Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   House GOP: "How about this, Debt Ceiling Lift for Obamacare delay?" Senate Dem: "No, revise it. Be serious." House GOP: "How about this, Debt Ceiling Lift for Obamacare delay?" USA:"fark you"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 407
    More: Sad, House GOP, obamacare, GOP, Van Hollen, Majority Leader Harry Reid, individual mandate, ACA, Boehner  
•       •       •

2756 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Sep 2013 at 7:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



407 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-30 09:56:46 PM  

pueblonative: Back to the point:  let's say the Senate did that with one of these 40+ "we hatez the Obamacare, yes we do" Gollum bills.  Do you reasonably expect the Repubs to come anywhere near this type of proposal?


I think a reasonable compromise is possible, yes. It would involve not implementing Obamacare until the exchanges are properly set up. Removing the payments cuts to physicians, removing the non-essential bloat like grants to 4 HBCU medical schools required each year (I don't make this stuff up), stop passing costs along to providers and states as unfunded mandates and put some teeth into the tax collection.

I think the easier thing is to scrap it and start over with a bill not written by partisan lawyers. Stop including pork, and retain the conscience provisions.
 
2013-09-30 09:57:09 PM  

feckingmorons: hat is true, but there are no Congressmen calling around to get the best rates from Blue Cross, United , and Golden Rule.


I have a friend, he is a lawyer in a private law firm. Tomorrow, he will not be forced to call Blue Cross, United , and Golden Rule for the best rates, since he is covered under the insurance policy provided by his employer (I think it's Aetna). Is he "exempt" from the ACA?
 
2013-09-30 09:58:56 PM  

feckingmorons: pueblonative: pueblonative:
Um, a third of the senate is up for election each year.

*two years.

That would be so nice.


Been that way since 1789.
 
2013-09-30 09:59:54 PM  

I_C_Weener: Infernalist: Bullshiat.  The House GOP needs to cut their infantile bullshiat and pass a clean CR.

Let me put it this way.   The last time we were here, a last minute deal gave us the Punt and Sequester plan.  When that time expired after neither side blinked again, automatic cuts started to take place...and the Democrats called foul, trying to back out of it and seek all kinds of ways out of that agreement...avoid it, rewrite the law...but not compromise.  NEVER COMPROMISE.  And spend months making fun of the Republicans for that deal...

Then the Sequester goes into effect, cutting some spending and the world doesn't end.

Then...we're here again.

What incentive do the Republicans have that the Democrats will stick to any agreement anyway when scant months before they tried backing out of the last compromese?  In other words, the Republicans will be vilified regardless, and will get nothing out of it.  Why work with Democrats?  At all.


The GOP has given the Democratic party 3 years worth of reasons not to cooperate or compromise.  The entirety of Obamacare is a compromise to the GOP and they still voted, lockstep, against it.

And now?  The GOP is the minority party, the weaker party, and they're trying to set the legislative agenda by doing nothing but repeals of Obamacare for the last 3 years.

At any point in that three years, they could have tried to negotiate with the Democrats and the WH, but they didn't.  Well, sorry, but you're out of time and you have no lifelines left.

Issuing a list of demands or forcing a government shut down is not a negotiating starting point.  It's an ultimatum and it smacks of economic terrorism.

You want to compromise on Obamacare?  Fine.  Do it tomorrow.  Tonight, they do their farking jobs and pass a CR to keep the country running.
 
2013-09-30 10:00:46 PM  

FlashHarry: hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x439]

that cartoon is so farking stupid, i'm not sure where to begin. but how about with the fact that 80 percent of americans get their healthcare through work or the govt. and won't have to do a farking thing. and if you don't want insurance, DON'T GET IT. you'll pay a tax penalty - that's all. i pay one for not having kids. for me, it's worth it.


You don't see taxing people for not getting insurance as bad? 2.5% of your entire family's income if you don't get a plan that meets their definition of MEC. I used to have a commercial 80/20 plan with a 10K deductible for about $455/yr about 10 years ago. That would no longer qualify, I would be well insured but I would have to pay thousands in a tax penalty because I didn't want a more expensive plan that I didn't need.
 
2013-09-30 10:01:25 PM  

nmrsnr: feckingmorons: hat is true, but there are no Congressmen calling around to get the best rates from Blue Cross, United , and Golden Rule.

I have a friend, he is a lawyer in a private law firm. Tomorrow, he will not be forced to call Blue Cross, United , and Golden Rule for the best rates, since he is covered under the insurance policy provided by his employer (I think it's Aetna). Is he "exempt" from the ACA?


Yes, in the same sense that a member of congress is.
 
2013-09-30 10:02:47 PM  

feckingmorons: pueblonative: Back to the point:  let's say the Senate did that with one of these 40+ "we hatez the Obamacare, yes we do" Gollum bills.  Do you reasonably expect the Repubs to come anywhere near this type of proposal?

I think a reasonable compromise is possible, yes. It would involve not implementing Obamacare until the exchanges are properly set up. Removing the payments cuts to physicians, removing the non-essential bloat like grants to 4 HBCU medical schools required each year (I don't make this stuff up), stop passing costs along to providers and states as unfunded mandates and put some teeth into the tax collection.

I think the easier thing is to scrap it and start over with a bill not written by partisan lawyers. Stop including pork, and retain the conscience provisions.


Actually, if we wanted to control costs and deal with dsoctors not having to charge outrageous prices for their care, then perhaps we should do like they do in Europe, and subsidize the education of someone that goes into the medical field.  Then, while undergoing their residencies, also pay them a stipend (with the amount being paid by the stipend depending on what specialty they go into, with GP's drawing a full paycheck, and specialists getting a smaller one (mainly due to the fact that there is a severe shortage of GP's in the US right now.)).

I know this might surprise you, but doctors should be getting into that field because they actually want to help the people they are dealing with, not have it be a way to make a lot of money.  Taking the huge medical school bills out of the equation would be a big help in dealing with that.
 
2013-09-30 10:03:00 PM  

feckingmorons: pueblonative: Back to the point:  let's say the Senate did that with one of these 40+ "we hatez the Obamacare, yes we do" Gollum bills.  Do you reasonably expect the Repubs to come anywhere near this type of proposal?

I think a reasonable compromise is possible, yes. It would involve not implementing Obamacare until the exchanges are properly set up. Removing the payments cuts to physicians, removing the non-essential bloat like grants to 4 HBCU medical schools required each year (I don't make this stuff up), stop passing costs along to providers and states as unfunded mandates and put some teeth into the tax collection.

I think the easier thing is to scrap it and start over with a bill not written by partisan lawyers. Stop including pork, and retain the conscience provisions.


Obamacare doesn't go into effect until the exchanges are in place. They go live tomorrow. The ACA and mandate start in three months. What's your beef?
 
2013-09-30 10:03:11 PM  

feckingmorons: There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money, or perhaps he wants a $10K deductible policy. He would be penailized for that.


You are right.  These are the people who shouldn't have insurance, because we need them out of the gene pool as quickly as possible.
 
2013-09-30 10:04:07 PM  

feckingmorons: You don't see taxing people for not getting insurance as bad?


not at all. they drive up costs for the rest of us.

everyone consumes health care. everyone. and just like everyone who drives a car needs insurance, everyone who consumes - or will consume - healthcare should have it too.
 
2013-09-30 10:04:43 PM  

feckingmorons: There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money


then he/she drinks a whole 30 pack of keystone light and who pays for their ER visit? Like I said, you are advocating for a system where we still pay for all these people regardless.

He is in the same position without insurance.

and again, that position is one where his medical bills are  being paid for by everyone else.

I'd rather see a single payer system with private supplemental where like you did, at a cost per year what I spend a little over a month on insurance. I personally don't see a problem with that.
 
2013-09-30 10:05:14 PM  

feckingmorons: TuteTibiImperes: Also, give RNs, PAs, and NPs more power to do more without direct doctor supervision, and expand the things they're allowed to do in general.  Most routine ailments don't need a full fledged doctor to be diagnosed and treated successfully.

I'd rather see the worst physician than the best RN, and I am one of the best RNs.

My friend Rick who was an ER doc gave up his private practice to go to the ER, seven years later he quit that to fish for a living. He is much happier.

My friend Steve is an orthopedic surgeon, he pays $4 an hour, every hour of every day for all the insurance (all lines) his practice requires. He wishes he had done something else, but medical school really only prepares you for one thing. He is getting an executive MBA and going into consulting in a few years when he sells his practice to "Some idealistic SOB."

People simply won't go into medicine. Obamacare cuts reimbursements (I have no idea why they use that word when they mean payments, they are not reimbursing anyone they are paying doctors for their work).

Would you want to get paid $57.30 for an office visit from a commercial plan, $75 from a guy who pays cash, or $12,91 from medicare? The government funded rates are going down. Would you see patients for 1/6 of your value, would you see them at a net loss? Name a physician - not employed or affiliated with the government who still really sees patients in his own practice- who is in favor of Obamacare and I'll eat my hat.


If single payer is so bad for doctors, why do people go into medicine in all of the countries that do have it?  Why are there doctors in Canada or the UK?

I'm not suggesting that the payment rate be set all the way down to $12.91, but there could certainly be some concessions made.

From what I understand malpractice insurance is a major cost for a lot of doctors, so why not institute major tort reform along with it?  Greatly limit what people can sue for, the amounts they can win, and make the standard of proof higher.  If a doctor's malpractice insurance goes down $50K per year, he shouldn't care about a $50K per year reduction in income, it nets out the same.

Also, per your comments on RNs, from my experience they do just about everything anyway.  The last few times I've had to visit the doctor's office the RN comes in, takes all of my vitals, hears my description of the problem, and writes it all up.  Later the doctor comes in for a short period, confirms what the RN told him, and writes a prescription.  When it comes to getting x-rays, being given a nebulizer treatment,  etc, that's all done by the nurse.

Granted, for serious stuff I'd like to see a doctor involves, but for the majority of run of the mill medical work, what's wrong with nurses and NPs?
 
2013-09-30 10:05:25 PM  

feckingmorons: FlashHarry: hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x439]

that cartoon is so farking stupid, i'm not sure where to begin. but how about with the fact that 80 percent of americans get their healthcare through work or the govt. and won't have to do a farking thing. and if you don't want insurance, DON'T GET IT. you'll pay a tax penalty - that's all. i pay one for not having kids. for me, it's worth it.

You don't see taxing people for not getting insurance as bad? 2.5% of your entire family's income if you don't get a plan that meets their definition of MEC. I used to have a commercial 80/20 plan with a 10K deductible for about $455/yr about 10 years ago. That would no longer qualify, I would be well insured but I would have to pay thousands in a tax penalty because I didn't want a more expensive plan that I didn't need.


Actually, having a NHS or something like the Canadian Medicare would be best, since there are no out of pocket expenses.  Or even a public/private system like Germany has.  Healthcare coverage in the US is an abomination, and whole the ACA isn't the best thing we could have gotten, it's most definitely a step in the right direction.  No matter how much you personally feel the need to rail on it.
 
2013-09-30 10:06:16 PM  

feckingmorons: I think a reasonable compromise is possible, yes. It would involve not implementing Obamacare until the exchanges are properly set up. Removing the payments cuts to physicians, removing the non-essential bloat like grants to 4 HBCU medical schools required each year (I don't make this stuff up), stop passing costs along to providers and states as unfunded mandates and put some teeth into the tax collection.

I think the easier thing is to scrap it and start over with a bill not written by partisan lawyers. Stop including pork, and retain the conscience provisions.


Yeah, why would lawyers have anything to do with the law?  As for the conscience provision, no way.  Why should an employer be able to cherry pick the parts of the law that their insurance complies with?  They entered the public marketplace; they can comply with the rules about coverage.  If they don't, just let them pay the penalty and the government will help their female employees purchase a health insurance plan that's not (badly) based off a religious screed invented by goat farmers tripping balls on the side of Mount Siani.
 
2013-09-30 10:06:17 PM  

feckingmorons: There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money


I heard Rush Limbaugh say something like that in the early 90s when Clinton was trying to push Universal healthcare. It was a stupid point then and it's a stupid point now. In your defense, I didn't read your post in Rush's voice.
 
2013-09-30 10:06:55 PM  

udhq: feckingmorons: peasandcarrots: That's what you, and thirty Congressmen, don't get. "I get everything and you get nothing,

You don't see the Continuing Resolution as something? You think that is nothing? That I think is where you fail to see there is a quid pro quo.

Passing a cr is the house's job, not a favour they do for democrats.

If you don't want to do your job as a legislator, resign already.


You realize if they resigned they would all be replaced with people who want Obamacare even less. It is polling like crap now :
"The CNN poll found that the public is growing more skeptical of Obamacare - 57 percent say they oppose the law, up 3 percentage points from a poll in May" From Christian Science Monitor

Please see the CSM article,as it shows that 60% of Americans also oppose a shutdown, as do I. The better answer is to delay implementation of the individual mandate and see if it can be imporved, and keep the lights on at the government.
 
2013-09-30 10:08:03 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: I know this might surprise you, but doctors should be getting into that field because they actually want to help the people they are dealing with, not have it be a way to make a lot of money.  Taking the huge medical school bills out of the equation would be a big help in dealing with that.


How do you think the medical schools would feel about that?
 
2013-09-30 10:09:34 PM  
feckingmorons:

There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money, or perhaps he wants a $10K deductible policy. He would be penailized for that.

Anyone under 30 can buy a high deductible 'catastrophic loss' plan and be good in terms of the ACA.

Ideally I'd like to see that moved up to 40, but things like that can be negotiated once things are rolling.
 
2013-09-30 10:10:07 PM  

feckingmorons: udhq: feckingmorons: peasandcarrots: That's what you, and thirty Congressmen, don't get. "I get everything and you get nothing,

You don't see the Continuing Resolution as something? You think that is nothing? That I think is where you fail to see there is a quid pro quo.

Passing a cr is the house's job, not a favour they do for democrats.

If you don't want to do your job as a legislator, resign already.

You realize if they resigned they would all be replaced with people who want Obamacare even less. It is polling like crap now :
"The CNN poll found that the public is growing more skeptical of Obamacare - 57 percent say they oppose the law, up 3 percentage points from a poll in May" From Christian Science Monitor

Please see the CSM article,as it shows that 60% of Americans also oppose a shutdown, as do I. The better answer is to delay implementation of the individual mandate and see if it can be imporved, and keep the lights on at the government.


And you know damn well that delaying the individual mandate would cause the ACA to have severe funding problems.  It would end up going into an actuarial death spiral if enough healthy people decided they weren't going to sign up.  It's just another roundabout way to dismantle the law, abeit one that ends up failing due to the same reasons why when states tried to set up state healthcare plans that dealt with what the ACA does (without a mandate).
 
2013-09-30 10:10:39 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: From what I understand malpractice insurance is a major cost for a lot of doctors, so why not institute major tort reform along with it? Greatly limit what people can sue for, the amounts they can win, and make the standard of proof higher. If a doctor's malpractice insurance goes down $50K per year, he shouldn't care about a $50K per year reduction in income, it nets out the same.


The idea that medical malpractice insurance has any bearing on health care costs has been bunked, debunked, rebunked, and taken out back to the woodshed and done so hard even the chickens that Republicans fark shudder.
 
2013-09-30 10:11:19 PM  

Headso: feckingmorons: There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money

then he/she drinks a whole 30 pack of keystone light and who pays for their ER visit? Like I said, you are advocating for a system where we still pay for all these people regardless.

He is in the same position without insurance.

and again, that position is one where his medical bills are  being paid for by everyone else.

I'd rather see a single payer system with private supplemental where like you did, at a cost per year what I spend a little over a month on insurance. I personally don't see a problem with that.


We'd continue having battles over stuff like "is it enough healthcare" like we do routinely with minimum wage, and other welfare.  But I'd prefer your option over Obamacare.  My option was the easiest to implement, but the time for that is long past.  I'd still love a public option to compete with the insurance companies in the exchanges.  Expand Medicare.
 
2013-09-30 10:11:23 PM  

feckingmorons: There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money, or perhaps he wants a $10K deductible policy. He would be penailized for that.


And those people would be rightly called MOOCHERS.  Ready to be bailed out by you and me if something bad happens.
 
2013-09-30 10:11:27 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: If single payer is so bad for doctors, why do people go into medicine in all of the countries that do have it?  Why are there doctors in Canada or the UK?I'm not suggesting that the payment rate be set all the way down to $12.91, but there could certainly be some concessions made.


The docs there are paid a salary and don't have to fund the office, equiptment, staff, etc. It is an OK 9-5 job most days.

The $12.91 is the actual reimbursement for a Medicare limited scope office visit for an existing patient in my area. (99211 billing code). They can do three or four of those an hour and they still have to pay the light bill and the staff and insurance and medical supplies and and and.
 
2013-09-30 10:11:45 PM  

feckingmorons: Yes, in the same sense that a member of congress is.


So according to you, roughly 70% (according to the US census bureau warning: pdf) of Americans over 15 are exempt from the ACA. I think you and I have a very different definition of "exempt" because otherwise why would anyone be angry that congresspeople follow the same rules as every other employed person, seeing as congresspeople are, you know, employed?
 
2013-09-30 10:12:14 PM  

feckingmorons: AurizenDarkstar: I know this might surprise you, but doctors should be getting into that field because they actually want to help the people they are dealing with, not have it be a way to make a lot of money.  Taking the huge medical school bills out of the equation would be a big help in dealing with that.

How do you think the medical schools would feel about that?


As far as them still getting paid, I wouldn't think a lot of medical schools would really give a damn.  It just takes the costs off of the person learning to become a doctor so that they can worry less about funding and more about learning their job.

Now, if you mean that medical schools wouldn't be able to charge outrageous prices for medical education, then I could really give a damn if they don't like it.
 
2013-09-30 10:12:30 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: feckingmorons:

There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money, or perhaps he wants a $10K deductible policy. He would be penailized for that.

Anyone under 30 can buy a high deductible 'catastrophic loss' plan and be good in terms of the ACA.

Ideally I'd like to see that moved up to 40, but things like that can be negotiated once things are rolling.


Could you show me that somewhere? If that is true that is good news, but I've never seen it.

Why can't we fix it before we 'get it rolling' ?
 
2013-09-30 10:12:30 PM  

Mugato: feckingmorons: There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money

I heard Rush Limbaugh say something like that in the early 90s when Clinton was trying to push Universal healthcare. It was a stupid point then and it's a stupid point now. In your defense, I didn't read your post in Rush's voice.


they don't want to pay for insurance but when they get hurt or sick they want full medical coverage, that's probably what everyone wants 25 or not.
 
2013-09-30 10:13:45 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: being given a nebulizer treatment,


No, I'll not have my memory erased. They're only allowed to do that if I see an alien.
 
2013-09-30 10:13:46 PM  

nmrsnr: feckingmorons: Yes, in the same sense that a member of congress is.

So according to you, roughly 70% (according to the US census bureau warning: pdf) of Americans over 15 are exempt from the ACA. I think you and I have a very different definition of "exempt" because otherwise why would anyone be angry that congresspeople follow the same rules as every other employed person, seeing as congresspeople are, you know, employed?


Exempt from being forced to purchase insurance through an exchange. I think people would like to see members of congress restricted to the plans on the exchange.
 
2013-09-30 10:14:59 PM  
Headso:
they don't want to pay for insurance but when they get hurt or sick they want full medical coverage, that's probably what everyone wants 25 or not.

Which to me sounds a lot like someone who decides to not have auto insurance, but once they're in a wreck, demands that they be allowed to purchase a policy at decent prices.  I think the issue is that people have NO clue how insurance is supposed to actually work.
 
2013-09-30 10:15:11 PM  

feckingmorons: nmrsnr: feckingmorons: hat is true, but there are no Congressmen calling around to get the best rates from Blue Cross, United , and Golden Rule.

I have a friend, he is a lawyer in a private law firm. Tomorrow, he will not be forced to call Blue Cross, United , and Golden Rule for the best rates, since he is covered under the insurance policy provided by his employer (I think it's Aetna). Is he "exempt" from the ACA?

Yes, in the same sense that a member of congress is.


But when the firm re-news its insurance plan, or chooses not to, then he will need to make a decision.  That is usually December or January.  Keep his offered employer plan (with or without a subsidy from the firm), go with an exchange plan (with or without a government subsidy) or forgo insurance.  Just like everyone.
 
2013-09-30 10:17:01 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: feckingmorons: AurizenDarkstar: I know this might surprise you, but doctors should be getting into that field because they actually want to help the people they are dealing with, not have it be a way to make a lot of money.  Taking the huge medical school bills out of the equation would be a big help in dealing with that.

How do you think the medical schools would feel about that?

As far as them still getting paid, I wouldn't think a lot of medical schools would really give a damn.  It just takes the costs off of the person learning to become a doctor so that they can worry less about funding and more about learning their job.

Now, if you mean that medical schools wouldn't be able to charge outrageous prices for medical education, then I could really give a damn if they don't like it.


12349876: feckingmorons: There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money, or perhaps he wants a $10K deductible policy. He would be penailized for that.

And those people would be rightly called MOOCHERS.  Ready to be bailed out by you and me if something bad happens.


You can't categorize people like that. Perhaps he has a $10K CD that he could use if he had to but wants to save for a house after he graduates.
Insurance is a matter of acceptance and assignment of risk. The guy with the 10K deductible is retaining that risk, but paying someone else (the insurance company) to take the next $990000 of risk for him. Since most medical bills, even when added together, for the average 25 year old student won't reach 10K that is a pretty good risk for the insurance company to assume.
 
2013-09-30 10:17:16 PM  

feckingmorons: Why can't we fix it before we 'get it rolling' ?


Because the republicans don't want to get the ball rolling ever. Hundreds of posts and you're still not grasping that? Does it need to be worked out for you in interpretive dance or something?
 
2013-09-30 10:17:37 PM  

feckingmorons: TuteTibiImperes: feckingmorons:

There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money, or perhaps he wants a $10K deductible policy. He would be penailized for that.

Anyone under 30 can buy a high deductible 'catastrophic loss' plan and be good in terms of the ACA.

Ideally I'd like to see that moved up to 40, but things like that can be negotiated once things are rolling.

Could you show me that somewhere? If that is true that is good news, but I've never seen it.

Why can't we fix it before we 'get it rolling' ?


It was actually in the link from one of your previous posts, here's the direct page.
 
2013-09-30 10:18:49 PM  

feckingmorons: Exempt from being forced to purchase insurance through an exchange. I think people would like to see members of congress restricted to the plans on the exchange.


Aside from petty spite, why? They are gainfully employed by an employer who provides insurance. Why should they have to break their own system and remove a benefit of employment for themselves that no one else has to follow?

Health insurance is still an employee benefit, the exchanges are for the unemployed, or small businesses for whom providing insurance would be a burden.
 
2013-09-30 10:20:17 PM  

feckingmorons: udhq: feckingmorons: peasandcarrots: That's what you, and thirty Congressmen, don't get. "I get everything and you get nothing,

You don't see the Continuing Resolution as something? You think that is nothing? That I think is where you fail to see there is a quid pro quo.

Passing a cr is the house's job, not a favour they do for democrats.

If you don't want to do your job as a legislator, resign already.

You realize if they resigned they would all be replaced with people who want Obamacare even less. It is polling like crap now :
"The CNN poll found that the public is growing more skeptical of Obamacare - 57 percent say they oppose the law, up 3 percentage points from a poll in May" From Christian Science Monitor

Please see the CSM article,as it shows that 60% of Americans also oppose a shutdown, as do I. The better answer is to delay implementation of the individual mandate and see if it can be imporved, and keep the lights on at the government.


And my answer is who cares about the polling on the ACA?

Is settled law, and the gop doesn't have the votes to overturn it through legitimate legislative means.

The fact that a 3 year campaign of obfuscation and lies by the gop has moved to polling needle is neither here nor there. 2012 was a referendum on the ACA, and the American people voted overwhelmingly to keep it in place.
 
2013-09-30 10:20:35 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: And you know damn well that delaying the individual mandate would cause the ACA to have severe funding problems.  It would end up going into an actuarial death spiral if enough healthy people decided they weren't going to sign up.  It's just another roundabout way to dismantle the law, abeit one that ends up failing due to the same reasons why when states tried to set up state healthcare plans that dealt with what the ACA does (without a mandate).


Do you think it is actuarially sound now? I don't know of an actuary who thinks it is. The disincentive as they are wont to call the 1% or $95 tax won't force healthy people into the plans.
 
2013-09-30 10:21:31 PM  

Mugato: feckingmorons: Why can't we fix it before we 'get it rolling' ?

Because the republicans don't want to get the ball rolling ever. Hundreds of posts and you're still not grasping that? Does it need to be worked out for you in interpretive dance or something?


They are asking for a 1 year delay for the individual mandate. The same delay the president unilaterally gave businesses.

They are not asking for a repeal now. They will again, but not tonight.
 
2013-09-30 10:22:11 PM  
feckingmorons:

You can't categorize people like that. Perhaps he has a $10K CD that he could use if he had to but wants to save for a house after he graduates.
Insurance is a matter of acceptance and assignment of risk. The guy with the 10K deductible is retaining that risk, but paying someone else (the insurance company) to take the next $990000 of risk for him. Since most medical bills, even when added together, for the average 25 year old student won't reach 10K that is a pretty good risk for the insurance company to assume.



You're an RN, and you're suggesting that people should gamble with their lives by either not carrying insurance, or only carrying a catastrophic plan (just in case they get hit by a car or somehow get cancer).  I would suggest you find another line of work.

I'd really like to know from another health care worker why you really feel that leaving our national healthcare situation exactly the way it is right now, instead of dealing with the changes brought about by the ACA, and would rather see those changes streamlined and made better instead of just trashing the whole thing.
 
2013-09-30 10:22:41 PM  

nmrsnr: Health insurance is still an employee benefit, the exchanges are for the unemployed, or small businesses for whom providing insurance would be a burden.


Am I wrong that I can choose the exchange even if I'm employed and have employer insurance?
 
2013-09-30 10:22:47 PM  

feckingmorons: They are asking for a 1 year delay for the individual mandate. The same delay the president unilaterally gave businesses.

They are not asking for a repeal now. They will again, but not tonight.


No, a year from now. Or another "extension". It's pretty blatant.
 
2013-09-30 10:24:19 PM  

Mugato: TuteTibiImperes: being given a nebulizer treatment,

No, I'll not have my memory erased. They're only allowed to do that if I see an alien.


Sadly, I that sounds like a response that would come out of Congress these days.
 
2013-09-30 10:25:08 PM  

feckingmorons: I think people would like to see members of congress restricted to the plans on the exchange.


Newsflash: They ARE being required to purchase insurance on the exchange.
 
2013-09-30 10:26:09 PM  

feckingmorons: The $12.91 is the actual reimbursement for a Medicare limited scope office visit for an existing patient in my area. (99211 billing code). They can do three or four of those an hour and they still have to pay the light bill and the staff and insurance and medical supplies and and and.


medicare is made up of people who would make the worst possible risk poll a private company could ever imagine, it takes a huge burden of private insurers. You act like it's comparable at all to private insurance. It's like those people who talk about how great private schools are but never mention that all bad kids are just thrown out and go to public school.
 
2013-09-30 10:26:53 PM  

I_C_Weener: Am I wrong that I can choose the exchange even if I'm employed and have employer insurance?


You probably can, but I don't think your employer would be required to pitch in for it, so it would probably be more expensive, plus the government might not subsidize it, plus insurance shopping is annoying.
 
2013-09-30 10:29:40 PM  

I_C_Weener: nmrsnr: Health insurance is still an employee benefit, the exchanges are for the unemployed, or small businesses for whom providing insurance would be a burden.

Am I wrong that I can choose the exchange even if I'm employed and have employer insurance?


I believe you're right.  If you can get a better deal through the exchanges, you can drop your employer supplied health care and pick up a private plan.
 
2013-09-30 10:30:25 PM  

nmrsnr: I_C_Weener: Am I wrong that I can choose the exchange even if I'm employed and have employer insurance?

You probably can, but I don't think your employer would be required to pitch in for it, so it would probably be more expensive, plus the government might not subsidize it, plus insurance shopping is annoying.


Yeah, that's my understanding.  The employer plan is subsidized by the employer...for now.  I fully expect many to stop doing that.  They already are as a group subsidizing less and less of it.  And at some point it will make more sense to get the exchange plans, maybe even without a government subsidy

I don't see any scenario where the employer pays for the exchange plan.
 
2013-09-30 10:30:58 PM  

nmrsnr: feckingmorons: Exempt from being forced to purchase insurance through an exchange. I think people would like to see members of congress restricted to the plans on the exchange.

Aside from petty spite, why? They are gainfully employed by an employer who provides insurance. Why should they have to break their own system and remove a benefit of employment for themselves that no one else has to follow?

Health insurance is still an employee benefit, the exchanges are for the unemployed, or small businesses for whom providing insurance would be a burden.


What about the 3000+ part time employees of Home Depot, that will be shunted from employer sponsored health care to the government exchanges? What happens to all the other people who have their hours slashed so the employer no longer has to offer them insurance? Trader Joes, Sea World, Forever 21 are all slashing hours.


If your employer cuts your hours to less than 30 they no longer have to offer you insurance. If they do offer you insurance it will be much more expensive than last year.

You can get insurance from the exchanges but those too will be much higher than your company insurance was.

You're screwed coming and going, you have fewer hours and you have to pay 100% of your insurance (less any subsidy- as an example in the linked article $300 our of $1449 for someone making $15K).

Obamacare will hurt the working poor more than anyone and I don't see a lot of people realizing that.
 
2013-09-30 10:31:00 PM  

feckingmorons: AurizenDarkstar: And you know damn well that delaying the individual mandate would cause the ACA to have severe funding problems.  It would end up going into an actuarial death spiral if enough healthy people decided they weren't going to sign up.  It's just another roundabout way to dismantle the law, abeit one that ends up failing due to the same reasons why when states tried to set up state healthcare plans that dealt with what the ACA does (without a mandate).

Do you think it is actuarially sound now? I don't know of an actuary who thinks it is. The disincentive as they are wont to call the 1% or $95 tax won't force healthy people into the plans.


Then why does it work in Massachusetts?  I mean, you can't all of a sudden say "Yeah, it will only work on a state by state basis, it could NEVER work on a national basis."

The only real reason that they want a delay of the mandate is due to the fact that it will either give them time to find another way to dismantle the law, or they realize it will force the ACA into the actuarial death spiral, which will kill it outright unless the government spends billions to prop it up.  They're hoping to delay it long enough to gain the majority in the Senate again, and if they don't, it just gives them long enough to demand yet another delay when the one they're asking for runs out.
 
2013-09-30 10:31:38 PM  

Infernalist: I_C_Weener: nmrsnr: Health insurance is still an employee benefit, the exchanges are for the unemployed, or small businesses for whom providing insurance would be a burden.

Am I wrong that I can choose the exchange even if I'm employed and have employer insurance?

I believe you're right.  If you can get a better deal through the exchanges, you can drop your employer supplied health care and pick up a private plan.


I hope so.  Someone's comment made me wonder though if the exchanges were only open to those without an employer option...good or bad.
 
Displayed 50 of 407 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report