Obama care to fine non profit hospitals.

[boedicca]

Rumors and scaremongering. Not one single fact amongst any of these posts. Just right wing Chicken Littles screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". No wonder Fox and the Tea Party can suck you in so easily. You'll believe any lie you see or hear. You don't fact check or actually read the Act.

You moonbats have been saying that for years, and have been proven wrong time and time again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right now, all care at St. Jude is paid for by donations. When children with catastrophic illnesses are getting free care from donations, why does Obama want to require them to have a plan that requires the government to pay for it? It seems that the people who voluntarily donate to St. Jude, of whom I am one, will now be required to pay. So, I guess St. Jude can stop fund raising activities. And if Obamacare doesn't pay enough, how long before their donors start saying, 'I gave at the office?'

The ACA does not create a government plan to pay for health care. It requires everyone to purchase health care insurance from private insurance companies. Low income people may receive subsidies to buy insurance but the insurance company, not the government, pays for their care.

The website quoted in the OP is a right wing privately owned conservative website and is not, as such, a reliable source.

The article cited News 3 in Memphis, Forbes, the IRS, and a bunch of tax lawyers, are they all right wing, or are you a left wing moonbat that doesn't ever look to see what the truth is?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

TennCare was nothing like the programs developed under the ACA. TennCare was a "managed care program". There was no mandate or requirement that everyone enroll so of course only those with pre-existing conditions signed up.

Try getting some HONEST information on the ACA and stop believing every right wing scare story posted on the Internet.

If you think you have "honest" information that counters the article in the OP, post it. If you don't, feel free to keep attacking it because you don't like the guy that is telling you the truth.

 

[Wry Catcher]

TennCare was nothing like the programs developed under the ACA. TennCare was a "managed care program". There was no mandate or requirement that everyone enroll so of course only those with pre-existing conditions signed up.

Try getting some HONEST information on the ACA and stop believing every right wing scare story posted on the Internet.

If you think you have "honest" information that counters the article in the OP, post it. If you don't, feel free to keep attacking it because you don't like the guy that is telling you the truth.

Windbag, I suggest you get a copy of "Time" article I referenced and read it with an unbiased eye. It tells the stories of real people and how the health care system failed them.

You won't, because you don't like the ACA because you don't like Obama - all you know about the ACA is what you've been told by Right Wing sources who, like you, don't like Obama.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

TennCare was nothing like the programs developed under the ACA. TennCare was a "managed care program". There was no mandate or requirement that everyone enroll so of course only those with pre-existing conditions signed up.

Try getting some HONEST information on the ACA and stop believing every right wing scare story posted on the Internet.

If you think you have "honest" information that counters the article in the OP, post it. If you don't, feel free to keep attacking it because you don't like the guy that is telling you the truth.

Windbag, I suggest you get a copy of "Time" article I referenced and read it with an unbiased eye. It tells the stories of real people and how the health care system failed them.

You won't, because you don't like the ACA because you don't like Obama - all you know about the ACA is what you've been told by Right Wing sources who, like you, don't like Obama.

How the **** am I supposed to read an article hidden behind a paywall? Do you expect me to hack the site? Perhaps you want me to throw more money at a failing business model in order to prop up your delusion that time actually does reporting? Feel free to believe that my failure to shell out money for a dying magazine is proof that I hate Obama though, it is the best you have.

By the way, the article doesn't actually address the OP, which makes it completely irrelevant to the point I made. If you were half as smart as I thought you were I wouldn't have to point that out, would I?

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you think you have "honest" information that counters the article in the OP, post it. If you don't, feel free to keep attacking it because you don't like the guy that is telling you the truth.

Windbag, I suggest you get a copy of "Time" article I referenced and read it with an unbiased eye. It tells the stories of real people and how the health care system failed them.

You won't, because you don't like the ACA because you don't like Obama - all you know about the ACA is what you've been told by Right Wing sources who, like you, don't like Obama.

How the **** am I supposed to read an article hidden behind a paywall? Do you expect me to hack the site? Perhaps you want me to throw more money at a failing business model in order to prop up your delusion that time actually does reporting? Feel free to believe that my failure to shell out money for a dying magazine is proof that I hate Obama though, it is the best you have.

By the way, the article doesn't actually address the OP, which makes it completely irrelevant to the point I made. If you were half as smart as I thought you were I wouldn't have to point that out, would I?

Do you not have a library in your home town? I guess you know all about "TIME", since your comment ("Perhaps you want me to throw more money at a failing business model in order to prop up your delusion that time actually does reporting?") suggests you don't read it.

The nice thing about being a subscriber is I can review every issue of time on-line since the early 1920's, and can attest to the fact they do report. I guess you are less intelligent than even I thought; you proved yourself to be a real willfully ignorant dittohead. That's sad.

You also 'forgot' to counter my comments on the issue and chose to focus on a right wing cliché, "the MSM is biased". Good for you, some people are saying that keeps the cognitive dissonance away.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Q. How many of you know anything about Chargemaster Medical Billing?

Don't be like Windbag, read from the list here and learn:

https://www.google.com/#q=chargemaster+medical+billing

See also:

U.S. Health Care: Is an End to Medical-Billing Secrecy Near? | TIME.com

 

[Wry Catcher]

Laugh out Loud. Where are the naysayers? Is there a nationwide tea party circle jerk?

 

[Sunshine]

TennCare was nothing like the programs developed under the ACA. TennCare was a "managed care program". There was no mandate or requirement that everyone enroll so of course only those with pre-existing conditions signed up.

Try getting some HONEST information on the ACA and stop believing every right wing scare story posted on the Internet.

If you think you have "honest" information that counters the article in the OP, post it. If you don't, feel free to keep attacking it because you don't like the guy that is telling you the truth.

She doesn't know a thing about Tenncare, nor about how the ACA will function. I think the ACA is a means to an end, and that end is not health care for Americans. I suspect that any payout for medical care will be considered 'income' and be taxed. When that happens, this country will go completely under. We aren't even hanging on well now as it is.

But as much as the libs want to ignore the question inherent in this thread, there will be no place for charity hospitals like St. Jude. And the incredibly expensive catastrophic illnesses the children have will all be treated courtesy of the American taxpayer instead of people, like me, who send regular donations. And the parents will them get billed from the IRS for the 'income.'

I wish this thread would get back on task and discuss the issue rather than who reads Time. I see where this road leads. It leads to the complete financial devastation of the American citizen. People will STILL have to choose whether to get care and opt not to get treatment, because the tax burden on the payout for their care will be too great for them to bear. The premium and the 'fine' are nothing to what someone who has a $100,000 claim will owe in taxers. I mean think about the $30K/year worker having to pay taxes on $100,000 - $1,000,000 that is paid out for their 'care.' It will not take long for the government to be confiscating everything those people have worked for their entire lives. And for that matter, how long can the higher paid worker stand paying taxes on that kind of pay out? I doubt they can for very long.

I see where this is going. Why doesn't anyone else. The US government is not a charitable entity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windbag, I suggest you get a copy of "Time" article I referenced and read it with an unbiased eye. It tells the stories of real people and how the health care system failed them.

You won't, because you don't like the ACA because you don't like Obama - all you know about the ACA is what you've been told by Right Wing sources who, like you, don't like Obama.

How the **** am I supposed to read an article hidden behind a paywall? Do you expect me to hack the site? Perhaps you want me to throw more money at a failing business model in order to prop up your delusion that time actually does reporting? Feel free to believe that my failure to shell out money for a dying magazine is proof that I hate Obama though, it is the best you have.

By the way, the article doesn't actually address the OP, which makes it completely irrelevant to the point I made. If you were half as smart as I thought you were I wouldn't have to point that out, would I?

Do you not have a library in your home town? I guess you know all about "TIME", since your comment ("Perhaps you want me to throw more money at a failing business model in order to prop up your delusion that time actually does reporting?") suggests you don't read it.

The nice thing about being a subscriber is I can review every issue of time on-line since the early 1920's, and can attest to the fact they do report. I guess you are less intelligent than even I thought; you proved yourself to be a real willfully ignorant dittohead. That's sad.

You also 'forgot' to counter my comments on the issue and chose to focus on a right wing cliché, "the MSM is biased". Good for you, some people are saying that keeps the cognitive dissonance away.

Apparently, you missed my point.

The Time article is designed to justify a government takeover of health care, the OP is about Obamacare fining non profit hospitals of they don't prove they are needed in the community they serve. I see no need to read another justification of a program that is so stupid that even Klein is saying it needs to be fixed in order to debate a smaller issue that has nothing to do with keeping the cost of health care down.

Unless, that is, you suddenly have access to an entirely new theory of economics that proves that increasing the cost of health care is going to decrease it. Or do you think that decreasing the supply of hospitals will make things better?

By the way, why did Congress repeal the old law that required hospitals to prove that they actually were needed in a community in the first place?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Q. How many of you know anything about Chargemaster Medical Billing?

Don't be like Windbag, read from the list here and learn:

https://www.google.com/#q=chargemaster+medical+billing

See also:

U.S. Health Care: Is an End to Medical-Billing Secrecy Near? | TIME.com

Before anyone reads that, first ask Wry to explain what Charge master has to do with the new requirements placed on hospitals that have nothing to do with billing.

Just don't expect an answer.

 

[Sunshine]

How the **** am I supposed to read an article hidden behind a paywall? Do you expect me to hack the site? Perhaps you want me to throw more money at a failing business model in order to prop up your delusion that time actually does reporting? Feel free to believe that my failure to shell out money for a dying magazine is proof that I hate Obama though, it is the best you have.

By the way, the article doesn't actually address the OP, which makes it completely irrelevant to the point I made. If you were half as smart as I thought you were I wouldn't have to point that out, would I?

Do you not have a library in your home town? I guess you know all about "TIME", since your comment ("Perhaps you want me to throw more money at a failing business model in order to prop up your delusion that time actually does reporting?") suggests you don't read it.

The nice thing about being a subscriber is I can review every issue of time on-line since the early 1920's, and can attest to the fact they do report. I guess you are less intelligent than even I thought; you proved yourself to be a real willfully ignorant dittohead. That's sad.

You also 'forgot' to counter my comments on the issue and chose to focus on a right wing cliché, "the MSM is biased". Good for you, some people are saying that keeps the cognitive dissonance away.

Apparently, you missed my point.

The Time article is designed to justify a government takeover of health care, the OP is about Obamacare fining non profit hospitals of they don't prove they are needed in the community they serve. I see no need to read another justification of a program that is so stupid that even Klein is saying it needs to be fixed in order to debate a smaller issue that has nothing to do with keeping the cost of health care down.

Unless, that is, you suddenly have access to an entirely new theory of economics that proves that increasing the cost of health care is going to decrease it. Or do you think that decreasing the supply of hospitals will make things better?

By the way, why did Congress repeal the old law that required hospitals to prove that they actually were needed in a community in the first place?

I don't know the answer to the last question because I was unaware that a hospital no longer had to provide a certificate of need.

But, justification is not what concerns me. What concerns me is that many people will lose all their assets because of the tax burden of getting their medical bills paid. The IRS is going to consider this 'insurance' to be equivalent to winning the lottery. This is NOT designed to help Americans. As a nurse, I have supported national health care for many years. But this is not about health care. It is about collecting taxes. Ergo, the IRS is in charge. This will soon expand to Medicare as well. I doubt they will bill any Medicaid recipients for taxes for obvious reasons. But those of us who worked and saved and accumulated a few assets are going to be royally screwed. I don't know why people cannot see this. It isn't about a certificate of need. It is about getting our assets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

TennCare was nothing like the programs developed under the ACA. TennCare was a "managed care program". There was no mandate or requirement that everyone enroll so of course only those with pre-existing conditions signed up.

Try getting some HONEST information on the ACA and stop believing every right wing scare story posted on the Internet.

If you think you have "honest" information that counters the article in the OP, post it. If you don't, feel free to keep attacking it because you don't like the guy that is telling you the truth.

She doesn't know a thing about Tenncare, nor about how the ACA will function. I think the ACA is a means to an end, and that end is not health care for Americans. I suspect that any payout for medical care will be considered 'income' and be taxed. When that happens, this country will go completely under. We aren't even hanging on well now as it is.

But as much as the libs want to ignore the question inherent in this thread, there will be no place for charity hospitals like St. Jude. And the incredibly expensive catastrophic illnesses the children have will all be treated courtesy of the American taxpayer instead of people, like me, who send regular donations. And the parents will them get billed from the IRS for the 'income.'

I wish this thread would get back on task and discuss the issue rather than who reads Time. I see where this road leads. It leads to the complete financial devastation of the American citizen. People will STILL have to choose whether to get care and opt not to get treatment, because the tax burden on the payout for their care will be too great for them to bear. The premium and the 'fine' are nothing to what someone who has a $100,000 claim will owe in taxers. I mean think about the $30K/year worker having to pay taxes on $100,000 - $1,000,000 that is paid out for their 'care.' It will not take long for the government to be confiscating everything those people have worked for their entire lives. And for that matter, how long can the higher paid worker stand paying taxes on that kind of pay out? I doubt they can for very long.

I see where this is going. Why doesn't anyone else. The US government is not a charitable entity.

Quite a few states still require a certificate of need, even though every single study has shown that this type of central planning actually drives up costs for health care. It should make any honest person wonder why the federal government is trying to back door CONs into Obamacare.

 

[Sunshine]

If you think you have "honest" information that counters the article in the OP, post it. If you don't, feel free to keep attacking it because you don't like the guy that is telling you the truth.

She doesn't know a thing about Tenncare, nor about how the ACA will function. I think the ACA is a means to an end, and that end is not health care for Americans. I suspect that any payout for medical care will be considered 'income' and be taxed. When that happens, this country will go completely under. We aren't even hanging on well now as it is.

But as much as the libs want to ignore the question inherent in this thread, there will be no place for charity hospitals like St. Jude. And the incredibly expensive catastrophic illnesses the children have will all be treated courtesy of the American taxpayer instead of people, like me, who send regular donations. And the parents will them get billed from the IRS for the 'income.'

I wish this thread would get back on task and discuss the issue rather than who reads Time. I see where this road leads. It leads to the complete financial devastation of the American citizen. People will STILL have to choose whether to get care and opt not to get treatment, because the tax burden on the payout for their care will be too great for them to bear. The premium and the 'fine' are nothing to what someone who has a $100,000 claim will owe in taxers. I mean think about the $30K/year worker having to pay taxes on $100,000 - $1,000,000 that is paid out for their 'care.' It will not take long for the government to be confiscating everything those people have worked for their entire lives. And for that matter, how long can the higher paid worker stand paying taxes on that kind of pay out? I doubt they can for very long.

I see where this is going. Why doesn't anyone else. The US government is not a charitable entity.

Quite a few states still require a certificate of need, even though every single study has shown that this type of central planning actually drives up costs for health care. It should make any honest person wonder why the federal government is trying to back door CONs into Obamacare.

I lived in one community south of Nashville. At the time I moved back home, they were building $50,000 new houses there, with an expected population increase of 200,000 +. That community couldn't get a certificate of need which I thought was bizarre.

But, the issue I have is taxation of the claims paid. Can you afford to be taxed on the claim if you get cancer and your illness costs a cool million? Think about it. Please redirect to this issue. This is not a liberal/conservative issue. This is a HUMAN issue. The price the recipients will have to pay is too great. And it will start with payouts for ACA patients, and expand to all of us.

 

[Amelia]

I lived in one community south of Nashville. At the time I moved back home, they were building $50,000 new houses there, with an expected population increase of 200,000 +. That community couldn't get a certificate of need which I thought was bizarre.

But, the issue I have is taxation of the claims paid. Can you afford to be taxed on the claim if you get cancer and your illness costs a cool million? Think about it. Please redirect to this issue. This is not a liberal/conservative issue. This is a HUMAN issue. The price the recipients will have to pay is too great. And it will start with payouts for ACA patients, and expand to all of us.

I'm late to this party. Taxation of claims paid? Yikes!

 

[Sunshine]

I lived in one community south of Nashville. At the time I moved back home, they were building $50,000 new houses there, with an expected population increase of 200,000 +. That community couldn't get a certificate of need which I thought was bizarre.

But, the issue I have is taxation of the claims paid. Can you afford to be taxed on the claim if you get cancer and your illness costs a cool million? Think about it. Please redirect to this issue. This is not a liberal/conservative issue. This is a HUMAN issue. The price the recipients will have to pay is too great. And it will start with payouts for ACA patients, and expand to all of us.

I'm late to this party. Taxation of claims paid? Yikes!

OK, not yet. But the IRS IS in charge of oversight of the claims. This is where it is all headed. Think about it.

 

[Sunshine]

I have learned that the 'free clinic' in a nearby town here in KY is no longer free due to the ACA. If ACA has a high deductible places like this will be in a world of hurt. The ACA will hurt people who use the free places like that clinic and St. Jude. I'm keeping my ear to the ground. Others will follow.

 

[Dragonlady]

I have learned that the 'free clinic' in a nearby town here in KY is no longer free due to the ACA. If ACA has a high deductible places like this will be in a world of hurt. The ACA will hurt people who use the free places like that clinic and St. Jude. I'm keeping my ear to the ground. Others will follow.

That's because everyone must be insured and insurance is to be billed. The "free" clinic, is paid for by tax dollars or donations. It is only "free" to those who use it but not to the taxpayers. The costs associated with its operation are not free.

St. Jude's is a wonderful place but it doesn't have the ability to treat all of the poor sick children in the country so it only takes a tiny percentage of those most I'm need. What about the rest if the country's uninsured children.

I'd rather see ALL children have quality care than the few that one facility can handle.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I'm sure you won't mind paying for some of those poor children, then, will you. Oh, wait, it only counts if you can use other people's money to foot the bill for your feel-good fuzzies. "Free" clinics are often run by non-profits or charitable groups, too.

 

[emilynghiem]

It's helpful to have some background on for-profits and non-profits, a helpful source is here:

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us - TIME

Keep in mind the efforts to cut government spending is a priority, one wonders why the author of the OP opposes efforts to control spending and seek out fraud.

So you are saying that St. Jude perpetrates fraud. Groovy.

I did not, why default to dishonesty? The question is why do you oppose government oversight of taxpayer money? You wouldn't happen to be one of those don't tax and spend Republicans, or are you?

Dear Wrycatcher: Simple to answer not so simple to fix:

Because the policing is done on a politically selective basis (both sides are guilty, too!)

HENCE the Solyndra scandal unchecked and unaddressed

HENCE Obama going after the AZ bill as unconstitutional but fights any such
arguments trying to correct the ACA as unconstitutional

HENCE the exposed abuse of IRS to audit politically opposed or threatening figures

WC I get blank looks and weird justifications all the time from both sides on stuff like this!

I should make a spoof of Bill Maher or Michael Moore video's interviewing people

* where I ask prochoice people to explain to me how ACA is prochoice [no answer yet,
the most I get is that it is an imperfect stepping stone to get someplace else, though
not taking responsibility for the cost of this measure and no assurance where it will go]
* or how come harassed Christians are defended by religious freedom arguments
but when it comes to Muslims, they are political terrorists and even the harmless
practice of Islam is dangerous by association etc.
* arguing over whether to regulate the choice of abortion/guns/drugs, depending on which issue you believe people can't be trusted to be responsible and will abuse that choice

With policing this corporation or that one, the political biases are clear.

people of either party will general abstain from criticizing a group, corporation or industry that will hurt them financially or politically. both sides do this, then blame the other!