Republicans and the Affordable Care Act

[dblack]

Your claim was that it was not a problem.

The abstract is all one needs to see that it is. Patients in need of life saving immediate care were turned away. That's a problem. And you claim it never happened.

Did the article (or wait, you didn't actually read it, did you?) say anything about people not getting treatment that they needed? Did it cite any incidents of people dying or suffering unduly because of these transfers? Because the abstract didn't. And outside anecdotal claims and isolated incidents, I've never seen anything like compelling evidence that EMTALA was necessary. Or, on the flip side, that it's continued existence is problem - that it's really any kind of compelling reason to sell our souls to the insurance industry.

 

[Koios]

much better....for whom?

All the folks that oppose the individual mandate.

Yes...You socialists all know what's in everyone else's best interests, dontcha?

I'm a lefty and haven't a clue.

Meanwhile, how's that project coming along? Didja find out who Hastert stole MC-D from? Or are you still googling?

 

[Annie]

You've basically covered the central points of what the bill does and correctly identified all the flaws. And then you say your problem is that the GOP wants it to fail. The GOP does not want it to fail. The bill fails on its own for all the reasons you've given, plus some. If you want to "correct" the problems you've identified then you would have to scrap the whole bill and start over.
And btw, welcome to the Republican Party.

I wouldnt be opposed to scrapping the bill and starting over. I also recognize that that is impossible, so now we have to deal with what we have. I say the GOP is a problem, because like you they seem to be working from the "nothing can be done to fix this" standpoint. Perhaps that is so, but since it's already here, perhaps we could try instead of throwing our hands up and waiting until Americans are facing serious healthcare issues before addressing the issue.

I really think the overwhelming electoral vote should shut the conservatives up on this and all issues. They should just go along for the ride this time. No opposition, give them all they want.

In the meantime, if they were correct that this is the wrong direction, they have 18 months to come up with a different take, not allowing the opposition to say they were obstructed.

bump

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Your claim was that it was not a problem.

The abstract is all one needs to see that it is. Patients in need of life saving immediate care were turned away. That's a problem. And you claim it never happened.

Did the article (or wait, you didn't actually read it, did you?) say anything about people not getting treatment that they needed? Did it cite any incidents of people dying or suffering unduly because of these transfers? Because the abstract didn't. And outside anecdotal claims and isolated incidents, I've never seen anything like compelling evidence that EMTALA was necessary. Or, on the flip side, that it's continued existence is problem - that it's really any kind of compelling reason to sell our souls to the insurance industry.

I'll answer those questions as soon as you explain why you don't have to offer any evidence whatsoever for your claims while I do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not at all.

I don't think the mandate will persuade people to purchase insruance, because more than likely the tax will be much lower than the cost of insurance. There are serious flaws in the rebate/price regulation portion of the bill, which worries me. The massive list of people and companies eligible for waivers unsettles me, again cost is to go down because so many will opt in but I think the opt in will be far less than anticipated. I also think as a whole we should be willing to admend it when issues arise, like the issue of insurance companies not selling child only polices because of the ACA. If we can't move quickly( by government standards) to amend the bill to the many problems that will naturally occur when you restructure an industry as large as insurance then Americans will suffer huge burdens.

My biggest problem is that the GOP want it to fail, I can understand that. However I worry that dems won't want to admit it needs amended and republicans would rather let Americans suffer in the hope that, if it gets really bad, they will get to finally repeal the thing.

You've basically covered the central points of what the bill does and correctly identified all the flaws. And then you say your problem is that the GOP wants it to fail. The GOP does not want it to fail. The bill fails on its own for all the reasons you've given, plus some. If you want to "correct" the problems you've identified then you would have to scrap the whole bill and start over.
And btw, welcome to the Republican Party.

I wouldnt be opposed to scrapping the bill and starting over. I also recognize that that is impossible, so now we have to deal with what we have. I say the GOP is a problem, because like you they seem to be working from the "nothing can be done to fix this" standpoint. Perhaps that is so, but since it's already here, perhaps we could try instead of throwing our hands up and waiting until Americans are facing serious healthcare issues before addressing the issue.

So basically the GOP is correct but you don't like the answer. Got it.

 

[syrenn]

Much better to have taxpayers foot the bill when people can't pay their emergency room bills.

much better....for whom?

All the folks that oppose the individual mandate.

the only people it is better for are the ones who dont pay a red cent for care now.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

much better....for whom?

All the folks that oppose the individual mandate.

the only people it is better for are the ones who dont pay a red cent for care now.

Yeah because disease doesn't spread or anything and when people with kids die in their primes it never affects society in a bad way. Health is in no way related to the community at large, ask any doctor. If everyone around me has pneumonia I'll be completely healthy and everyone who works at the businesses I rely on will show up to work dead or alive.

 

[dblack]

Your claim was that it was not a problem.

The abstract is all one needs to see that it is. Patients in need of life saving immediate care were turned away. That's a problem. And you claim it never happened.

Did the article (or wait, you didn't actually read it, did you?) say anything about people not getting treatment that they needed? Did it cite any incidents of people dying or suffering unduly because of these transfers? Because the abstract didn't. And outside anecdotal claims and isolated incidents, I've never seen anything like compelling evidence that EMTALA was necessary. Or, on the flip side, that it's continued existence is problem - that it's really any kind of compelling reason to sell our souls to the insurance industry.

I'll answer those questions as soon as you explain why you don't have to offer any evidence whatsoever for your claims while I do.

Right. It seems you're also confused about the nature of evidence and argument. I can't prove a negative. You've made various claims about the significance of EMTALA and I rejected them. I haven't seen any evidence that supports your claims - and the abstract to the article you didn't read didn't help. So, I'm not sure what 'evidence' you want me to provide. Links to empty pages?

 

[Oddball]

All the folks that oppose the individual mandate.

Yes...You socialists all know what's in everyone else's best interests, dontcha?

I'm a lefty and haven't a clue.

Comes with the territory....At least you're more self-aware than most.

 

[Koios]

Yes...You socialists all know what's in everyone else's best interests, dontcha?

I'm a lefty and haven't a clue.

Comes with the territory....At least you're more self-aware than most.

In some things, indeed, I am aware. Others? Not so much. So help please me out:

Where'd Hastert steal Medicare Part D from; namely, which one of my Leftitard pals over on the Left side of the aisle, on Captol Hill.

I'm a friggin' pins and needles to be aware of that. Whataya got?

Or am I aware of this: You don't know and were just making stuff up?

 

[Oddball]

The entire idea for Medicare D has been a democrat wet dream since 1965....Who helped the neocons draft the bill would be the same mob of BgPharm lobbyists, had the authors had those (D)s by their names.

Bottom line is that there ain't a dime's worth of difference between you and the socialistic republicans you claim to oppose.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obama was reelected, and the ACA will stay. I would like to see the GOP start working to address the flaws in Obamacare since replacing it with RomneyCare is out( not that I was looking forward to that option either).

What do you think are the odds that they will work to amend it and stop wasting time and tax payer money trying to scrap it? Also, thoughts on what the 1st change to the ACA should be?

A Public Option.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Did the article (or wait, you didn't actually read it, did you?) say anything about people not getting treatment that they needed? Did it cite any incidents of people dying or suffering unduly because of these transfers? Because the abstract didn't. And outside anecdotal claims and isolated incidents, I've never seen anything like compelling evidence that EMTALA was necessary. Or, on the flip side, that it's continued existence is problem - that it's really any kind of compelling reason to sell our souls to the insurance industry.

I'll answer those questions as soon as you explain why you don't have to offer any evidence whatsoever for your claims while I do.

Right. It seems you're also confused about the nature of evidence and argument. I can't prove a negative. You've made various claims about the significance of EMTALA and I rejected them. I haven't seen any evidence that supports your claims - and the abstract to the article you didn't read didn't help. So, I'm not sure what 'evidence' you want me to provide. Links to empty pages?

But even if we leave it in place, it's not a significant driver of inflation because - as pretty much any doctor or hospital will tell you - it hasn't changed their practices.

Sorry, but that's a positive claim, not a negative. You have claimed that any doctor would tell me that EMTALA hasn't changed their practices. You have offered zero evidence of any doctor telling anyone that. Please explain why you are exempt from having to do so.

My claim is that your claim here:

They didn't turn people away before, and they wouldn't afterward.

is wrong. The abstract I posted clearly states that patient dumping DID occur. Regardless of whether or not death resulted, your claim that people were not turned away is clearly not true.

 

[Koios]

The entire idea for Medicare D has been a democrat wet dream since 1965....Who helped the neocons draft the bill would be the same mob of BgPharm lobbyists, had the authors had those (D)s by their names.

Bottom line is that there ain't a dime's worth of difference between you and the socialistic republicans you claim to oppose.

So you keep saying.

Who, said what, and when? Or if they had a bill in mind, what was it? Anything you're basing that on, at all?

Or are you trying to blame-shift, a bill championed by the Bush 43 Admin, and sponsored by the Rep Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert? Pure GOP pandering to Big Pharma interests, widely regarded as the worst, fiscally, of any bill ever in the history of the country, and brought to us by Republicans. Period. End of story, not that I'm so daft as to even dream of you admitting it. Just sayin'

 

[Annie]

Bush was Obama lite, both were on the road of what most see as successful for US, no? You want to repeal something?

 

[Oddball]

The entire idea for Medicare D has been a democrat wet dream since 1965....Who helped the neocons draft the bill would be the same mob of BgPharm lobbyists, had the authors had those (D)s by their names.

Bottom line is that there ain't a dime's worth of difference between you and the socialistic republicans you claim to oppose.

So you keep saying.

Who, said what, and when? Or if they had a bill in mind, what was it? Anything you're basing that on, at all?

Or are you trying to blame-shift, a bill championed by the Bush 43 Admin, and sponsored by the Rep Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert? Pure GOP pandering to Big Pharma interests, widely regarded as the worst, fiscally, of any bill ever in the history of the country, and brought to us by Republicans. Period. End of story, not that I'm so daft as to even dream of you admitting it. Just sayin'

Couldn't care less who said what, where and when...Fact remains the neocons passed a shitty bill that was written by BigPharm lobbyists for the BigPharm lobbyists...It would've been the same no matter whose name went on it, as they would've been the same lobbyists crafting the same bill.

I'm sorry you're too thick to figure this out....Better you than me.

 

[Koios]

The entire idea for Medicare D has been a democrat wet dream since 1965....Who helped the neocons draft the bill would be the same mob of BgPharm lobbyists, had the authors had those (D)s by their names.

Bottom line is that there ain't a dime's worth of difference between you and the socialistic republicans you claim to oppose.

So you keep saying.

Who, said what, and when? Or if they had a bill in mind, what was it? Anything you're basing that on, at all?

Or are you trying to blame-shift, a bill championed by the Bush 43 Admin, and sponsored by the Rep Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert? Pure GOP pandering to Big Pharma interests, widely regarded as the worst, fiscally, of any bill ever in the history of the country, and brought to us by Republicans. Period. End of story, not that I'm so daft as to even dream of you admitting it. Just sayin'

Couldn't care less who said what, where and when...Fact remains the neocons passed a shitty bill that was written by BigPharm lobbyists for the BigPharm lobbyists...It would've been the same no matter whose name went on it, as they would've been the same lobbyists crafting the same bill.

I'm sorry you're too thick to figure this out....Better you than me.

Okie doke. Thanks for clarifying. However, what remains is the opposite of fact. Just made-up nonsense.

Thanks for playing. Always a pleasure.

 

[Annie]

So you keep saying.

Who, said what, and when? Or if they had a bill in mind, what was it? Anything you're basing that on, at all?

Or are you trying to blame-shift, a bill championed by the Bush 43 Admin, and sponsored by the Rep Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert? Pure GOP pandering to Big Pharma interests, widely regarded as the worst, fiscally, of any bill ever in the history of the country, and brought to us by Republicans. Period. End of story, not that I'm so daft as to even dream of you admitting it. Just sayin'

Couldn't care less who said what, where and when...Fact remains the neocons passed a shitty bill that was written by BigPharm lobbyists for the BigPharm lobbyists...It would've been the same no matter whose name went on it, as they would've been the same lobbyists crafting the same bill.

I'm sorry you're too thick to figure this out....Better you than me.

Okie doke. Thanks for clarifying. However, what remains is the opposite of fact. Just made-up nonsense.

Thanks for playing. Always a pleasure.

Obamacare is now entrenched. There will be no going back. There will be no 'fixes.' It's what will be.

 

[Oddball]

What remains is a shit bill that would have been a shit bill, no matter who passed and signed it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi OohPah:
1. I don't mean LEGALLY what is the difference.

I mean in consequence, if you are going to have your property seized because you disagree religiously about the limits of federal govt, how is that "NOT PUNISHING" you? For your BELIEFS? That you either believe you have the right to decide your own health care coverage, with or without insurance, or you believe these mandates are outside federal jurisdiction and belong to the states or to the people.

OP let me put it this way:
The same way illegal aliens are considered by some to have committed a crime or violation, while others do not; why are we making CITIZENS who have NOT committed a violation of policy suddenly "punishable" for doing what they normally would do that is not a crime???

At any rate - you are mistaken. The law only prohibits CRIMINAL penalties for failure to pay the penalty. The IRS may still garnish your wages and seize your bank assets. These are not criminal penalties. You will not go to prison nor have a criminal record - but your property will be seized in order to pay for it.

How is seizing your property or threatening to any less like treating someone as a criminal???

Because no crime has been committed. Its a civil action. Are you seriously this retarded? You want to know the difference between having a criminal record and not? Next time you apply for a job or a loan put "felon" on the application and see what happens.

OPPD, given that the religious conditions on opt-out exemptions require someone to be a member of a religious group since 1999 where the members pay for each other's health care costs --

Can you please explain how this is NOT govt regulation or discrimination based on religion?

That if certain people qualify for exemption based on a narrow condition of religious nature, while other people who aren't of this faith category must either pay a fine or be subject to having property seized, etc.

You're confusing the individual mandate with the employer mandate. There is no religious exception for the individual mandate.

2. Thanks for responding to this as one of the key questions I had.

Did the bill get amended to remove the religious exemption or is it still in effect:

"According to the Culpepper, VA Star-Exponent,

in the midst of this sweeping new legislation is the “Religious Exemption,” Section 1501(b), which states: “The term ‘applicable individual’ … shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month.”

The bill then defines a “health care sharing ministry” to be any 501(c)(3) organization that has existed since at least 1999 whose members “share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs.”

If this is still in the bill, I argue that other people "independent of religious beliefs" should have the same freedom to choose alternative means of covering health care for themselves and others, especially since even this federally mandated program doesn't cover all people.

Thank you for honestly responding to questions I had re: 1 and 2.
If you can please help me reconcile this, I greatly appreciate your help to understand!

Note: My question in #1 is a revised version of my friend Tom Wayburn who used the prochoice arguments to defend drug legalization. In that case he was comparing the freedom to put drugs into his body vs. the freedom of a woman to abort a baby out of hers. In this case, I can see how either drug use or abortion would make people want to ban that as harmful. So if liberal advocates push NOT to punish either drug use or abortion as choices, then why punish the choice not to buy private insurance? That is even LESS harmful of a choice than drug use or abortion, so why jump on this and let the others go?