Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It does not....
We have over 40 million on food stamps. But they can afford insurance.
Put that crack pipe down.
And you have middle income people who choose to not buy HC coverage.
Can't have any of that personal choice! It's downright un-American!
It does not....
We have over 40 million on food stamps. But they can afford insurance.
Put that crack pipe down.
And you have middle income people who choose to not buy HC coverage.
Even with subsidized health care the only ones who would not pay are the desperately poor.
Low income persons and families above the Medicaid level and up to 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies[23] on a sliding scale if they choose to purchase insurance via an exchange (persons at 150% of the poverty level would be subsidized such that their premium cost would be of 2% of income or $50 a month for a family of 4).[24]
Minimum standards for health insurance policies are to be established and annual and lifetime coverage caps will be banned
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They chose not to buy it because of cost. But hey put some free birth control in there that will lower it.Now if they can not afford it, more government subsidies are required.
Are you catching on yet?
Why is that you insist upon treating uninsured people as deadbeats?And you have middle income people who choose to not buy HC coverage.
Can't have any of that personal choice! It's downright un-American!
And you have middle income people who choose to not buy HC coverage.
Even with subsidized health care the only ones who would not pay are the desperately poor.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They chose not to buy it because of cost. But hey put some free birth control in there that will lower it.
Are you catching on yet?
The problem is that they will still go in for treatment (usually ER) and then file for bankruptcy. We still end up picking up their tab.
If you have a better idea please post it....
There were two primary reasons for Congress to pass Obamacare that I can surmise.
1) Cover those people that didn't have health insurance
2) Lower health insurance costs.
This poll question asks if you agree.
Why is that you insist upon treating uninsured people as deadbeats?Can't have any of that personal choice! It's downright un-American!
They chose not to buy it because of cost. But hey put some free birth control in there that will lower it.
Are you catching on yet?
The problem is that they will still go in for treatment (usually ER) and then file for bankruptcy. We still end up picking up their tab.
If you have a better idea please post it....
Um, no we're not.....Lots of uninsured pay for the medical services thet receive out-of-pocket.So you want to steal someones liberty so they pay for you, or be forced to provide that service.
Hell thats what liberty is to lefties, make someone else pay and work.
Got news for you, Einstein. You're already paying for their treatment. Obamacare will make them step up and take personal responsibility for their own medical care.
But it's much more politically expedient for the committed statist liars to treat them as potential moochers, rather than responsible people who pay their bills.
Um, no we're not.....Lots of uninsured pay for the medical services thet receive out-of-pocket.Got news for you, Einstein. You're already paying for their treatment. Obamacare will make them step up and take personal responsibility for their own medical care.
But it's much more politically expedient for the committed statist liars to treat them as potential moochers, rather than responsible people who pay their bills.
YOU ARE absolutely 100% correct AND Obamacare though WILL INCREASE the costs of the Out of pocket payers.. IN the government's OWN studies they state:
From the BRIEF SUMMARIES Of MEDICARE & MEDICAID
Title XVIII and Title XIX of The Social Security Act as of November 1, 2011
Page 5...
"Cost sharing in employer-sponsored plans is expected to continue to increase during this time as well, leading to faster out-of-pocket spending growth.
Wow...No totally biased assumptions (and we all know how to spell that, don't we?) there!Why is that you insist upon treating uninsured people as deadbeats?The problem is that they will still go in for treatment (usually ER) and then file for bankruptcy. We still end up picking up their tab.
If you have a better idea please post it....
Because the law requires them to be treated and that is unlikely to change since Americans would not allow HC to become something that is only for those who can afford it.
And since you can't get blood from a turnip that leaves only three choices, right?
1) Allow them to continue filing for bankruptcy.
2) Make them pay the bill (Gee? How long will it take to pay a $50,000 bill at say, $100 per month?)
3) Make them buy healh insurance and offer a subsidized rate for those who cannot afford it.
Health care costs were out of control.
Too many American citizens were without medical insurance.
Too many American citizens, businesses and governments (local, state, federal, special districts) paid too much for medical care and the costs rose every year for decades.
Too many American citizens received treatment at ER's at great cost, and many times waited too long before seeking medical treatment exacerbating their illness/injury and increasing costs.
All persons - citizens or not - will by law receive treatment at any hospital in the nation, public or private. Once remedial care is provided, the patient treated at a private hospital will be transported to the nearest public hospital and dumped on their doorstep.
Preventive health care provided freely to all citizens will cut down the costs of medical care in our country on an actuarial basis.
Wow...No totally biased assumptions (and we all know how to spell that, don't we?) there!Why is that you insist upon treating uninsured people as deadbeats?
Because the law requires them to be treated and that is unlikely to change since Americans would not allow HC to become something that is only for those who can afford it.
And since you can't get blood from a turnip that leaves only three choices, right?
1) Allow them to continue filing for bankruptcy.
2) Make them pay the bill (Gee? How long will it take to pay a $50,000 bill at say, $100 per month?)
3) Make them buy healh insurance and offer a subsidized rate for those who cannot afford it.
1) Lots and lots of uninsured pay for their medical care out-of-pocket without going bankrupt.
Aren't you one? If memory serves you are one who doesn't have insurance. Are you saying that if you were hospitalized for a week that you would NOT pas your costs off to the rest of us?
2) $50,000 medical bills are the exception, not the rule....Almost all doctor visits and outpatient procedures are well within the realm of affordability of just about anyone.
Bullshit. My brother just had a routine stress test done on his heart and the insurance company was billed $8,000.
3) Non sequitur...But you did have to jam forcing people to live the way you would have them live in there somewhere.
In 2010 Massachusetts adults reported sustained gains in health care access and use relative to 2006 (Exhibit 2; additional measures can be found in Appendix Exhibit 2; simple [unadjusted] estimates are in Appendix Exhibit 6).9 For example, in 2010 compared to 2006, nonelderly adults were more likely to have a usual place to go when they were sick or needed advice about their health (up 4.7 percentage points), and were more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percentage points), a specialist visit (up 3.7 percentage points), multiple doctor visits (up 5.0 percentage points; Appendix Exhibit 2),9 and a dental care visit (up 5.0 percentage points; Appendix Exhibit 2).9
In addition to examining health care use, it is important to consider barriers to obtaining needed care. Nonelderly adults in Massachusetts were less likely to report that they did not get some of the types of care they needed in 2010, compared to 2006 (Appendix Exhibit 3; simple [unadjusted] estimates in Appendix Exhibit 7).9 The share of adults reporting that they did not get needed care was down for doctor care, medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, and preventive care over this five-year period.
The share of nonelderly adults who reported high levels of out-of-pocket health care spending (10 percent or more of family income) was lower in 2010 (6.1 percent) than in 2006 (9.8 percent). Consistent with the lower burden of out-of-pocket expenses, the share of adults reporting unmet need for care because of cost was down in 2010 relative to 2006 for all of the types of care examined except prescription drugs and dental care (Appendix Exhibit 4).9
Health insurance coverage and improved access to care are interim goals of the 2006 reform initiative; the ultimate goal is improved health for the population in Massachusetts. The survey used for this study had a single question about health status: In general, would you say that your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? Although self-reported health status has limitations, it is often used as a proxy for clinical measures of health when such measures are not available, as was the case here. We found strong and sustained gains in the share of nonelderly adults in Massachusetts who reported their health as very good or excellent, with an increase from 59.7 percent in 2006 to 64.9 percent in 2010 (data not shown).7
Nice echo from the DNC chamber, tovarich!
Health care costs were out of control.
Too many American citizens were without medical insurance.
Too many American citizens, businesses and governments (local, state, federal, special districts) paid too much for medical care and the costs rose every year for decades.
Too many American citizens received treatment at ER's at great cost, and many times waited too long before seeking medical treatment exacerbating their illness/injury and increasing costs.
All persons - citizens or not - will by law receive treatment at any hospital in the nation, public or private. Once remedial care is provided, the patient treated at a private hospital will be transported to the nearest public hospital and dumped on their doorstep.
Preventive health care provided freely to all citizens will cut down the costs of medical care in our country on an actuarial basis.
So you want to steal someones liberty so they pay for you, or be forced to provide that service.
Got news for you, Einstein. You're already paying for their treatment. Obamacare will make them step up and take personal responsibility for their own medical care.
Since when does our government have the right to 'make' any citizen 'step up' and 'take personal responsibility'.
People who think this way are a danger to our Republic, our liberty.
Tell that to the ones who want to force women to give birth (which I know you oppose) and die without dignity. You're already paying out the ass in hospital bills to cover their treatment, right? Why not have them shoulder some of the costs of their own treatment?
But I don't force anyone to conform to my beliefs on those matters.Wow...No totally biased assumptions (and we all know how to spell that, don't we?) there!Because the law requires them to be treated and that is unlikely to change since Americans would not allow HC to become something that is only for those who can afford it.
And since you can't get blood from a turnip that leaves only three choices, right?
1) Allow them to continue filing for bankruptcy.
2) Make them pay the bill (Gee? How long will it take to pay a $50,000 bill at say, $100 per month?)
3) Make them buy healh insurance and offer a subsidized rate for those who cannot afford it.
1) Lots and lots of uninsured pay for their medical care out-of-pocket without going bankrupt.
Aren't you one? If memory serves you are one who doesn't have insurance. Are you saying that if you were hospitalized for a week that you would NOT pas your costs off to the rest of us?
Hospital stays of a week aren't the norm and your memory isn't serving you at all, either...I'm one of the fortunate ones who has part-time residency in a state where I can purchase major medical/trauma only...I've paid for numerous clinic visits out-of-pocket, it's not that costly....You might get a little further if you quit exaggerating.
2) $50,000 medical bills are the exception, not the rule....Almost all doctor visits and outpatient procedures are well within the realm of affordability of just about anyone.
Bullshit. My brother just had a routine stress test done on his heart and the insurance company was billed $8,000.
Yeah, the insurance company was billed...A lot of hospitals and clinics have two rate scales, one for the insured and one for those not insured...I know because I've seen them....That said, $8,000 isn't $50,000 and hardly a number that would cause bankruptcy.
3) Non sequitur...But you did have to jam forcing people to live the way you would have them live in there somewhere.
You would have a lot more credibility on item #3 if you believed in not forcing everyone to conform to your beliefs in abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage etc..
But I don't force anyone to conform to my beliefs on those matters.Wow...No totally biased assumptions (and we all know how to spell that, don't we?) there!
1) Lots and lots of uninsured pay for their medical care out-of-pocket without going bankrupt.
Aren't you one? If memory serves you are one who doesn't have insurance. Are you saying that if you were hospitalized for a week that you would NOT pas your costs off to the rest of us?
Hospital stays of a week aren't the norm and your memory isn't serving you at all, either...I'm one of the fortunate ones who has part-time residency in a state where I can purchase major medical/trauma only...I've paid for numerous clinic visits out-of-pocket, it's not that costly....You might get a little further if you quit exaggerating.
2) $50,000 medical bills are the exception, not the rule....Almost all doctor visits and outpatient procedures are well within the realm of affordability of just about anyone.
Bullshit. My brother just had a routine stress test done on his heart and the insurance company was billed $8,000.
Yeah, the insurance company was billed...A lot of hospitals and clinics have two rate scales, one for the insured and one for those not insured...I know because I've seen them....That said, $8,000 isn't $50,000 and hardly a number that would cause bankruptcy.
3) Non sequitur...But you did have to jam forcing people to live the way you would have them live in there somewhere.
You would have a lot more credibility on item #3 if you believed in not forcing everyone to conform to your beliefs in abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage etc..
Since when does our government have the right to 'make' any citizen 'step up' and 'take personal responsibility'.
People who think this way are a danger to our Republic, our liberty.
Tell that to the ones who want to force women to give birth (which I know you oppose) and die without dignity. You're already paying out the ass in hospital bills to cover their treatment, right? Why not have them shoulder some of the costs of their own treatment?
I can always tell a losing argument when someone starts the 'For (insert optional deity here) sake, think of the chiiiiiiilllllldddren!' bullshit.
I am pro life. I support the right of others to be pro choice. That is because I believe in liberty. Sometime, siding with liberty means I sacrifice my own beliefs to recognize others beliefs. If more Americans would understand that, we would have a better country.
The reason we rank 37th (despite the fact that I have issues with any 'self reported statistics but... let's work on that figure for the lack of any solid evidence to the contrary).... the reason for that is not because of our health care.... it is because of the lifestyles of many of my fellow Americans. They chose to be fat, they chose to be addicted to drugs, they chose to live unhealthy lifestyles. And they pay the price for that. They develop illnesses based on their choices. That is their problem - not mine. I will not support forcing people to live differently.
Whitney Houston - classic example. Her life, her choices, she's dead. Big fucking deal. I sympathize with her family but she made her decisions - and she accepts the consequences.
Nice echo from the DNC chamber, tovarich!
When?...Where?....Come up with something more concrete than your bigoted assumptions.But I don't force anyone to conform to my beliefs on those matters.You would have a lot more credibility on item #3 if you believed in not forcing everyone to conform to your beliefs in abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage etc..
You do if you support laws that do away with those things.
Bullshit.I have seen people file for bankruptcy for less than 8k.
Only if you're so dense as to be unable to discern $8,000 from $50,000, and realize that the $8,000 number is grossly inflated because a third party payor is in between the consumer and provider.And so you see that a 50k bill is no exaggeration if a simple, routine test costs 8k. Right?
Then insurance companies would probably not bother writing policies and people would shop around for medical care like they buy cars and houses....Maybe hospitals and clinics would offer co-op or club styled services, who the hell knows?...The marketplace is infinitely flexible...What is for certain is that you would cease insulating the customer from paying the costs for their purchases, which cannot help but exert a downward pressure on prices.I am aware that there are two types of billing so what do you think would happen if everyone simply stopped buying insurance? Do you advocate that?
Have trouble reading for comprehension today?So you DO have major medical or not?
