The ACA

[Antares]

The good.....

I talked to her on the phone today, she has been diagnosed with breast cancer .
Her plan ends Dec 31st....I was able to get her coverage and a $500 subsidy...she is so thankful and happy.

The bad.....

The people on the bubble...regardless of what the Lefty shills keep repeating, the premiums have gone up substanially...many have been priced out of the market....

The ugly.....

Still to come.

 

[Sallow]

Best of luck to your friend.

She's got a good chance of beating this..so keep encouraging her.

 

[Antares]

I am seeing a lot of good from this...my mind is opening.

 

[Sallow]

Cancer is never good.

But friends are..

Stay strong for your friend.

 

[syrenn]

best of luck to both of you.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I am seeing a lot of good from this...my mind is opening.

I hope you mean this. Its people like you that stop me from posting a lot of things and when I saw it was your thread, I almost didn't open it. I have read your posts and honestly wished your opinions could be trusted.

We don't need more reasons to argue and fight. We need facts and the right cannot be trusted. Nor can the left, its true.

Really, I would be very open to more real discussion -

In any event, thank you for posting this. Its a start.

 

[Antares]

Thank you everyone.

 

[Antares]

In the last 3 days I've been able to help...

A Lukemia sufferer
An HIV positive patient
Wheelchair bound diabetic with heart disease, HBP and a few other issues.

This is helping people who could not otherwise get help.

 

[Immanuel]

I am seeing a lot of good from this...my mind is opening.

I hope you mean this. Its people like you that stop me from posting a lot of things and when I saw it was your thread, I almost didn't open it. I have read your posts and honestly wished your opinions could be trusted.

We don't need more reasons to argue and fight. We need facts and the right cannot be trusted. Nor can the left, its true.

Really, I would be very open to more real discussion -

In any event, thank you for posting this. Its a start.

Rep was due for this, but undeliverable.

Immie

 

[JimH52]

The good.....

I talked to her on the phone today, she has been diagnosed with breast cancer .
Her plan ends Dec 31st....I was able to get her coverage and a $500 subsidy...she is so thankful and happy.

The bad.....

The people on the bubble...regardless of what the Lefty shills keep repeating, the premiums have gone up substanially...many have been priced out of the market....

The ugly.....

Still to come.

God Bless

 

[TheOldSchool]

I am seeing a lot of good from this...my mind is opening.

I hope it's more good than bad. I think it will be.

I'm happy you're able to help these people and thank you

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am not an insurance agent, but I was able to help someone who thought that his son was uninsurable due to having cancer. For whatever reason, he was unaware that denials and upcharges for preexisting conditions were no longer legal. When he realized that he was going to be able to get it and afford it.......he wept. He was just so relieved.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Can someone explain to me why this couldn't be "paid for another way"
besides this contested individual mandate fining people for not buying insurance?

What about recouping costs to taxpayers from the criminal justice system
which currently wastes billions paying for housing and health care for those who
committed crimes but not helping lawabiding citizens. why can't these be loans
and set up work-study programs to pay back costs to cover health care that way?

2. What about spiritual healing that has been shown to drastically reduce
the effects and costs of cancer and treatments of this and other diseases?

In order to save more lives and save more resources to cover more people,
would you be okay with requiring people to go through "spiritual healing"?

If the state can compel people to go buy insurance instead of other health care options,
why not mandate spiritual healing in order to cut the costs to public or govt programs?

Especially if such methods are shown to cure or reduce the dangers of criminal illness,
addiction and other abuses that add to the costs of crime and expense to taxpayers,
where is the mandate requiring reduction in crime and disease "in order to save lives"?

3. if the leftwing does not agree to such mandates, but the rightwing does not agree to the insurance mandates, could we choose which mandate to follow that matches our beliefs? Wouldn't that be a fair compromise to cut the costs and save more lives on both sides?

 

[TheOldSchool]

1. Can someone explain to me why this couldn't be "paid for another way"

The other way = have tons of money

 

[emilynghiem]

I am not an insurance agent, but I was able to help someone who thought that his son was uninsurable due to having cancer. For whatever reason, he was unaware that denials and upcharges for preexisting conditions were no longer legal. When he realized that he was going to be able to get it and afford it.......he wept. He was just so relieved.

Dear LoneLaughter: May I also recommend spiritual healing prayer to help anyone either with cancer or going through treatment to boost their self-healing and immunity/energy naturally.

The sources I recommend are all free and have exemplary records of effectiveness
and no complaints of the "false faith healing" type which is a complete corruption of the
medical proven methods which work with natural science and don't reject medicine.

My friend Olivia has helped patients either overcome cancer altogether, or drastically reduced the cost or pain of their treatment, which doctors have acknowledged some as miraculous, but these are all explainable by science, by removing unforgiven memories by spiritual healing prayer so that the body and mind can better heal themselves naturally.

Olivia's number for free help anytime is 713 820 0899 she posts this freely as a volunteer with nonprofits who offers free help to anyone who calls. The other spiritual healing experts I recommend have websites at Home - Christian Healing Ministries and Healing Is Yours Both with experience demonstrating effects thru medical science, where spiritual healing cures the cause or enhances response to treatment.

I believe these methods of spiritual healing will revolutionize medical care by curing and preventing diseases such as cancer, and impact the mental health and criminal justice system by curing mental illness such as schizophrenia and criminal illness and addiction.

We wouldn't be wasting any time arguing over ACA and insurance if more resources were invested in researching spiritual healing and providing public access to help more people. For free. That is the hardest part to understand. Why we waste billions and lose lives to cancer when so many diseases could be reduced, prevented or cured at the root cause.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Can someone explain to me why this couldn't be "paid for another way"

The other way = have tons of money

Yes, and we could save tons of money by addressing root causes and better systems of providing health care.

Instead of wasting resources pushing insurance mandates as the answer.

Even losing millions of dollars a day over the impasse over ACA and govt shutdown.

And how many millions do our officials spend running for office, pitting one side against the other, instead of investing in developing solutions that both sides would agree on.

If half the nation/Congress opposed this ACA, shouldn't that be a huge tip off that something is wrong with it, and there were other options out there?

Terribly short sighted. If Republicans who pushed billions if not trillions in war spending that Democrats opposed paid THAT back to taxpayers who would rather pay for health care, maybe the two parties could afford to fund their own policies and quit billing the taxpayers for things that weren't universally agreed upon. Many ways to pay for things besides adding more costs to taxpayers -- why not collect back on previous waste, debts or damages that government abuses have cost the public? Why would you agree to pay even for more things, without first getting paid back for waste or abuses overpaid in the past?

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Can someone explain to me why this couldn't be "paid for another way" besides this contested individual mandate fining people for not buying insurance? . . .

Yes, of course.

But one side when it had the majority did not have the will, while the other side, when it got a majority, it had the will.

We can amend and change as we go along.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Can someone explain to me why this couldn't be "paid for another way" besides this contested individual mandate fining people for not buying insurance? . . .

Yes, of course.

But one side when it had the majority did not have the will, while the other side, when it got a majority, it had the will.

We can amend and change as we go along.

How do you suggest as the fastest most effective way to acknowledge or add
other options besides either buying insurance or paying fine/penalty/tax to govt.

Is proposing a state innovation the simplest way to offer other options?
I looked up the rules for that which looked overly burdensome and not
even available until 2017. What about right now since people are screaming
about constitutional violations. What is the fastest way to correct the clause
most deemed outside the authority of fed govt, the individual mandate?

To petition or to sue to lift the restrictions on exempted groups from 1999 to unlimited time and from very limited regulations on religious organizations to other conditions as well?

What do you suggest as the most effective remedy?

I am considering proposing an alternative mandate beside the insurance
and that is waiving the requirement for people who agree to use spiritual healing
in setting up or providing free or low cost health care for more people to cut costs
of care, treatment, insurance, public or private costs to whatever providers are used.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I truly do not know about other options or how to do it.

SCOTUS has said the ACA is constitutional, so any legal challenges may result in some amending but no overturning of the Act.

I know others on the Board are trying to figure this out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/obamacare/317533-the-aca.html

 

[emilynghiem]

I truly do not know about other options or how to do it.

SCOTUS has said the ACA is constitutional, so any legal challenges may result in some amending but no overturning of the Act.

I know others on the Board are trying to figure this out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/obamacare/317533-the-aca.html

What do you think of the lawsuit that argues since the Court ruled it "a tax"
then it is unconstitutional because it was not introduced through the
Senate as a revenue measure.

I looked up ACA and found it was passed as a revision or reform of a previous
public act on health care, and somehow the insurance mandate was added in there.
This does not appear to be a tax/revenue bill to begin with.

Is this just rhetorical argument about an "income tax" change which must
start in the Senate and a "different kind of tax" that could originate in the House?

Can that be used to strike down the insurance mandate?
It seems the part most contested is how the commerce clause can be
stretched to require that people participate in a private business purchase
of INSURANCE which is NOT the same as paying govt for health care services
and NOT the same as a tax. The tax or penalty is based on NOT buying insurance.

The second most contested part is why are only certain groups receiving waivers and exemptions based on either religious or political standing deemed qualifying based on questionable criteria that aren't available to all citizens to choose to equally opt out.

Lastly I find it disturbing that so many people are willing to admit there are problems with the bill and it needs amending, but don't seem to take either (a) responsibility for correcting, pushing corrections or supporting that process (b) the COST of the conflict over the bill being passed without first resolving conflicts and redressing these issues

If you were to allow faulty cars on the road, saying they need to be fixed, but not sure what and leave it to other people, but in the meantime the cars causes stall out, traffic jams or crashes, why wouldn't the people who allowed these things on the road be held accountable versus the people who asked to hold off on them UNTIL problems could be id and fixed.

Are so many more people being saved by the provisions?

If so, again, why couldn't those measures be afforded another way instead of violating constitutional rights of people who don't believe in stretching either the commerce clause or taxation definitions in such manner but believe in states and individual responsibility for costs of health care.

For that matter, couldn't we justify legislating prolife laws to save lives at the expense of constitutional liberty and integrity of free choice? And as I offered previously. to require participating in spiritual healing to save more lives and reduce costs of disease, treatment, even crime in order for more public resources to be able to serve and save more people?

That's fine if people want to start ignoring constitutional principles, but do we agree to be consistent? And let prolife people pass legislation they believe will save more lives at the expense of free choice? I think they'd be happy to be able to pass prolife laws, separating taxes and health care to pay for life and spiritual healing, and not pay for losses, damages, crime, abuses or addictions from people who refuse FREE preventative healing or cure.

Maybe that's where all this is heading, toward free health care
if we really expect to cover and protect all people equally.

It may not be insurance that allows this, but free methods that are easily proven cost effective by medical science, though too often rejected on religious grounds and political bias, but which may prove to be the answer to affording universal care.
Through the church, not the state. Certainly people should have free choice protected, especially when it comes to religious free exercise. The fact so many people are willing to turn a blind eye to this, and override freedom for the sake of political expediency is especially disturbing when those same people were the ones screaming about prochoice.

As mentioned before, I found it curious how the ACA caused prochoice and prolife advocates to sound like the other sides' arguments. Suddenly the prolife people want free choice not mandated, regulated or penalized by govt; and suddenly prochoice people are willing to sacrifice that to govt control in order to gain a sense of greater benefit and "more lives saved" which used to be the argument for prolife. That is most curious to me of all.

Whatever circus sideshow this turned into, on one hand I feel totally left out, not fully represented by either side, on the other hand I don't look forward to paying the cost of having to fix the problems after the fact when I believe the conflicts should have been resolved before passing such a bill. If no one claim responsibility, then why pass it. I had asked why not have each party pay for its own reforms, but even that was rejected. Why?

We have no problem with States paying for their own policies.
Or Churches and separate denominations/institutions enforce and pay for their own programs.

Why not let the separate parties with different agenda approach or ideology
pay for and run their own programs for their own members?

That sounds completely logical to me, yet neither side agrees and keeps imposing
on the other. So I am left out of both loops. While neither of theirs seem to meet Constitutional requirements of equal inclusion and protection of the laws. And my proposal would seem to protect both while preventing imposing beliefs of one on the other.

???