVER, I'll play along this one time, if you insist *"d"*akremer, with a little "d". Either way it is still a little "d".


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

I like that better


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*Steve: "...We have taken the first baby step to a much more efficient and cost effective health care system, single payer…."*

I agree! And I what I find funny about this is that the GOP is accelerating this process by trying to torpedo their last chance at a "private" health care system.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

of course you agree….............

of course you agree with a democratic view….............

of course you have nothing but bad things to say about the GOP….............

predictable


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

And … so it goes.

Posting rules:
Because of their divisive nature, political and religious debates, and thus postings, are prohibited at LumberJocks.com. Please refrain from starting or taking part in such discussions.

Back to the shop.


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:
•Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent). 
•Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
•More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
•Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Sorry all I have is facts…no cartoons.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

with all those facts, we still rank 34th in overall health compared to other industrialized countries. We also spend more money on healthcare than any other country (and probably most combined). It doesn't take a genius to see that that doesn't make sense.

So we spend more money on healthcare than anyone, yet we are really sick compared to most other industrialized nations. So would it make sense to get more people on our healthcare system? Do you think thats the answer, do you think that it's going to work??? obviously not.

I bet the pharmaceutical companies are LOVING the ACA. More people will be able to get on their "life-saving" drugs (and by life-saving, I mean money-making)


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)




----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the "health care system," more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]

Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.

Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

mics - your post (#598) of the list of most important innovations couldn't be further from the truth.

Statins should be illegal - doctors prescribing them should lose their licenses.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

That is really scary that you believe this: "the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries."

Our healthcare is HORRIBLE.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Geez @mics 54,
Do you think you could come up with a more Right Wing source for your "quotes"? The Koch brothers? Ha! What a joke!

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a free market think tank primarily funded by private foundations established by wealthy conservative business families and billionaires, including Charles and David Koch.

.
.
.
Oh yeah, THE SOURCE THAT YOU FAILED TO SIGHT IN YOUR QUOTES.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Mike discrediting something because its right winged again…...predictable


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

guess I should have made a cartoon of the source credit at the end so Mike could find it.


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

dakremer….don't you mean it's scary that Scott W. Atlas, M.D., a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center believes it? I didn't write the article. I didn't gather the data. I just rely on learned physicians like yourself to guide me.


----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)

If the US Health Care system was in need of a Major overhaul why are all the rest of the people in the entire world so anxious to come here? French, English, Russian, Canadian they all come here when they have major health issues. Why aren't all our Doctors doing a Mass migration to those GREAT medical countries with their GREAT medical Systems? Would someone please explain this to this American.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

I did mean that, Mics (sorry)


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

By the way…the USA has 3 healthcare systems.. Private, Medicare and Medicaid. The latter two undoubtedly lower the statistical excellence of the first. The wealthiest and most influential people fly over all those nations that you claim have better healthcare to get to the USA for treatment. The fact that some may not be able to afford the best doesn't make it worse. ...does it? That is how the WHO evaluates healthcare. ..by its fair distribution….not by it's effective treatment of medical conditions.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

You know I have never seen HMike and Ed Shultz at the same time, I am just wondering…..


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Mike wanting ********************ty healthcare rationed for everyone just because it will "efficiently" let people die is what is more sad.

I like the quality and speed with which we are able to get tests done - no waiting for MRI scans. No leaving kids to die. 
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Why if the system is so good, is there a move to privatize healthcare? doesn't EVERYBODY just love it?
What is with medical tourism?

I think there are good questions.

Mike wants you to hurry up an pick your favorite color


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

I think that deer hit Mike in the head.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## vernonator (Feb 21, 2011)

So…how did your attempt to sign up go? As poorly as the rest of the country? How "affordable" was your insurance. Really we want to know how the great one saved you so much money…..


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Wow- this discussion really went down the tubes. 
But after 600 replies….I guess there wasn't much left to be said.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

Ted … You are correct, sir. I am out of here.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)

That's what I thought. NOBODY EVER has an answer to that one. Just like NO ONE can answer if America is such a BAD COUNTRY why EVERYONE is SNEAKING across our borders to get here!!!! Another question, All the people posting here that like the Socialist concept of Government…Why don't you move to a country that has that style of Government. Why do you CHOOSE to live in a Republican Democracy? (Look it UP!) I'm positive NO ONE is holding a GUN to your head and Forcing you to LIVE here!!!


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-approval-rating-drops-obamacare-opposition-article-1.1523038

sounds like this is what Americans want. 33% approve.


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Not a single rational word from Mike. Typical of the left. No argument. No debate.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*TaybulSawz: "...All the people posting here that like the Socialist concept of Government…Why don't you move to a country that has that style of Government. ..."*

Sorry, but it is YOU and your buddies, who had only 47.2% of the vote AND *YOU LOST THE ELECTION*, so maybe it is YOU who should think about doing the moving to some Fascist country like Italy (remember, like Mussolini) or maybe Spain.

After all, the GOP is about as Fascist as it gets.

*Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism*
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

From Liberty Forum

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=642
109&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Sorry. I'm sure I'll get punished for this. But, Obama didn't win because he was the better choice for our country….. There were other MTV reasons for it….


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

*"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."*
-Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy

*"Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism'. I'm afraid, based on my own long experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security."*
-Sen. Huey Long

*"Fascism is capitalism in decay."*
-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)




----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

I guess Mike wants to change the subject.
Ted, I hope you find what you need.


----------



## Hammerthumb (Dec 28, 2012)

Funny Christef. Which one are you?


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Obama got elected because a little over 50% of the voters voted for the best liar. In the case the best liar by far.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Based on Mikes presentation of the 14 characteristics - - we are living in a Fascist nation -

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 
*"Yes We Can" and "Change you can Believe in"*









2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, - - 
*So how bout that Drone war? Skip the trials and kill entire faimilies in the name of security!*

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
*Attack the Tea party - create enemies list, use the IRS as a hammer on opponents*

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
*Business as usual - - all talk of cuts are only talk*

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
*Barry pays females less than males in cabinet positions. Secretary of State had been female/black or both since 1997 - - now Herman Munster John Kerry.*http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/15/obama-white-house-paid-women-staffers-less-than-men-in-2012/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/31/leno-kerry-breaks-glass-ceiling-first-white-male-secretary-state-1997

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
*Slam dunk - MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC all carry water for Obama, just ask the DC insurance commisioner who was dismissed within 24 hours of contradicting Barry on Obamacare rollback of the mandate*

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

*three letters TSA - go visit an airport*

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

*Funding muslim brotherhood in Egypt - backing muslim ground zero mosque in New York, though banning VA Chaplains from quoting the bible or praying in Jesus name muddies this point*

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
*Hmmm Warren Buffett, Jack Lew (Despite Citigroup's mounting losses when Lew departed, he received a $944,578 TARP-fueled bonus) Comcast, David Cohen, *
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/03/the-rich-get-richer-obama-style-crony-capitalism.html#url=/articles/2013/03/03/the-rich-get-richer-obama-style-crony-capitalism.html

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

*He gets a pass on this one - Unions get out his vote*

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

*Ask Petraus at City College New York, or Brown University hosting the NYC Police Chief, or Speech codes. There is no free expression on campus.*

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

*Look at the no knock raids, the seizing of records of reporters - *
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/25/armed-agents-seize-records-reporter-washington-tim/?page=all

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

*Green Energy - Common Core - EPA raids, electric cars, ethanol. the Oil companies are going to be gettin fines for not using enough ethanol - even though ethanol is not available after the drought.
Oil and gas leases - fall under appropriation of the feds and moratoria on drilling*

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
*Look at Obama smear campaign to gain the Illinois Senate seat.(blair Hull and Jack Ryan)
The smear campaign of OFA - against Romney, the favors of Candy Crowley to slant the debate by injecting her own INCORRECT comentary on benghazi. ACORN. "use of legislation" e.g. voting for Santa Claus.*

Sooo under Obama we are 13/14 Fascist control


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

I am going to continue to hang around so all you Right Wing Fanatics have a target. Geez! What would happen if all of you Fascists were cut loose on America unchecked? Could you imagine!... Especially since YOU ARE OUT NUMBERED. Just a fact you may not have thought of…


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Out numbered - debatable

Out armed - NOT EVEN CLOSE


----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)

Just as I thought, HMike, just like your President, You cannot answer the question. You deflect to another topic. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!! Your BABBLE is Pathetic just like your President!!! Your President IS a Fascist who's never had a JOB! That's why he believes what he Believes. Never had to WORK for anything. Never takes responsibility for anything. Blames somebody else for EVERYTHING!!! LIES about EVERYTHING HAS the WORST ratings of any PRESIDENT EVER!!! And you support Him! Yeah, you keep hangin around we need the comic relief!!!!


----------



## TravisH (Feb 6, 2013)

The sad thing is when this is all over absolutely nothing will be have changed with regards to the overall health or health care provided. Sure we can point "poster child" individuals that benefited along with "poster child" individuals that lost their insurance and don't feel or can't afford to purchase insurance but we will be in the same situation overall.


----------



## lightcs1776 (Nov 14, 2013)

This thread has been very entertaining, so thank you to all. Sadly, there will always be those that think health care is free or cheap, but it is always paid for in some way or another. In the case of Obamacare / ACA, it is every tax payer that pays. Personally, I would like to see a Constitutional government again, but I don't know if it will ever happen. Obviously I agree with folks such as TabulSuwz on this issue, but I am willing to see everyone have the right to express their opinions. This is my only comment. Carry on.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

What? We are not a Constitutional government?

That is what the left dreams of, the abolishment of the US Constitution.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Why was my previous comment deleted? I didn't even say "Obama was elected because he's black." I left it up to the reader to figure it out. Are we still so frightened of this topic that even the slightest hint of it gets it cut off?

Poor form, Lumberjocks.

I'm proud that we have a black president. It shows great progress for this country. Just wish he was elected because he was the better choice. He wasn't.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

"d"akremer: *"...Why was my previous comment deleted? I didn't even say "Obama was elected because he's black." … Poor form, Lumberjocks."*

What is it d""oug? Don't you understand that it is the actual LumberJocks Moderators that make the decision to delete your posts, NOT fellow LumberJocks. You should pay attention to this "d"oug, as it is not wise to criticize the Moderators directly or otherwise.


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

8:17 A.M. on CNBC a guest went over what it would take to make the site safe. All the argue fest folks should go to the CNBC site and look up what the guest said on Squak Box and have a brand new day of glorious argument fodder. Back to the shop.


----------



## Bogeyguy (Sep 26, 2012)

Do you think maybe, just maybe all those healthcare innovations brought to fruition here in the US might be part of the reason for our healthcare costs being high?? To me it's worth it and those costs will be coming down with the ACA. And just think about all the people with pre-existing health issues. These illnesses will now be covered. That's a good thing. Don't judge the ACA against what other country's do or have. Down the road the ACA will be the envy of these other country's. It will take lots of tweaking before it is 100% finished but it will be worth it. Give it a chance. It is a massive undertaking.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

*@bogeyguy :* "To me it's worth it and those costs will be coming down with the ACA."

There is NO such provision in the ACA that will do anything close to lowering cost. That is a ruse.


----------



## lightcs1776 (Nov 14, 2013)

OK, I wasn't going to comment again, but oh well …

Costs will not come down. They will only increase with government involvement. What will happen is that costs will be paid in the form of ever higher taxes rather than a bill directly from the insurance company or health care provider. The more middle men that are involved, the worse it will get. The federal government creates a lot of middle men.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Quack


----------



## vernonator (Feb 21, 2011)

Wow Mike I think you just lost ANY tiny bit of credibility with the Lenin quote…really….the founder of one of the most vicious totalitarian regiems in history, and you quote him to justify the gov't take over of 1/6 of our economy….nice

You use quotes by a Fascist and two Communist (yes Huey Long was a communsit - read his policies/opinions) to show what?


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

I had to see if I could locate the interview before I went to work. This is taking way too much time for someone serious about woodworking. I need to post this and just walk away. How do you get LumberJocks to stop sending updates once you ask for them?

Anyway, here is the interview on Squak Box this morning about security on the AKA site. I feel like I'm dropping a puck at a hockey game:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101217784


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

So I suppose this is a success for the website… *wonder what his deductable is.*


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Baxter will finally get his flea problem handled.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)




----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

*Do you think maybe, just maybe all those healthcare innovations brought to fruition here in the US might be part of the reason for our healthcare costs being high??*

Why would new innovations cause an increase in the costs of goods and services of 2000% in the healthcare industry since 1960 when all other goods and services only increased 500% in the same period. An xray or a semi private room, arm cast, flu shot, bandage should increase about the same as food, clothing, shelter, transportation or education shouldn't it?


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Good question Mics…..I've pondered this question myself.
When I was a kid, fell off my bike and broke my arm. My parents took me to the ER, they took a couple of xrays, the dr set my bone, put my arm in a cast, and sent me home. Six weeks later, my dad cut the cast off with hacksaw, and I went on my merry way. This was in 1985ish.
These days, a broken arm will "require" surgically installed pins, surgery to remove pins, endless follow-ups with a orthopedic doctor, and 3 months of physical therapy.

We certainly use a lot more healthcare than we use to. It costs a lot more to become a doctor/nurse than it use to. And it cost a ********************TON more to operate a medical facility than it use to. 
There are endless reasons that prices have gone up. I only mentioned a few.


----------



## lightcs1776 (Nov 14, 2013)

There are a couple key reasons health care costs have increased. I'm on my phone, so I am not going to post links, but folks should research a bit and not take what I am writing as gospel.

First, the nation has this idea that health insurance is a necessity, some even claiming it is a right. I will say up front, I don't believe either view. however, atastrophic insurance is a smart idea in my opinion. Costs must go up when middlemen are inserted into the equation. Instead of a patient paying $25 to a doctor, there are now a multitude of folks at the insurance company that need to be paid; management, accounts receivables, accounts payable, claim reviewers, policy writers, sales personnel, etc. A large business was created by mainstream health insurance in the 60's or 70's (dates may be off).

Government regulations have also increased the cost of doing business. We can debate whether it is good regulation or bad until our fingers are worn off from typing, but it clearly is costly.It produced more tax burden as the state and ffederal governments require people to administer the regulations; write policy, enforce policy, manage staff, etc. Regulations cost companies money, who then pass it onto the consumers, therefore we are the ones paying for all that regulation through higher taxes and higher purchasing costs.

Finally, the legal system is in need of serious change. The system is supposed toprovide legal protection or legal remedies. Unfortunately it is too often abused. Ethical attorneys must be furious when they see this abuse as it reflects poorly on the entire legal community. We can all think of clear examples …. hot coffee and McDonald's, for instance.


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

If the administration can't get their act together and make this system work, I will definately lose coverage on my wife and three kids on 12/31.

After trying to register on healthcare.gov in the first weeks, only to find the site totally broken, I decided to wait a month and try again.

Earlier this week I was finally able to log on and create an account. But after going through the entire application process, at the end, it told me I was applying for coverage for zero people. Then when I went back to attempt to edit that, it locked up multiple times.

I tried the online chat, and aside from saying "I'm sorry" a dozen times, all they could do was tell me to call the 1-800 number.

I sat on the phone for an hour and a half with a lady who very meticulously keyed all my info herself. But it quickly became apparent that she was simply on the same broken web site I was, and had no special access or abilities. We thought she had it all set and then at the very end of the process, her system crashed and she was staring at a black screen.

So a complete waste of another 2.5 hours…. and I'm no closer to getting coverage.

The government keeps responding to their critics that you can call (fail) or mail in a paper app. But even the left leaning news outlets are pointing out that untill that data can be sucessfully entered and the system works, the paper app is of no value to actually getting insurance coverage.

The government officicials are also going on about how you can buy a plan directly from the insurance companiens. But that's only true IF you can afford it! The ONLY way you can get any tax credit or discount on the premium, is through healthcare.gov, which doesn't work.

So I checked with Anthem, and to buy an ACA compliant policy for my dependants through them will cost me $13,500 !!!

For comparison, last year I purchased coverage a very good PPO policyfromHarvard Pilgrim for just under $8,000. This premium was partially subsidized through a program in my state. But that program has been superceded by the broken Federal program. It's gone…. out of here…. as in sianara sucker.

And this is called the "affordable" care act???

There are only two things that are 100% for sure right now. The new Federal system is broken (even their $62/hr contract minions can't get it to work) and our existing coverage ends on 12/31/2013.

If any of you are able to get coverage through this system, who didn't have it before. I'm happy for you.

Just remember that this system is apparently hurting a lot more people than it is helping.

I've got 6 weeks to flounder in the Healthcare.gov manure….

My daughet asked me this a.m.,if she would still be able to run track this coming spring if we lose health insurance.

Answer…. no :^(

The school district requires that all participants provide proof of health care coverage.


----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

http://truecostofhealthcare.org/conclusion
I found this interesting…if you like reading.


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

Fix Obamacare site? 'Better chance of seeing God'

Cybersecurity expert: Healthcare.gov primed to have a major breach

Nine Days and Counting …

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101217784

To me, it isn't about what party you belong to, it is the science fiction idea that government can handle something like this.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

*Why would new innovations cause an increase in the costs of goods and services of 2000% in the healthcare industry since 1960 when all other goods and services only increased 500% in the same period.*

Guess what happened in the 60's? Medicare and Medicaid…...


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Because many of the new innovations are used for a very limited purpose either by design or FDA approval.

A large % of people have a smart phone, a very small % need genomic dna testing.

Plus many of the same providers that order these tests/treatments/procedures are the same providers that own the technology and need utilization to pay for the service and make a profit.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)




----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

Really interesting Mike. Insightful.
Pat you have a great point.


----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)




----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama
Since President Obama became chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the ﬁnancial crisis, the continuation of past policies and other effects? For this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to attach a price tag to the legislation passed by Obama and his predecessor. George W. Bush's major policies increased the debt by more than $5 trillion during his presidency. Obama has increased the debt by less than $1 trillion. Read related article.










Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Todd Lindeman and Ezra Klein/The Washington Post. Published on January 31, 2012, 8:16 p.m.


----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)




----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)




----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)




----------



## GFYS (Nov 23, 2008)

I wish GWBush was president. This one is horrible.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

You guys are talking to a ….........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Dr. Goebbels was wrong, it should read:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, *stupid* people will eventually come to believe it"


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Mike, nice use of the racist buck toothed Chinese stereotype in your cartoon.


----------



## dakremer (Dec 8, 2009)

Mike, on that note…how much of that 5 trillion (from Bush) was caused by our previous "president" - can't just stop the data when its convenient for you. This is of course all based on if your post is factual or not - i'm guessing not.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)




----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Fellas. Please. 
You've reduced yourselves to scouring the internet for establishment proagandal to prove your points? Certainly you're above that. And you really MUST have something better to do. Right? 
Go build a birdhouse or something. LOL.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The Bush Tax Cuts were to Sunset 12/31/2010.

It is BS to claim 1.8 trillion in deficits are still due to the Bush tax cuts 3 years after they were to expire.

Obama and teh Democrats decided to KEEP those cuts in place.
They now own them.

Just like it is Obama's DECISION that Gitmo is still open. It is Open because he KEPT it that way, not because Bush sent terrorists there.

Blaming your predecessor, is not so effective when you are in your second term.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Is Bush not programming Obama's teleprompter to make him say these things?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Not to worry, a crack team of computer programmers is on the job.


----------



## DKV (Jul 18, 2011)




----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

still at it , dose anybody got a extra band saw they dont need


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

A fine explanation - 'What if buying coffee was like buying Health coverage"


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

Eddie,

I think the government should make you buy a band saw.


----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)

*NEWSWEEK Is one of the most LIBERAL RAGS on the Planet!!!!!! Woo Hoo!!!! *

Finally, Matt Patterson and Newsweek speak out about Obama. This is timely and tough. As many of you know, 
Newsweek has a reputation for being extremely liberal. The fact that their editor saw fit to print the 
following article about Obama and the one that appears in the latest Newsweek, makes this a truly amazing 
event, and a news story in and of itself. At last, the truth about our President and his agenda are starting
to trickle through the protective wall built around him by the liberal media….

I Too Have Become Disillusioned

By Matt Patterson (Newsweek Columnist - Opinion Writer)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing 
phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle 
Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into 
thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute 
the world's most consequential job?
, despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer;" a 
brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his 
attention, less often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States
Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is
the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served
as Obama's "spiritual mentor;" a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political 
sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man 
elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the 
Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of 
America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. 
But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with 
protesters against various American injustices, even if they were 'a bit' extreme, he was given a pass. 
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate 
and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to 
become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?
Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action 
laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, 
feel good about themselves.
admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable 
poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; 
liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the 
racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because
of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing 
is.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, 
but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished 
grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois ; 
he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step 
of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who 
agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and 
cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his 
mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. (An example 
is his 2012 campaign speeches which are almost word for word his 2008 speeches)
did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is 
embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own 
incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy 
and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, 
so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. 
When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity 
make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush


----------



## TaybulSawz (Oct 17, 2013)

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush 
did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. Remember, he wanted the job, campaigned for the task. It is 
embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerless-ness, so comfortable with his own 
incompetence. (The other day he actually came out and said no one could have done anything to get our economy 
and country back on track). But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, 
so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. 
When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity 
make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such an impostor in the Oval Office.


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

Do the folks fixing the AKA website work on Thanksgiving and Saturdays? If so they have the rest of today and four more days to keep the promise.

Again:
Fix Obamacare site? 'Better chance of seeing God'

Cybersecurity expert: Healthcare.gov primed to have a major breach

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101217784

To me, it isn't about what party you belong to, it is the science fiction idea that government can handle something like this.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Last I heard, the part of the database and website that actually pays the insurance companies - has not been stared yet (an easy third of the entire site).


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Well - to those that like to point fingers at the republicans who railed about mass losses of coverage due to obamacare as being just* fearmongers*.
I suppose it isn't fearmongering when it is true!


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

+100
DrDirt


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

Does anybody really believe that this was not intentional and a way to drive us to a single-payer system?


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Gerry, you could be right, but I think you give them more credit for being able to carry out a plot than they deserve. When in doubt. plain old stupidity is usually the best explanation.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

I think you are right Gerry - I believe it was the plan all along - and throughout Obamas political career, he has campaigned for single payer "cautioning" that we cannot get there in one step to the AFL-CIO in 2008





Indeed single payer is the liberal shangrila - - to get socialized medicine. Reagan spoke extensively on it during back in 1961.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Gerry - to answer your question, it is two fold.

1.) Obama's perspective - no, I think he thought it would work but he is too incompetent.
2.) Other's in the Democratic party - resounding YES


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Don't forget - this is Pelosi and Hilary Care originally


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Senator Kennedy created the HMO concept and President Nixon signed the law.


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

Gerry i dont know but its better than this ACA . its got to be fixed its was a slow horse coming out the gate and dont think it will win any races

nomercadies fixing the site isnt the problem its needs a lot more fixes than that


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

who said they have Obama bandsaws thats not true most i found was a stinking phone


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

AlaskaGuy sorry i thought you said they would buy me one you said they should make every body buy one but evert body dont want a band saw juste me right now im going to but the grizzly 17 inch one the one with the iron i wheels its can go 220 or 110 , mine it just aint quite enough ump on hard wood


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

OK, here are some twist on *ACA*:

LA Times

Media Matters

I am not on either side but, it appears that it's not ALL bad for some in real need!


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

Eddie, good to hear from you again.
As far as fixing the site not being enough … there are no second steps without the first. "We" can't even get that done right. No one is going to answer any questions over the weekend (the 30th. is on a Saturday) giving another day or so to work on something that can't be done. Monday we will find out that "most Americans can access the site." Then someone will have to find out if that is the truth. The people that do these things for a living say it won't be safe for us to use anyway. Imagine thieves monitoring your 911 call so they can rush to your house as you take your ambulance ride to the hospital. You have to use 911, but crooks are all over it. That is the closest I can think of a comparison. The site isn't safe.

Watch out for that first step …


----------



## Bonka (Apr 13, 2012)

Ted;
It is the government that is bleeding us dry. Stop and think!


----------



## crank49 (Apr 7, 2010)

Well, my employer of 33 years where I have my health insurance just advised us that our rates are going up 50% and our "out of pocket" is going from $1400 to $4000 per year.
Also, that after next year, they will no longer be self-insured because the new tax on such companies will make that impossible to afford. So I just want to personally give thanks to all you Libtards who voted for the LIAR IN CHIEF and this POS UN-Affordable Health Care Law.

But the good news is contraceptives are now FREE.
Not that we need any contraceptives since I had a vasectomy 30 years ago and my wife has had a hysterectomy.
But, thank God for this wonderful new service. It will enrich my miserable life I am sure.


----------



## GraysonT (Nov 9, 2013)

I am losing my coverage due to Obamacare. Not sure what to do at this point.


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

Life is great under Obama and the Libs, isn't it?

Wait, it's going to get worse until folks wake up.

Nothing like Libs addressing a problem that maybe needed attention, but not a leftist nuclear solution disaster.

Nobody listened 3 years ago. Maybe now, although it could be too late.


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

My fear is that ObamaCare is becoming so entwined in our lives that it will be very difficult if not impossible to remove it. It is like a cancer that many people ignored in the early stages and now can't get rid of it as it metastasizes.

No doubt the intentions of many who supported it were noble (there are some aspects of it that even I can support) but, like Frankenstein's monster, it simply got out of control.


----------



## Tedstor (Mar 12, 2011)

Dane- once any entitlement is introduced, it becomes politically impossible to rescind. Anyone that proposes rolling back Obamacare will be branded a racist, elitist, or some other "ist".......and will be accused of leaving 30 million people to die from…..a lack of insurance. This is why the GOP has been trying so hard to keep it off the books.


----------



## lightcs1776 (Nov 14, 2013)

Dane, the cancer that is introduced is government. Government is a necessary evil and should be limited. The more dependent folks are on the government the worse off they will be. Just my (additional) two cents.


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

If I understand it, the most recent promise is that by tomorrow at this time, eighty percent of us will be able to put our personal information into a system no one can keep safe from identity theft. Who will be held responsible for the woes of those that fall into the arms of the thieves?


----------



## tierraverde (Dec 1, 2009)

Just for kicks, I went on the site to sign on 12 hours ago. The first thing I noticed was when you are asked to create an account, they instruct you not to use "titles".........But the spelling is "*tidles*"

Next thing is I filled in all the required boxes and when I hit "continue", I was rejected because the name or password was incorrect, with no reason why.

Wow, is this a great country or what!


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

healthcare.gov was designed by idiots.

A few weeks ago, they hadn't started building the back-end that needs to connect to the accounting and payment systems. That is just plain stupid.

When the programmers that worked for me were developing a website and shopping system, the first thing they nailed down was the back-end payment and inventory systems … because that is where the MONEY is.

Obama's people pi$$ed away millions of $$ on the front-end because the only thing that really matters to this administration is the optics. With a pretty face, it looked good … never mind the fact that it doesn't work.


----------



## CharlieM1958 (Nov 7, 2006)

Gerry, you nailed it. Politics today is all about show… not substance. What happened with that website is a perfect metaphor for that.


----------



## nomercadies (Dec 31, 2011)

They still have until midnight. If it doesn't work, there will not be too much publicity as the deadline is on a Saturday night. So what do we have left … about twelve and a half hours. I hope the workers on the site aren't college football fans.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Is this what a single payer system is? Do we really want to go there?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html


----------



## TheDane (May 15, 2008)

patcollins-Government knows best … we all know that bureaucrats are better suited to make life and death decisions than average people. Now pass the Soylent Green.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Pat that kind of behaviour "on the behalf of the children" will be exactly the Utopia the liberals have in mind.

Much as TSA patdowns of children and seniors, are all about public safety.

Government will create these blanket protections to cover their activities and intervention into any and all facets of your life.


----------



## Jim Jakosh (Nov 24, 2009)

Here is what a seasoned Democrat who worked for the good of the USA has to says about this guy pushing the *Obomacontrol* act. It is* not* about* healthcare*, it is about financial control and distributing the wealth. If a person cannot afford insurance, they will get it for free! Including illegal law breaking aliens. But, they will be responsible for co pays. Now if they cannot afford the insurance, they certainly will not be able to pay the co pays. We don't need a government controlled insurance program. We need health care to be non profit and not a business where they have to make a profit for share holders. The insurance companies and the health care industry are getting filthy rich off the people and now the government will be getting their hooks on our financial account information so they can also drain money from individuals. Why do you think the IRS is tied into this???

Please read what Jack has to say!!

Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informative. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer. 
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.

He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.

What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.

Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.

It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.

Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.

He is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Strong words pilgrim Jim*, ...but the same, or at least similar remarks about have the understanding to be POTUS, can be made of many of those who have lived in the WH, long past and present, and it probably will not end until we require more substance than emotional appeal!

Of course this could also apply to those walking the halls of congress!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Walk Off Homerun Jim.


----------



## HorizontalMike (Jun 3, 2010)

Jim,
You blast all things Democrat concerning the ACA, BUT FAIL TO MENTION *RomneyCare*. Why is that? Below is the Chief Architect of BOTH Romneycare and Obamacare, and his recent opinion on the same:

 
*Romneycare/Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Blasts 'Disgusting' Refusal To Expand Medicaid*

"...Aside from the bartender who recorded the notorious "47 percent" video, Jonathan Gruber may have become Mitt Romney's least favorite person during the 2012 campaign. Gruber damned the former governor of the Bay State with praise that certainly did little to shore up his standing in the Republican base: "He is in many ways the intellectual father of national health reform."

Today Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economics professor who has advised the Department of Health and Human Services, is among health care reform's most passionate, informed defenders. When the furor over cancelation notices began, he helped illuminate how small a percentage of insured Americans will actually be hurt by the effort to make a fair market for all Americans. Within hours, his comments were turned into a pie chart that quickly went viral.

Recently, Gruber spoke with National Memo executive editor Jason Sattler about how the Affordable Care Act transforms the health market to end discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions, why he is disgusted by Republican states rejecting Medicaid expansion, and how the president could have better phrased his ill-fated promise, "If you like your plan, you can keep it."…"
Read the rest here.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

I am wondeting when the regime in power will try to pass a law that says you can buy auto insurance and have your car fixed for an accident that occured prior to the policy effective date.

That makes sense I would guess to those that know nothing about how insurance works, like the current dictator in chief.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Rocky, you must be off of your rockychair!*

Comparing *required* car insurance (as ALL states do) to health insurance is like comparing apples to oranges.

One of my closest friends had a pre-existing medical condition and could not find any insurance *UNTIL* now and you think that comparing a car to a human being is a suitable argument against ACA!


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Sorry oldnovice, not all states require collision if the car has no lienholder.

Why did your closest friend not purchase health insurance before he got sick?


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

When we start comparing health insurance to car insurance - we may have to close this thread!!!

With or without Obama care, pre-existing conditions should be a given and without question. This was one the 28 or so things that were identified that needed to be changed before Obama Care. Most insurance companies have it and already did it.

Obama Care should be tossed and replaced with common sense - my opinion, it aint gonna change - but probably won't happen.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Hey David, not trying make a direct comparison but rather a contrast.

I just want everyone to understand the cost of your health insurance is going to skyrocket because folks that did not pay when they were healthy are now going to join when they are sick and the cost drivers of healthcare and health insurance are going to escalate immensely.

I think everyone can more easily recognize how car insurance works more so than health insurance due to the complexities involved.

The vast majority of people on employer sponsored health plans had very little to be concerned about pre-existing.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Oh, people have no idea what this is going to do, but as soon as you throw car insurance into the mix - even though they may understand it, it is processed differently (as it should).

This whole thing is a farse from the beginning and when they get canceled, and they will - because the only way the fed can possibly make this work is if everybody (other than federal employees) must be on it - figure 85% or more of the population.

What you have now and what you will have at the end of next year WILL NOT BE THE SAME. You will have coverage but most of the co-pays that I hear about from people making $25,000 or more will be (just for estimation purposes) 10-15% of your gross pay per person in your household - per year. More if you are younger. If you don't have this in cash - you will be in serious trouble.

Good luck

As for me - having not had insurance for many years and having to put out $1,000 for a MRI for my daughter was very hard.

Paying $700+ a month premiums AND paying a $10,000 copay (or more) - is not going to happen, I cannot afford it. In short, I will be paying for coverage that I cannot use, if I get sick-- oh well? But I will have health care even if it kills me!


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

FYI…. I just waisted another hour trying to get healthcare.gov to work.

it's giving me error messages that my Name and DOB are not entered…. but they are
it's also double listing my kids and won't let me delete the doubles.
On line chat help can't do anything at all to fix problem, but promised me a call back by someone who can.

The only problem is that 1.5 weeks ago, I got the same promise from a different agent, who was keying the app for me over the phone. She had the same double listing of kids when she typed it in, and likewise, she couldn't fix it. But I was promised a call back in 3-5 business days by a tech who could fix it.

No call…. no fix…

so summary….

my policy is cancelled as of 12/31 ("you can keep your policy" was a huge lie)
my new "affordable" ACA compliant alterative will cost me $4K/yr more.
I can't get coverage from a broker, as all the brokers have abandoned the individual market in my state
I can go directly to Anthem, but can not get any discount if I do
web site is still broken (somebody lied again saying it was fixed)
phone site can't make system work
I didn't get the promised call back from the tech. support who was supposed to be able to fix errors.

all adds up to …....... I'M SCREWED!!!!!


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

wrt. Romney Care…. Romney was and is a putz…. worst possible candidate the reds could have fielded.

But…. the house has passed bills to kill ACA dozens of times and one man, Harry Ried has blocked them from being voted on in the Senate.

Putz Romney is a straw man …. the blues own the ACA lock, stock and barrel


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Rocky, check cars.com or Wikipedia, all states require car insurance of some kind; you made the broad statement of car insurance and didn't specify what type! *

My friend had insurance when he was employed and when he got sick he took a leave of absence and his insurance cancelled him because his leave was too extended!

And I believe you are looking at the ACA with blinders as there are many people benefiting from it as I type this post #697, from a number of sources!


----------



## JGM0658 (Aug 16, 2011)

Have to agree with oldnovice here, as someone with a pre existing condition I have to tell you, you have no idea of what you are talking about, and comparing this to car insurance is just stupid. Sorry to be so blunt but there you are, when I got cancer I became uninsurable and unemployable because no company would hire me due to me being uninsurable. I was lucky that I was good at my job and people took a chance with me despite what the insurance said.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Sorry oldnovice, you can believe what you wish but I am looking at the ACA as someone who has actually read the law and is currently implementing and have been for 18+ months.

It will help the few in need but for the vast majority of people and the economy it will end up being very destructive. Doctors will be leaving the market in mass. It won't matter if you have insurance and can't find someone to treat you, will it?

Get an account and listen to the mass confusion going on at CMS…I have been on a webinar with them since 11:30..things are a complete mess at CMS. Here is the link https://webinar.cms.hhs.gov/

I have spent 3500+ hours working on the ACA. I have no blinders, only facts and experience.


----------



## NinjaAssassin (Sep 5, 2013)

There seems to be confusion between what insurance is and what health care is. The two are not the same.
Insurance is a tool to manage risk. It makes sense that a pre-existing health condition would not be covered under a health insurance policy because the risk of required care is 100%. In other words, it is absolutely certain (or near-certain) that the person with the health condition will need to buy health services to treat their condition. To RockyTopScott's point, the concept is exactly like taking out an auto insurance policy on a vehicle after it's been in an accident and expecting to not only receive coverage at a cost less than the cost of repair, but to actually have your vehicle repaired under that policy. No insurance company is going to cover a condition they know with certainty they will have to pay for while charging you a premium less than the cost of the actual medical services. (oldnovice, in VA you can pay $500 when registering your vehicle (or renewing your registration) if you don't have insurance and that requirement is waived for the year. See here, http://www.dmv.state.va.us/vehicles/#insurance.asp. In any case, that's irrelevant.)

Now, you may argue that none of that matters because a person with a pre-existing condition can now afford the medical services they need thanks to their health insurance coverage. Well, since the cost of those service isn't less than before they were covered, there are now a lot of people in their risk pool paying higher premiums to cover the costs. The new reality is now some healthy people will no longer be able to afford the health insurance policy they've maintained for years and will have to switch to something less ideal for their situation (assuming they can afford a meaningful insurance policy at all). I suppose since one is now legally required to carry insurance (otherwise, how could you spread the increased costs out enough to be meaningful?) if they don't qualify for a waiver, these people who were suddenly priced out of the market entirely and don't qualify for a waiver will just pay the annual "tax" for not being insured. So, it seems we've replaced one group of uninsured with another. At least, to some degree.

Well, what about the costs of actual health care services? Why would they go up so dramatically as people are claiming? Why would the quality of medical services degrade, as some suggest? Because you now have a large group of people who suddenly find themselves with "affordable" health insurance consuming health services at a greater rate (whether these services are necessary or not) than their healthy counterparts who've had insurance for some time. With the increased demand for health care services, and without a subsequent increase in the supply of service providers, prices will have to rise (limited supply with increasing demand puts upward pressure on prices) while quality of service will have to fall (the limited supply of service providers will have to either make their increasing customer base wait longer or they will rush services in order to "get to everyone." In reality, a combination of the two is most likely. After all, there are only so many hours in a day). Just as increased demand for a particular species of wood is followed by increasing prices and, if the species can not be produced quickly enough to keep up with demand, a degradation in the quality of the lumber.

Not being able to get a new health insurance policy doesn't mean you can't get medical care. You can still buy medical care whether paying out of pocket up front, working out a payment plan, seeking some form of charitable assistance, etc. What it means is you pose a significant (perhaps 100%) financial risk to an insurance company for whatever condition you have. It means they are unwilling to charge you a premium of a few hundred dollars a month while having to pay significantly more than that for your medical services. The insurance industry is a business and an already highly regulated one at that. Just like any business, they need to make a profit or there's not incentive to continue on. At the very least, they need to pay all claims while covering all overhead expenses in order to remain in business. By demanding new coverage of an uninsurable condition, you're demanding that either the insurance company charge you less than the cost of medical care and just take the financial loss (enough of that and they go out of business or need to be subsidized through taxes) or every other policy holder should pay a higher premium to cover the delta. In any case, you'd be demanding someone foot part of your bill. In this case, it means you're demanding that everyone pay higher premiums to cover you while also legally obligating everyone to have insurance (except for whomever qualifies for a waiver) lest they be charged a fine. You're actually demanding that it be against the law, illegal, a crime for people to have no insurance (except for waivers) and to not cover your medical costs. It doesn't matter what sort of financial hardship that might put them in or what that might do to their life or the ethical or moral implications of rendering someone a criminal for not providing for you.


----------



## ssnvet (Jan 10, 2012)

health insurance ceased to be "real insurance" long ago.
It's been about cost sharing (a form of wealth redistribution) for a long time.
Like it or not… it is what it is.

OBTW…. the best health care money can buy is received by inmates in Federal prisons…. including the terrorist in Gitmo.


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Billy aka Ninja Assassin…...you sir "get it". Brilliant!

On another note that uber liberal website CNBC is saying: *Obamacare 'perfect storm': Low enrollments, bad data*


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

It all boils down to being able to say, "I gave you health care, so vote for me!" Whether it helps you is of no concern.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Rocky so you are the blame for the ACA mess as you are the only one on this forum to have worked on it!*


----------



## RockyTopScott (Nov 16, 2008)

Sorry oldnovice, not a guberment guy here…just tryin to put a square peg into their round hole.

If it ever works, It will be the private sector that bails it out.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Jorge G - What you are talking about is discrimination and in the United States is illegal and has nothing to do with insurance. Any business that does not hire someone simply because they have cancer is opening themselves up to a large lawsuit, in fact every job I have started signs you up for insurance after you are hired and begin working.


----------



## JGM0658 (Aug 16, 2011)

What you are talking about is discrimination and in the United States is illegal and has nothing to do with insurance.

You are correct, but nevertheless it happens. Thye do not come out an say it was the reason, they simply say "sorry the position was filled".


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

RockyTopScott said, "Why did your closest friend not purchase health insurance before he got sick?"

For me, it was never about not having insurance. Back prior to the HIPPAA act of 1996, an insurance company could cancel your policy at will if you got sick. This happened to me with the birth of my 2nd daughter in 1988. We had insurance going in, but got stuck with $47k worth of hospital bills. We got loop-holed by inadequate laws and greedy insurance companies.
It happened again two years later when my son was born and that time it cost me over $100k.

Once the 1996 HIPPAA act was passed, you could not be cancelled if you got sick and you could not be denied a new policy if you've had continuous credible coverage. Unfortunately, this did not apply to the individual market, but only the employer sponsored market.

When I was diagnosed with diabetes in 2003, my individual policy was cancelled. I was forced to close my business and go to work for an employer so I could have the priviledge of continuing to buy health insurance.

So far, I have successfully been able to continue buying insurance even after I got laid off recently. My new employer is a very small company, (less than 10 employees). He does not offer health insurance. AZ has no high risk pool. I was forced to buy the only option available to me. A HIPPAA policy which covers very little (70% after a big deductible) and my premiums TRIPLED in cost from $420 a month to $1273 a month.

I've had continuous credible coverage for decades. I was faced with no other option than to buy this super expensive policy and drain all my savings to get proper health care.

The ACA has lots and lots of problems, but one thing it DOES do for me is allow me to pay similar rates that I could get with an employer policy, but as an individual. My new (unsubsidized) premiums are $421 a month for way better coverage than my current HIPPAA policy.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Thanks Doug, some sanity in this forum!*

As Doug stated, the ACA does have a lot of problems but all things so expansive and inclusive always do and will never satisfy 100% of the people, regardless of their political views.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

It been about a year and 5 months since the last post If in fact I found the end of this large thread.

So how is ACA treating you. I'm lucky as I still have health care through work and of course it went up a bit. 
It does appear the Lie of the Year is: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'


----------



## ChrisTheWheeler (Oct 27, 2014)

Oops. I responded to a 2 year old posting… Never mind.


----------



## AlaskaGuy (Jan 29, 2012)

> Oops. I responded to a 2 year old posting… Never mind.
> 
> - Chris


Chris, yes it's a old thread but that's why I'm revisiting it. I curious to see how is working out now that ACA has been around a while.

Has it worked out for folks who favored it, have they change their minds etc.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

It's working for *Senator Ted Cruz*!
According to the papers, he didn't want to use the ACA but when his wife left her job they had no choice!
Don't know how that worked out!


----------

