- Banned
- #801
I'm saying "So, nothin?" says nothing.
Can Obamacare be Fixed?
- Thread starter JimBowie1958
- Start date
I'm saying "So, nothin?" says nothing.
Where's the evidence for that. If you were really for personal responsibility you would be for essentially no government oversight into health care what so ever. Then it would be the individuals responsibility to pay for their own health care however they see fit. The would not be able to dump health care expenses on to others in one form or other if they can't pay. They simply wouldn't get treated. It would be the individuals responsibility to find out and know what their plans cover and under what circumstances they can be dropped. It would be the individuals responsibility to work out a payment plan with the provider if they can't pay all at once. THAT is what personal responsibility as it pertains to health care would look like. You advocating for Obamacare looks nothing like that. Stop pretending you're Mr. personal responsibility. If there's one commonality among liberals it's the extreme aversion they have to exactly that.
The real problem is no politician could campaign on what elminating that would actually entail. No politician is going to be able to sell the idea that if you can't pay you don't get treated.
Obamacare on the other hand feably attempts to not remedy that problem. It simply shifts who does the paying for those that can't.
You can deny it all you want, but the stated purpose of the AFFORDABLE Care Act was to make health care more affordable, and not just for some, for everyone.
Keep pretending you're Mr. Accountability while holding the paradoxical position of being for Obamacare. In the real world you can't be both. We can do personal accountability really easily. Get government out of it. Don't treat people that can't pay. = personal accountability achieved.
- Banned
- #806
One of the provisions of ACA are Medical Loss Ratio mandates.
"Value for Your Premium Dollar: 80/20 Rule and MLR"
"The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend your premium dollars primarily on health care. It does this by enforcing a policy called the “80/20 rule” to hold insurance companies accountable."
"What Medical Loss Ratio Means for You"
"The percentage of your premium dollars that an insurance company spends on providing you with health care and improving the quality of your care (as opposed to what it spends on administrative, overhead, and marketing costs) is known as “Medical Loss Ratio” or MLR."
"The new law limits how much of your premium dollar your insurer can spend on things other than providing health care and improving its quality. If your insurance company exceeds that limit, it must provide a rebate of the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit."
"Some Important Details"
"The law requires insurers selling policies to individuals or small groups to spend at least 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care. Insurers selling to large groups (usually 50 or more employees) must spend 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement."
"This rule does not apply to employers who operate what is called a self-insured plan. If youÂ’re not sure whether your plan matches this description, ask your employer or check your plan materials.
"Your health insurance company must report yearly to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the share of premium dollars spent on health care services and quality improvement and any rebates required. The first report, covering calendar year 2011, was filed on June 1, 2012."
"Insurers are required to make the first round of rebates to consumers in 2012. If you are owed a rebate you will receive a reduction in your premiums, a rebate check--or, if you paid by credit card or debit card, a lump sum reimbursement to your account. If your employer paid all or part of your premium, the same share of any rebate may go to your employer."
"Value for Your Premium Dollar: 80/20 Rule and MLR"
"The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend your premium dollars primarily on health care. It does this by enforcing a policy called the “80/20 rule” to hold insurance companies accountable."
"What Medical Loss Ratio Means for You"
"The percentage of your premium dollars that an insurance company spends on providing you with health care and improving the quality of your care (as opposed to what it spends on administrative, overhead, and marketing costs) is known as “Medical Loss Ratio” or MLR."
"The new law limits how much of your premium dollar your insurer can spend on things other than providing health care and improving its quality. If your insurance company exceeds that limit, it must provide a rebate of the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit."
"Some Important Details"
"The law requires insurers selling policies to individuals or small groups to spend at least 80% of premiums on direct medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care. Insurers selling to large groups (usually 50 or more employees) must spend 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement."
"This rule does not apply to employers who operate what is called a self-insured plan. If youÂ’re not sure whether your plan matches this description, ask your employer or check your plan materials.
"Your health insurance company must report yearly to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the share of premium dollars spent on health care services and quality improvement and any rebates required. The first report, covering calendar year 2011, was filed on June 1, 2012."
"Insurers are required to make the first round of rebates to consumers in 2012. If you are owed a rebate you will receive a reduction in your premiums, a rebate check--or, if you paid by credit card or debit card, a lump sum reimbursement to your account. If your employer paid all or part of your premium, the same share of any rebate may go to your employer."
Edgetho
Diamond Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 22,794
- 15,996
- 2,405
If you wan't job security, get a job educating dimocraps.
You will have a job for all eternity because you can teach and preach and yell and stick their noses in it, but give them a Coffee Break and they forget everything they've "learned"
Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes
Comprehensive Republican health reform plans introduced in Congress
Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.
Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.
Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.
PatientsÂ’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.
H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).
Comprehensive conservative Obamacare replacement plans
Likewise, conservative market-oriented health policy scholars have developed a rich menu of potential replacement plans for Obamacare:
Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.
Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.
Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.
Fixed tax credits. A variety of proposals have centered on using fix tax credits to replace the current inefficient and unfair tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Two good explanations of how that would work are here:
James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, “How to Replace Obamacare,” National Affairs, no. 11 (Spring 2012).
James C. Capretta. Constructing an Alternative to Obamacare: Key Details for a Practical Replacement Program. American Enterprise Institute, December 2012.
Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USC–Jay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson—released Best of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits.
Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001.
Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly).
Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured).
The forgotten history of George W. BushÂ’s comprehensive health reform plan
Too many people conveniently ignore that in his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed.
Edge:
dimocraps are some stupid bitches. All of them. ALL.OF.THEM.
Either that or they're supremely lazy and trusting. You know them; The people who would rather somebody else do something for them poorly than do it themselves.
Lazy and stupid. Typical dimocraps.
I bet their OL's can pull the wool over their eyes without even thinking hard. Gotta be tough, being that stupid.
You will have a job for all eternity because you can teach and preach and yell and stick their noses in it, but give them a Coffee Break and they forget everything they've "learned"
Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan? - Forbes
Comprehensive Republican health reform plans introduced in Congress
Let’s start with 5 comprehensive health reform proposals that have actually been introduced in Congress—some well before President Obama even was nominated for president, and all months before the House (11/7/09) or Senate (12/24/09) voted on what eventually became Obamacare.
Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America Act (S. 1783) introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) July 12, 2007.
Every American Insured Health Act introduced by Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Bob Corker (R-TN) with co-sponsors Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mel Martinez (formerly R-FL) and Elizabeth Dole (formerly R-NC) on July 26, 2007.
Senators Bob Bennett (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Healthy Americans Act on January 18, 2007 and re-introduced the same bill on February 5, 2009.
PatientsÂ’ Choice Act of 2009 introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) on May 20, 2009.
H.R. 2300, Empowering Patients First Act introduced July 30, 2009 by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).
Comprehensive conservative Obamacare replacement plans
Likewise, conservative market-oriented health policy scholars have developed a rich menu of potential replacement plans for Obamacare:
Individual Pay or Play proposed in 2005 by John Goodman; this is a minimalist version of a broader reform envisaged by Goodman built on converting the tax exclusion into universal tax credits.
Health Status Insurance originally proposed by John Cochrane in 1995.
Universal Health Savings Accounts proposed by John Goodman and Peter Ferrara in 2012. This combines fixed tax credits with individual pay or play and health status insurance concepts along with Roth-style Health Savings Accounts.
Fixed tax credits. A variety of proposals have centered on using fix tax credits to replace the current inefficient and unfair tax exclusion for employer-provided health benefits. Two good explanations of how that would work are here:
James C. Capretta and Robert E. Moffit, “How to Replace Obamacare,” National Affairs, no. 11 (Spring 2012).
James C. Capretta. Constructing an Alternative to Obamacare: Key Details for a Practical Replacement Program. American Enterprise Institute, December 2012.
Income-Related Tax Credits proposed by Mark Pauly and John Hoff in Responsible Tax Credits (2002) and endorsed by the American Medical Association. More recently, 8 scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and USC–Jay Bhattacharya, Amitabh Chandra, Michael Chernew, Dana Goldman, Anupam Jena, Darius Lakdawalla,Anup Malani and Tomas Philipson—released Best of Both Worlds: Uniting Universal Coverage and Personal Choice in Health Care (2013) which also is built around a model of individual health insurance subsidized with income-related tax credits.
Flexible Benefits Tax Credit For Health Insurance by Lynn Etheredge in 2001.
Near-Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2001 by Sara Singer, Alan Garber and Alain Enthoven (covers only non-elderly).
Universal Health Insurance Exchanges proposed in 2013 by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy (covers Medicare and Medicaid in addition to privately insured).
The forgotten history of George W. BushÂ’s comprehensive health reform plan
Too many people conveniently ignore that in his 2007 State of the Union message President Bush proposed a sweeping health reform plan that would have replaced the current tax exclusion for employer-provided coverage with standard tax deductions for all individuals and families. The Bush plan called for a tax deduction that would have applied to payroll taxes as well as income taxes. Moreover, if one were worried about non-filers, the subsidy could easily have instead been structured as a refundable tax credit in which case even those without any income taxes would have gotten an additional amount. This is the kind of policy detail that easily could have been negotiated had the Democrats been in a cooperative mood in 2007. They were not. On the contrary, President Bush’s health plan was declared “dead on arrival” by Democrats in 2007. Yet it is Republicans who were tagged as being uncooperative and intransigent when they resisted the misguided direction that Obamacare seemed to be headed.
Edge:
dimocraps are some stupid bitches. All of them. ALL.OF.THEM.
Either that or they're supremely lazy and trusting. You know them; The people who would rather somebody else do something for them poorly than do it themselves.
Lazy and stupid. Typical dimocraps.
I bet their OL's can pull the wool over their eyes without even thinking hard. Gotta be tough, being that stupid.
PredFan
Diamond Member
Obamacare, over 6 people served!
itfitzme
Silver Member
Bull shit.
What you are saying is simply that you want to not have to pay for your health care. What you want is to not pay for insurance, spend the money on whatever you want, ignore the easily calculated risk, and go use the system for free when you really do need it.
Narcissistic sociopath.
I think it would be great to stamp your head with a tattoo that says, "In case of emergency, do not treat."
Last edited:
- Banned
- #811
Isn't amazing the confusion between responsibility and freedom.
itfitzme
Silver Member
"Freedom" doesn't mean "free for all". It is a subtle concept, apparantly. The conservative position is the one most corruptable by the sociopathic, narcisistic personality. At the extreme, it plays out as freedom in their minds while what they are really ascribing to is anarchy and some sort of tyrany.
The hippies tried it in the 60's and most soon found out that it came to am equilobro where one guy had all the pot and chicks. It doesn't lead where they fantasize it will.
It is the same reason Soviet socialism never lead to communism. The people in power will never give it up. (That and planmed economies only work on small scales. Like the military.)
Truth is, Democracy is a much better direction as long as it doesn't devolve to corporatism, our current problem.
The difference betweem Socialist China amd the US is in China, the govt owns the big corporations where in the US the big corporations own the govt.
The problem will never be solved by the right wing perception because their rules don't reflect reality. They don't even understand how the money supply functions. I'm not sure the majority of politicians on either side of the isle do. And as long as the mechanics of the money supply aren't understood, every manner of fiscal policy and republican meme will just screw things up. At least the Dems stumble in the right direction.
The hippies tried it in the 60's and most soon found out that it came to am equilobro where one guy had all the pot and chicks. It doesn't lead where they fantasize it will.
It is the same reason Soviet socialism never lead to communism. The people in power will never give it up. (That and planmed economies only work on small scales. Like the military.)
Truth is, Democracy is a much better direction as long as it doesn't devolve to corporatism, our current problem.
The difference betweem Socialist China amd the US is in China, the govt owns the big corporations where in the US the big corporations own the govt.
The problem will never be solved by the right wing perception because their rules don't reflect reality. They don't even understand how the money supply functions. I'm not sure the majority of politicians on either side of the isle do. And as long as the mechanics of the money supply aren't understood, every manner of fiscal policy and republican meme will just screw things up. At least the Dems stumble in the right direction.
Last edited:
Have you really stopped to think about the twisted double standard at the core of your argument? You insist that there should be laws that put you at risk of being stuck with the health care expenses of the 'irresponsible', but then you turn around and use that as an excuse to chain everybody - not just people who abuse the system - to corporate insurance servitude. Gee, thanks for the 'tender mercy'. If you're so goddamned selfish and worried you might get stuck picking up the tab for people who can't afford health care, then ******* change the laws that make it so. Don't piss away our freedom because you're a selfish prick.
- Banned
- #814
This is typical Republican, we have no idea of how to solve problems ourselves, but we can whine about every one of everyone else's solutions.
Combined with Libertarian, my freedom is worth any cost to anyone else including death.
- Banned
- #815
Business pays for propaganda that says, distrust government, they'll steal your freedom.
Why? Government is the only force limiting corporate power.
They know that we hire and fire government but have no say, except for government, over business.
The corporate coup. The harvesting of America.
Wow. The hypocrisy of this is stunning. It's hard to tell, online like this, if you're actually typing that with a straight face. Can you really sit there defending a law that forces all of us into the corporate insurance pens as unwilling customers, and claim that the people who don't want to play along are serving corporate interests???
Nothing I've said comes even close to suggesting that. You're arguments are as horse shit as PMZ so you have to resort to strawman arguments just like him. My contention hasn't changed. I don't want to be paying for OTHER people's health care on top of my own, nor should anyone else have to. Hopefully you'll muster some objectivity and realize how stupid this particular post makes you look.
The extent that you liberals project your own practices on to others is truly stunning. Your policies center around one central concept; people are not to be responsible for their outcomes. That the situations people find themselves in, particularily negative ones, are not their fault nor should they be responsible for fixing them. THAT is not reality. Yet it is the only rationale for most liberal policies.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #819
I don't want to pay for your healthcare if you can afford it yourself. The question is, why do you want me to?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
If we can bomb iran and remove its leader from the gene pool
- Started by Hurricanelover
- Replies: 0
-
-
Russia Remade Its Economy for War, but It’s Come at a Huge Cost - The New York Times- Started by peacefan
- Replies: 0
-
Latest Discussions
-
If we can bomb iran and remove its leader from the gene pool
- Latest: Hurricanelover
-
-
