So Now On To Expanding ObamaCare Like The Exit Polls Showed The Voters Want!

[Cecilie1200]

People seem to think that the Health Care Reform Bill is just not liked by conservatives who feel it's to "intrusive". And that's not correct at all. They are plenty of people that wanted single payer or a public option..but because insurance companies and their Republican allies lobbied heavily against it..got something much less.

Yes, and the country voted a bunch of conservative Republicans into office in order to show that they wanted Obamacare EXPANDED! Because what could be a clearer signal than that?

 

[Saikron]

People seem to think that the Health Care Reform Bill is just not liked by conservatives who feel it's to "intrusive". And that's not correct at all. They are plenty of people that wanted single payer or a public option..but because insurance companies and their Republican allies lobbied heavily against it..got something much less.

Yes, and the country voted a bunch of conservative Republicans into office in order to show that they wanted Obamacare EXPANDED! Because what could be a clearer signal than that?

It's a little more complex than that. The presidential party typically has losses during midterm elections, and one of the strongest indicators of whether or not the presidential party will retain power is the economy (specifically the per capita wage).

Gaining control of the house isn't a free pass to start deporting brown people and setting up debtor's prisons.

 

[del]

People seem to think that the Health Care Reform Bill is just not liked by conservatives who feel it's to "intrusive". And that's not correct at all. They are plenty of people that wanted single payer or a public option..but because insurance companies and their Republican allies lobbied heavily against it..got something much less.

Yes, and the country voted a bunch of conservative Republicans into office in order to show that they wanted Obamacare EXPANDED! Because what could be a clearer signal than that?

It's a little more complex than that. The presidential party typically has losses during midterm elections, and one of the strongest indicators of whether or not the presidential party will retain power is the economy (specifically the per capita wage).

Gaining control of the house isn't a free pass to start deporting brown people and setting up debtor's prisons.

but i thought that elections had consequences?

 

[DiveCon]

gee, the exit polls said they wanted it repealed and replaced

 

[GWV5903]

Actually, CNN had noted this all day--if nobody else did. The National Health Care Plan is actually supported, and including in the direction of having it expaned.

Six Nuggets from the 2010 Exit Polls : CJR

The Democrats are easily said to have undersold their own agenda. The Phony "Red Tide" was not entirely Conservative About It! 31% actually want it expanded, of the 48% in support of it.

Mostly, tacking on law books full of settled case law in its support, or repeal: Will mostly help to really piss the "Red Tide" off!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred.
(White Eyes Leprechaun, At End Of Rainbow, Find False readings Instead of Shiny Trinkets!)

Yesterday was a figment of our imagination too, the house is still controlled by the Dem's.....

 

[Saikron]

It's a little more complex than that. The presidential party typically has losses during midterm elections, and one of the strongest indicators of whether or not the presidential party will retain power is the economy (specifically the per capita wage).

Gaining control of the house isn't a free pass to start deporting brown people and setting up debtor's prisons.

but i thought that elections had consequences?

I'm not sure what you meant by that.

What I meant was, it would be a leap in logic to say that voters elected conservatives to bring back preexisting conditions. If there are specific parts of health care reform that need to be fixed, I'm all ears, but I don't represent the insurance industry so I rather like most of it.

Voters elected Republicans to bring the jobs. Unfortunately, I would be astonished if they could figure out how to do that. They have all convinced each other that it has to be done without increasing the national debt, and they want to cut government jobs at the same time.

 

[GWV5903]

Chicago style goons are NOT going to run around this country medically murdering Patients. That garbage is coming to a halt.

You might actually agree with the part you are talking about if you knew what it really said. The first "death panel" scare was about a part of the legislation that provided optional "advance care planning" which is a euphemism for talking with your doctor about what to do when you have a terminal illness. It's something that people already have the option to do in this country through many private insurance plans. It had nothing to do with euthanasia or killing granny.

There have been other "death panel" scares, but I promise you that if they had any substance to them, the actual text of the bill would be printed everywhere. Sarah Palin said they were in Section 1233 of HR 3200 because she was betting people would be too lazy to look it up and see that she was full of shit.

Great, now you can tell us what Palin's real intentions where......

While you are at it, can you explain what the 3.8% sellers tax is for when you sell your home? It couldn't be wealth redistribution could it??

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Actually, CNN had noted this all day--if nobody else did. The National Health Care Plan is actually supported, and including in the direction of having it expaned.

Six Nuggets from the 2010 Exit Polls : CJR

The Democrats are easily said to have undersold their own agenda. The Phony "Red Tide" was not entirely Conservative About It! 31% actually want it expanded, of the 48% in support of it.

Mostly, tacking on law books full of settled case law in its support, or repeal: Will mostly help to really piss the "Red Tide" off!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred.
(White Eyes Leprechaun, At End Of Rainbow, Find False readings Instead of Shiny Trinkets!)

Your link does not back up your statements. The link the article within your link links to also does not back up that article.

Next.

 

[DiveCon]

Actually, CNN had noted this all day--if nobody else did. The National Health Care Plan is actually supported, and including in the direction of having it expaned.

Six Nuggets from the 2010 Exit Polls : CJR

The Democrats are easily said to have undersold their own agenda. The Phony "Red Tide" was not entirely Conservative About It! 31% actually want it expanded, of the 48% in support of it.

Mostly, tacking on law books full of settled case law in its support, or repeal: Will mostly help to really piss the "Red Tide" off!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred.
(White Eyes Leprechaun, At End Of Rainbow, Find False readings Instead of Shiny Trinkets!)

Your link does not back up your statements nor does the link the article within your link. The link the article within your link links to also does not back up that article.

Next.

the 48% actually want it REPEALED and REPLACED

 

[Saikron]

Chicago style goons are NOT going to run around this country medically murdering Patients. That garbage is coming to a halt.

You might actually agree with the part you are talking about if you knew what it really said. The first "death panel" scare was about a part of the legislation that provided optional "advance care planning" which is a euphemism for talking with your doctor about what to do when you have a terminal illness. It's something that people already have the option to do in this country through many private insurance plans. It had nothing to do with euthanasia or killing granny.

There have been other "death panel" scares, but I promise you that if they had any substance to them, the actual text of the bill would be printed everywhere. Sarah Palin said they were in Section 1233 of HR 3200 because she was betting people would be too lazy to look it up and see that she was full of shit.

Great, now you can tell us what Palin's real intentions where......

While you are at it, can you explain what the 3.8% sellers tax is for when you sell your home? It couldn't be wealth redistribution could it??

Just to be sure we both know exactly what the topic at hand is: A 3.8 Percent “Sales Tax” on Your Home? | FactCheck.org

Yes, graduated taxes like that one are for wealth redistribution (sort of). The federal government is what pays for public schools, roads, parks and other stuff that all Americans make use of somehow. To control the value of currency, the government collects taxes.

That 3.8% sales tax helps keep inflation down while the government spends money to do the stuff that helps us all in some way. If you check that link, it's a tax on rich people who aren't exactly hurting right now.

EDIT: Oh, and how would you explain Palin citing section 1233 as evidence of death panels when there is no such panel?

 

[Common Sense]

other than the mandate (which is designed to cover everyone in an attempt to bring down costs), what specifically are all you people against?

Republicans talk a lot about repealing the health care bill and replacing it with a more "common sense" bill. but are vague on offering any specific details about what they would change. (the same is actually true for any spending cuts to balance the budget, yet that is a whole other conversation) Here are all of the positives i see specifically:

- children can stay on their parents insurance until age 26
- you can not be denied coverage for having a preexisting condition
- you can no longer be dropped from your carrier when you get sick
- they have removed lifetime caps
- mammograms are now free
- requires health insurance plans to disclose how much of each premium dollar goes to patient care

everyone is also worried that this will lead to socialized medicine and thus patient care will suffer immensely. but we already have socialized medicine, and im sure that anyone who received medicare or medicaid would revolt if you took that away. (the same is true for social security) so if republicans are worried about the government take over, then why are they in support of medicare and medicaid? These two programs are the government providing low cost HC services to people, and we are all paying our for it through our taxes (or have you not looked at your payroll deductions?)

so i ask again, name a specific part of the legislation that you are against, then how you would exactly replace it.

(also, it is widely known that this health care bill was modeled after the bill that Republican Mitt Romney put forth in Massachusetts to provide health care to all the residents of that state. hmmmm a republican crafted bill rejected by all republicans........ interesting)

 

[mascale]

The barely 1/3 of the elected National Government that comes into office on January 1, will actually be trying to roll-back savings on prescription medicine, and on preventive medicine, for Senior Citizens. Then they will be helping to increase health insurance premiums for everyone else.

Anyone sees the agenda: Pay Executives even More Mega-Bonuses, In Yet Another Sector of the Economy, and the Expense of Businesses and Consumers!

Here are just the coincidentaly, effective provisions, of the Affordable Health Care Act for 2011! The Tea Party-Boehner-Mitchell GOP wants all this repealed: Immediately and while it is taking effect!

2011

IMPROVING QUALITY AND LOWERING COSTS

•Offering Prescription Drug Discounts. Seniors who reach the coverage gap will receive a 50 percent discount when buying Medicare Part D covered brand-name prescription drugs. Over the next ten years, seniors will receive additional savings on brand-name and generic drugs until the coverage gap is closed in 2020. Effective January 1, 2011. Download a brochure to learn more (PDF, 3.6 MB)
•Providing Free Preventive Care for Seniors. The law provides certain free preventive services, such as annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans for seniors on Medicare. Effective January 1, 2011.
•Improving Health Care Quality and Efficiency. The law establishes a new Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation that will begin testing new ways of delivering care to patients. These methods are expected to improve the quality of care, and reduce the rate of growth in health care costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Additionally, by January 1, 2011, HHS will submit a national strategy for quality improvement in health care, including by these programs. Effective no later than January 1, 2011.
•Improving Care for Seniors After They Leave the Hospital. The Community Care Transitions Program will help high risk Medicare beneficiaries who are hospitalized avoid unnecessary readmissions by coordinating care and connecting patients to services in their communities. Effective January 1, 2011.
•Introducing New Innovations to Bring Down Costs. The Independent Payment Advisory Board will begin operations to develop and submit proposals to Congress and the President aimed at extending the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. The Board is expected to focus on ways to target waste in the system, and recommend ways to reduce costs, improve health outcomes for patients, and expand access to high-quality care. Administrative funding becomes available October 1, 2011.

INCREASING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE CARE

•Increasing Access to Services at Home and in the Community. The new Community First Choice Option allows States to offer home and community based services to disabled individuals through Medicaid rather than institutional care in nursing homes. Effective beginning October 1, 2011.

HOLDING INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE

•Bringing Down Health Care Premiums. To ensure premium dollars are spent primarily on health care, the new law generally requires that at least 85% of all premium dollars collected by insurance companies for large employer plans are spent on health care services and health care quality improvement. For plans sold to individuals and small employers, at least 80% of the premium must be spent on benefits and quality improvement. If insurance companies do not meet these goals, because their administrative costs or profits are too high, they must provide rebates to consumers. The rebate program will begin January 1, 2011.
•Addressing Overpayments to Big Insurance Companies and Strengthening Medicare Advantage. Today, Medicare pays Medicare Advantage insurance companies over $1,000 more per person on average than is spent per person in Traditional Medicare. This results in increased premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries, including the 77 percent of beneficiaries who are not currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. The new law levels the playing field by gradually eliminating this discrepancy. People enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan will still receive all guaranteed Medicare benefits, and the law provides bonus payments to Medicare Advantage plans that provide high quality care. Effective January 1, 2011.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
("No!' is a mighty big word at Republican National GOP! In Fact, "Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, and Segregation Forever!" is a mighty big word at Republican National GOP!)

 

[Dan40]

other than the mandate (which is designed to cover everyone in an attempt to bring down costs), what specifically are all you people against?

The MANDATE is an unconstitutional law forcing citizens to BUY a product or be fined.

Republicans talk a lot about repealing the health care bill and replacing it with a more "common sense" bill. but are vague on offering any specific details about what they would change. (the same is actually true for any spending cuts to balance the budget, yet that is a whole other conversation) Here are all of the positives i see specifically:

- children can stay on their parents insurance until age 26

What law, anywhere says that parents cannot pay for their children's health insurance now?? To ANY age?

- you can not be denied coverage for having a preexisting condition

That simply increases insurance premiums costs. Helps the person with an uncovered pre-existing condition, but costs EVERYONE else higher premiums. Presently if one has GROUP Coverage and changes jobs, the carrier for the new company MUST accept those with pre-existing conditions. So very little has changed.

- you can no longer be dropped from your carrier when you get sick

That has been true for many decades. All claims that any insurance company dropped them for being sick are either lies or the recision of the policy came within the 'contestability period' of a new policy and pre-existing conditions were NOT disclosed on the insurance application.
Do you actually BELIEVE that the insurance industry that has been around for over 100 hundred years and handles TRILLIONS of dollars per year, has been doing so all this time without a MOUNTAIN of regulations over them? Don't be stupid.

- they have removed lifetime caps

Again that simply removes a cost controlling measure, guaranteeing that ALL of us will have to pay higher premiums.

- mammograms are now free

Sorry, NOT free. The patient does not have to pay, but the funding for mammograms and a host of other tests will be paid out of out taxes and or premiums. WHETHER ANYONE ONE TAKES A TEST OR NOT, WE WILL PAY FOR IT IN ADVANCE.

There is NOTHING FREE in this life. Even FREEDOM is not free, it requires responsibility.

- requires health insurance plans to disclose how much of each premium dollar goes to patient care

This too has been true for longer than you have been alive. This has long been covered in the many TOMES of insurance regulations that do and have existed since long before you and I were born.

And the NET profit of health insurance companies amounts to a rather low average of 03.3%. Auto parts companies average much higher net profits.

everyone is also worried that this will lead to socialized medicine and thus patient care will suffer immensely. but we already have socialized medicine, and im sure that anyone who received medicare or medicaid would revolt if you took that away. (the same is true for social security) so if republicans are worried about the government take over, then why are they in support of medicare and medicaid? These two programs are the government providing low cost HC services to people, and we are all paying our for it through our taxes (or have you not looked at your payroll deductions?)

I don't have a problem with Medicaid, which is a medical welfare program for the poor.

Medicare is a liberal program [Pres Johnson] that should never have been started, but it is insurance that is funded by all workers, and by all beneficiaries on Medicare. People over 65 pay about $100.00 per month in premiums, plus annual Doctor deductibles over $100.00, and over $1000. hospital deductibles for EACH benefit period [could be 4 or more in a year] and they pay a 20% co-pay. I'm a Senior and on Medicare.
Medicare and its welfare sister do work well. BUT only because there is a vibrant free market profit making medical industry to give the Govt programs underlying support.

so i ask again, name a specific part of the legislation that you are against, then how you would exactly replace it.

(also, it is widely known that this health care bill was modeled after the bill that Republican Mitt Romney put forth in Massachusetts to provide health care to all the residents of that state. hmmmm a republican crafted bill rejected by all republicans........ interesting)

Specific parts:

Why does a health care reform bill destroy the free market student loan industry?

Why does a health care reform bill require a 1099 be filed for every transaction of $600. dollars or more? Even when the transactions have nothing to do with medical anything?

Why does a health care reform bill require doubling, or more, the size of the IRS?

Why does a health care reform bill need over 200 new bureaucracies to administer it?

Why does a Govt health care reform bill need to grab HALF its funding from an existing Govt health care program? Half a TRILLION of the 10 years funding of obamacare is "scheduled" to come from Medicare. NO ONE has said how that is possible.

 

[Dan40]

The barely 1/3 of the elected National Government that comes into office on January 1, will actually be trying to roll-back savings on prescription medicine, and on preventive medicine, for Senior Citizens. Then they will be helping to increase health insurance premiums for everyone else.

Anyone sees the agenda: Pay Executives even More Mega-Bonuses, In Yet Another Sector of the Economy, and the Expense of Businesses and Consumers!

Here are just the coincidentaly, effective provisions, of the Affordable Health Care Act for 2011! The Tea Party-Boehner-Mitchell GOP wants all this repealed: Immediately and while it is taking effect!

2011

IMPROVING QUALITY AND LOWERING COSTS

•Offering Prescription Drug Discounts. Seniors who reach the coverage gap will receive a 50 percent discount when buying Medicare Part D covered brand-name prescription drugs. Over the next ten years, seniors will receive additional savings on brand-name and generic drugs until the coverage gap is closed in 2020. Effective January 1, 2011. Download a brochure to learn more (PDF, 3.6 MB)
•Providing Free Preventive Care for Seniors. The law provides certain free preventive services, such as annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans for seniors on Medicare. Effective January 1, 2011.
•Improving Health Care Quality and Efficiency. The law establishes a new Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation that will begin testing new ways of delivering care to patients. These methods are expected to improve the quality of care, and reduce the rate of growth in health care costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Additionally, by January 1, 2011, HHS will submit a national strategy for quality improvement in health care, including by these programs. Effective no later than January 1, 2011.
•Improving Care for Seniors After They Leave the Hospital. The Community Care Transitions Program will help high risk Medicare beneficiaries who are hospitalized avoid unnecessary readmissions by coordinating care and connecting patients to services in their communities. Effective January 1, 2011.
•Introducing New Innovations to Bring Down Costs. The Independent Payment Advisory Board will begin operations to develop and submit proposals to Congress and the President aimed at extending the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. The Board is expected to focus on ways to target waste in the system, and recommend ways to reduce costs, improve health outcomes for patients, and expand access to high-quality care. Administrative funding becomes available October 1, 2011.

INCREASING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE CARE

•Increasing Access to Services at Home and in the Community. The new Community First Choice Option allows States to offer home and community based services to disabled individuals through Medicaid rather than institutional care in nursing homes. Effective beginning October 1, 2011.

HOLDING INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE

•Bringing Down Health Care Premiums. To ensure premium dollars are spent primarily on health care, the new law generally requires that at least 85% of all premium dollars collected by insurance companies for large employer plans are spent on health care services and health care quality improvement. For plans sold to individuals and small employers, at least 80% of the premium must be spent on benefits and quality improvement. If insurance companies do not meet these goals, because their administrative costs or profits are too high, they must provide rebates to consumers. The rebate program will begin January 1, 2011.
•Addressing Overpayments to Big Insurance Companies and Strengthening Medicare Advantage. Today, Medicare pays Medicare Advantage insurance companies over $1,000 more per person on average than is spent per person in Traditional Medicare. This results in increased premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries, including the 77 percent of beneficiaries who are not currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. The new law levels the playing field by gradually eliminating this discrepancy. People enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan will still receive all guaranteed Medicare benefits, and the law provides bonus payments to Medicare Advantage plans that provide high quality care. Effective January 1, 2011.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
("No!' is a mighty big word at Republican National GOP! In Fact, "Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, and Segregation Forever!" is a mighty big word at Republican National GOP!)

As I've said before, the insurance industry has been heavily regulated since long before any of us posters on this thread were BORN. Just this highlighted passage.
In Florida, for decades, insurance companies have been allowed 15% for non health expenses. So the 85% requirement is simply marketing BS for the stupid.

obamacare simply restates insurance regulations that states have long had in place and then obamacare greatly expands the power of the Federal Govt. It does NOT help people. It does help the insurance industry, the drug industry, labor unions, and hospital corporations.

 

[mascale]

Anyone might suggest that if text is to be highlighted, to make a contrary point, then there should be some basis for making the point.

Half the States do not regulate Health Insurance Premiums, Specifically with no provisions like in The Affordable Health Care Act.

Many States Lack Legal Authority To Regulate Some Health Law Details - California Healthline

Bush could even find Weapons Of Mass Destruction in the NIE's, where clearly there were none. Basis-Free, Americans were butchered in foreign invasions and occupations, eyelids and tongues strewn about the dirt as fodder for the scorpions. Their arms were blown off from their bodies, intended by all Bush family members as scary stuff for women and children. Infants were slaughtered, regarded enemies.

And then there were the prison movies, and the beheading on TV: All intended by posters like Dan40. Anyone can guess that Dan40 probably even drew pay, keeping the blood-money warbucks, for himself all the while!

Actually, Dan40 myopia is also called support of profiteering. The Affordable Health Care Act addresses that shortcoming in the several states. Half the states have no such current regulation. It will further go forward and cover the currently uninsured, opposed by Dan40 poster.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many squaws bring shiny trinkets to Play in Machines of Many Nations! Many squaws, liitle kids at heart: Loving to Play All Day!)

 

[mascale]

Contrary to the Dan40 contention, the federal government often imposes a requirement to make a purchase, and in the event of non-compliance, impose a fine.

OSHA workplace safety even starts as follow, like the Tea Part wants.

a) the Congress finds that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments.

That is all about a federal requirement to compel a purchase, and to impose a fine for non-compliance.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Squaws bring shiny trinkets: To Play all day in safety!)

 

[Dan40]

First, your post cites the uber liberal NY Times. A superb source of liberal misinformation and propaganda that is rapidly DRIVING the NY Times out of business. So nothing is to believed coming from them. Find a neutral source.

Second, Nothing I said had anything to do with States enforcing obamacare. What I said is that the states DO have and HAVE had laws in place that obamacare usurps. obamacare adds very little, and none of that, GOOD to insurance regulations that already existed.

Companies that make yellow #2 pencils are heavily regulated. Companies that make horse bridles are heavily regulated. Shoe shine stands are regulated. And you have been utterly brainwashed into believing that the multi-trillion dollar insurance industry has escaped the notice of politicians for over a century? You speak COMPLETE nonsense and defy any kind of logic.

And PROFIT, is one of the most beautiful words in our language. Without some of us making profits, you liberals would have long since starved. WE do not need you, but you NEED US.
Parasites die without their host.

 

[mascale]

A Judge, George Steeh, has upheld the Constitutionality of ObamaCare already, in fact.

"There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.
The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true. The question is how participants in the health care market pay for medical expenses - through insurance, or through an attempt to pay out of pocket with a backstop of uncompensated care funded by third parties. This phenomenon of cost shifting is what makes the health care market unique."

The Courts have long held that the federal government has an interest in providing for the general well-being of all of its citizens. An Amish-man can claim an exemption from the Social Security program for himself and his own people(?), but he cannot use that Right of Religion to contend that he is further exempt from the taxes that are paid in support of the employees.

Lines do get drawn, but not just out of thin air. They originate in oodles and oodles and oodles of caselaw.

Some people even go to school to learn all about it, and find out that in general: It is wrong. In the law, there are fixed percentage pay raises--in statutes and contracts to boot. The Rich Get Richer, The Poor Don't Get--then famously they can't pay the mortgages. It is as though the lawyer, Lincoln, had stepped in: And so all hell broke loose, yet again!

But that is the law!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many squaws come to lands of many nations: To Play in Houses not in Foreclosure!)

 

[mascale]

Dan40 posts as below,

"obamacare simply restates insurance regulations that states have long had in place and then obamacare greatly expands the power of the Federal Govt. It does NOT help people. It does help the insurance industry, the drug industry, labor unions, and hospital corporations."

And clearly. none of that is so!

See for example, what happens in January: Just when the Mega-Split 1/3 of the elected National Government, convenes. That is even posted above.

Then actually, the Wall Street Journal points out the only 29 states give the insurance commissioner the power to regulate premiums. People opposed to The Affordable Health Insurance Act, are also easily opposed to business in general. Great Central Government, and Socialist Government, do markets regulation. They are found in the advanced civilizations of Asia, Europe, North America, Australia, South America and on and on.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704059004575127533188447508.html

It is the Party of Abraham Lincoln, most in opposition: So Households like that one of Dan40 poster would be inclined to favor the economies of the civilizations in Haiti and East Africa, as opposed to the advanced ones.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Squaws bring shiny trinkets to lands of Many Nations; Not squander savings on medical prescription profiteers, or on co-pays for preventive medicine! Those are expenses now covered, That Tea Party-Boehner-McConnell-GOP wants to take away, and before moon sets on possum!)

 

[Greenbeard]

What law, anywhere says that parents cannot pay for their children's health insurance now?? To ANY age?

Obviously the dependent coverage provision is primarily interesting because it allows 26-and-unders to stay in a group insurance plan, which (until 2014 anyway) has significant advantages over individual market plans.

That simply increases insurance premiums costs. Helps the person with an uncovered pre-existing condition, but costs EVERYONE else higher premiums. Presently if one has GROUP Coverage and changes jobs, the carrier for the new company MUST accept those with pre-existing conditions. So very little has changed.

Agreed, for most insurance very little has changed, in large part due to the fact that group insurance already enjoys some degree of federal consumer protections through HIPAA. The focus of the insurance-related part of ACA is primarily on reforming the individual market by creating exchanges. There are a few provisions (i.e. the "New Patient's Bill of Rights") that impact group plans but by and large this law's insurance pieces focus on the individual marketplace.

Why does a health care reform bill destroy the free market student loan industry?

Presumably you're talking about the federal student loan program, which has never been a "free market student loan industry."

Why does a health care reform bill require a 1099 be filed for every transaction of $600. dollars or more? Even when the transactions have nothing to do with medical anything?

Why did CHIPRA tax tobacco? To raise revenue, of course. It's always strange to see those who profess to desire fiscal responsibility taken aback by bills that attempt to pay for themselves. And then pretending that funding streams have to somehow be germane to the subject matter of the outlays. And then (sometimes in the very next breath) demanding to know "Why does a Govt health care reform bill need to grab HALF its funding from an existing Govt health care program?"

You've got to make up your mind.

Why does a health care reform bill require doubling, or more, the size of the IRS?

Now this is just getting silly.

Why does a health care reform bill need over 200 new bureaucracies to administer it?

Because misleading numbers are fun?

Why does a Govt health care reform bill need to grab HALF its funding from an existing Govt health care program? Half a TRILLION of the 10 years funding of obamacare is "scheduled" to come from Medicare. NO ONE has said how that is possible.

Sure they have. $202 billion comes from phasing out politically-motivated overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans, $70 billion more in savings comes from the CLASS program, $157 billion comes from revising market basket payment updates, and the rest is made up in much smaller savings (e.g. phasing out most DSH payments will save more than $20 billion).

Can Medicare really achieve the sort of productivity increases they're aiming for with the $157 billion in savings through the market basket update revision? Well, that's one of the main objectives of the law (the non-insurance-related portions of the law): delivery system reform, payment reform, and data-driven quality improvement at an unprecedented level. That's the really important part of the law, though popular conversation tends to stay focused on the (mostly individual) insurance market reforms like a laser.