The real winners of the ACA

[g5000]

The real winners are the Democrats. The Republicans chose to do nothing about the healthcare cost problem when they had the chance to help tens of millions of people.

The Democrats telegraphed over and over and over what they would do if they got the chance, and the GOP totally ignored it.

Now those tens of millions who will get insurance (the actual winners in all of this) are going to vote Democratic.

I myself have health care insurance independent of the ACA so I will not be a winner as you define it here. As an American I am gratified that family, friends neighbors, loved ones, strangers and adversaries will all have another health care option/venue...

I also have insurance independent of the ACA.

There are far better ways the healthcare problem could have been resolved. Far superior to the ACA.

The GOP decided not to push for them, though. They chose to give the country the finger instead.

We will all pay the price for that mistake with much higher taxes and deficits.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Why is it "everyone's" concern?

Its a pay me now or pay me later issue. Its certainly connected with domestic tranquility and lastly it has to do with what living as a Society and nation as people with shared interest and concerns is all about...I do not want to live in a Mad Max society where Darwinistic survival is the lowest common denominator..

Because of health care we do not have domestic tranquility? Really? And we have that now by forcing people to do what they do not wish to do? It is one thing to make it affordable and available but it is really another thing to make it mandatory. Affordable and available who could be against that? Expensive and mandatory who can be for that situation? Only those who are on the receiving side of the equation.

Think about the risk someone takes without insurance. If they get sick and need extensive treatment they lose all their wealth. So those with a little bit to lose will obtain health care usually through groups that companies set up. Which has worked fine for a good many years. I know of no one who didn't receive health care if they needed it. Some had to pay for a check up or a test but that is cheaper then what I pay for my health care. If I had absolutely nothing health care would not be a big concern to me.

Recently In Mexico city a woman denied entry in the Hospital gave birth outside in the lawn. The In tranquility unleashed by that went viral ...people gut very upset with the hospital...if such things and worse become routine there will be trouble....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The real winners are the Democrats. The Republicans chose to do nothing about the healthcare cost problem when they had the chance to help tens of millions of people.

The Democrats telegraphed over and over and over what they would do if they got the chance, and the GOP totally ignored it.

Now those tens of millions who will get insurance (the actual winners in all of this) are going to vote Democratic.

I myself have health care insurance independent of the ACA so I will not be a winner as you define it here. As an American I am gratified that family, friends neighbors, loved ones, strangers and adversaries will all have another health care option/venue...

I also have insurance independent of the ACA.

There are far better ways the healthcare problem could have been resolved. Far superior to the ACA.

The GOP decided not to push for them, though. They chose to give the country the finger instead.

We will all pay the price for that mistake with much higher taxes and deficits.

The GOP pretty much fought tooth and nail against ACA...they offered no alternative...in fact ACA was a Heritage Foundation designed program first rolled out in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

meta @metaquest

4 ways to apply for #Obamacare: paper app; online; by phone w/assistance and in person with help. More info: https://www.healthcare.gov/how-do-i-apply-for-marketplace-coverage/ …


8:59 AM - 21 Oct 2013

 

[dblack]

If EMTALA is the problem, then we need to re-address EMTALA. Two wrongs don't make a right.

EMTALA is not the problem...it is an imperfect attempt to deal with the real problem which is people financially alienated from access to Health care services...apart from that our health care costs more but delivers less than existent service delivery models in the world...we need to address that...

If EMTALA is not the problem then stop citing it as the jusification for the ACA sellout.

EMTALA was another unfunded mandate - an attempt to socialize health care costs without paying for it honestly (ie via taxes). It shifts the costs of welfare state intentions off on private companies, and their customers. That 'imperfect' aspect seems to be the problem. ACA apologists keep bringing it up, in any case.

We certainly don't want to use the unintended consequences of EMTALA, for even more ill-considered legislation with even more unintendeded consequences. If we want to socialize health care costs, we need to do it honestly - run by government, paid for with above board taxation. Funneling it through for-profit corporations simply enriches privately held companies at our expense (both in terms of money and our rights).

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yep.

You can say no to buying a house, but you will pay a tax penalty.

You can say no to a drug test but you will not get the job...

you can say No to auto insurance but you cannot drive legally ..

you can say No to a road side sobriety test but you wil have an automatic licence suspension

You can say no to ultrasound but you wil not get access to your female reproductive health care


ACA simply does not break any new grounds when it comes to coercion...

True enough. That was the point on which Roberts based his decision. But it's ground that was corrupt to begin with. Congress has no business forcing us to support their corporate friends.

Congress does that and it is the way the system works...its organized corruption yes...the ACA is the least of it..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

If EMTALA is the problem, then we need to re-address EMTALA. Two wrongs don't make a right.

EMTALA is not the problem...it is an imperfect attempt to deal with the real problem which is people financially alienated from access to Health care services...apart from that our health care costs more but delivers less than existent service delivery models in the world...we need to address that...

If EMTALA is not the problem then stop citing it as the jusification for the ACA sellout.

EMTALA was another unfunded mandate - an attempt to socialize health care costs without paying for it honestly (ie via taxes). It shifts the costs of welfare state intentions off on private companies, and their customers. That 'imperfect' aspect seems to be the problem. ACA apologists keep bringing it up, in any case.

We certainly don't want to use the unintended consequences of EMTALA, for even more ill-considered legislation with even more unintendeded consequences. If we want to socialize health care costs, we need to do it honestly - run by government, paid for with above board taxation. Funneling it through for-profit corporations simply enriches privately held companies at our expense (both in terms of money and our rights).

You mistake EMTALA for the problem...it is an attempt to deal with the underlying problem of people with no economically viable pathway to health care...

 

[dblack]

EMTALA is not the problem...it is an imperfect attempt to deal with the real problem which is people financially alienated from access to Health care services...apart from that our health care costs more but delivers less than existent service delivery models in the world...we need to address that...

If EMTALA is not the problem then stop citing it as the jusification for the ACA sellout.

EMTALA was another unfunded mandate - an attempt to socialize health care costs without paying for it honestly (ie via taxes). It shifts the costs of welfare state intentions off on private companies, and their customers. That 'imperfect' aspect seems to be the problem. ACA apologists keep bringing it up, in any case.

We certainly don't want to use the unintended consequences of EMTALA, for even more ill-considered legislation with even more unintendeded consequences. If we want to socialize health care costs, we need to do it honestly - run by government, paid for with above board taxation. Funneling it through for-profit corporations simply enriches privately held companies at our expense (both in terms of money and our rights).

You mistake EMTALA for the problem...it is an attempt to deal with the underlying problem of people with no economically viable pathway to health care...

You're the one citing it as the excuse for ACA. I honestly don't think it's that much of a problem. Certainly not enough to justify mandating health insurance. But it does represent the same kind of dishonest tactic that is at the core of ACA - the unfunded mandate.

Obama himself expressed the duplicity at the core of this when he was debating Hillary in the primaries: "...if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house."

 

[dblack]

You can say no to a drug test but you will not get the job...

you can say No to auto insurance but you cannot drive legally ..

you can say No to a road side sobriety test but you wil have an automatic licence suspension

You can say no to ultrasound but you wil not get access to your female reproductive health care


ACA simply does not break any new grounds when it comes to coercion...

True enough. That was the point on which Roberts based his decision. But it's ground that was corrupt to begin with. Congress has no business forcing us to support their corporate friends.

Congress does that and it is the way the system works...its organized corruption yes...the ACA is the least of it..

ACA is a rather large step forward for the corruption. And it's the perfect opportunity to shine some light on a practice that has long gone unquestioned. Manipulating society via discriminatory taxation has been utilized by Congress to do an end-run around Constitutional limitations and seize power not granted to it legitimately.

 

[Zoom-boing]

if you took time to see how the ACA gets its money from people who don't pay for health care you wouldn't be this uniformed ...
first of all the ones who don't pay they are determined by their tax filings if they will me put on medicaid ... if they qulify for medicaid then the doctors and hospitals get paid... now if the don't fit the profile for medicaid they are taxed for it base on their taxable income ... that tax goes to the doctors and hospitals to pay for their losses ... if the charge is to high for the amount of tax they are charged, then the medical equipment tax is put into play to pay for it ...keeping the people who pays for their health care from going up from people who don't pay..

First of all, try writing in English okay? I had to read your post three times and its still difficult to understand. Spell check and periods are your friend.

Medicaid? You are aware that many, many doctors simply don't take medicaid, right? My son (special needs) has a medicaid card. No doctor has ever taken it, with the sole exception of the optician (for a second pair of glasses) and recently his pediatrician (my son is 20 and has gone to this doc his whole life) said they accept his plan. We have insurance via my husband's work and don't use the medicaid insurance at all (figure someone else could use that $) sans the one exception which was the second pair of glasses.

Have you not been paying attention?? Nearly everyone's premium is going up because we are now having to pay for the high risk other guy, for government mandated coverage that we may not need (maternity, newborn, pediatric care including vision and dental).



Health care is one thing, health insurance is something else. Health insurance for everyone does not mean that healthy people should pay the same as people with pe's. Higher risk people should pay more because they are a higher risk. Where did I say that health care was like driving an auto???

the do have a comparison problem ... its no where near like auto insurance ...

Try reading what I actually wrote instead of what you think I wrote. What I said was ... having people without pre-existing conditions (low risk) pay more so that people with pre-existing conditions (high risk) get a lowered rate is wrong. It would be like a 16 year old driver (high risk) pay the same amount as a 30+ experience driver (low risk). Having people with pe's covered is great; having healthy people pay more so the pe people get a lowered rate is wrong. If you are high risk you should pay for that. Period. This government wants to level the playing field, make it all fair. Who it ends up being unfair for are the healthy people. And if I'm paying for obese ollie's health care, you know what? I'm gonna want obese ollie to put down that cheeseburger cause he's costing me money. Can't you see where this is all leading?

We pay an extra $500/year for our insurance because my husband smokes. Guess what? We should be paying more than someone who doesn't smoke, my husband is at a higher risk for certain diseases vs. someone who doesn't smoke. btw, smokers don't get the pre-existing conditions break that everyone else gets. Can't you see where this is all leading???

People ought not to be dropped in the refuse bin because of existing medical condition. I am confident as Americans that we can do as good and outdo other nations in the care we provide our citizens. We do not have to abandon anyone to their fate...our Nation is wealthy we can afford care and compassion...we cannot afford heartlessness and disdain for our fellow Americans....

Where did I say people should be dropped in a refuse bin????? Where did I say we should be heartless and have disdain for people???? Cripes, no one actually reads anything anymore.

 

[PredFan]

Oh...they have a huge role...do does big Pharma...but if you fuckers wouldn't be such assholes in our legislature, they could have eliminated or minimized their roles...but no...you guys had to go full retard.

Hey Steelskull, the GOP didn't have anything to do with the writing of this bill. Not one thing.
Dumbass.

actually they did have a lot to do with writing this bill ... you see if they didn't have anything to do with it then we would have had the public option in obama care ... as you can see we don't ... the republicans wanted it out .... not to worry though come the end of say december 31 2014 we will start a bill in the house come january 1 2015 or what ever day the republican lose control of the house in january 2015 we will launch single payer ... you watch... and the whinning begins

That is the most idiotic post I've seen in a while. Good job!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Pretty sure this couple will not be there...

Obamacare's winners and losers in Bay Area

Part of the losers are Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura, both Obama supporters:

Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.​

Vinson told the newspaper.

“Of course, I want people to have health care,”
“I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”​

Waschura was similarly surprised.

“I was laughing at Boehner,” he said, “until the mail came today.”​

I agree.

Some folks will like it till they find out how much their deductable is.

I work with a couple of guys. One has a friend who's deductable is $13,999.00 and the others is $11,000.

Let me tell you. They are not pleased. Not one bit.

Also, in 2015 anything you spend on HC will be income and taxable. There are 21 tax increases in the ACA.

Anyone who has Health Insurance will be paying for their own and subsidizing the cost for loads of others.

One has to wonder just who the ACA is affordable for??

Hey, Ted Cruz! These Texans Say Obamacare Is Helping Them | Mother Jones


Here are some other ways Texans are already benefiting from Obamacare:
◾The 77 percent of Texans who already have insurance will have more comprehensive coverage than before.Yeah, even if you don't need it. Can you tell me why a 55 year old single guy with no kids now has to pay for maternity, newborn, pediatric care (including vision and dental)?
◾Some 357,000 under 26-year-olds in Texas who would otherwise have been uninsured have gained coverage through their parents.They could have purchased an individual catastrophic policy on their own. The cost of keeping them on the parents plan means that plan is costlier.
◾In 2011 and 2012, over 5 million Texans with private health plans gained free preventive service coverage.There.Is.NO.Such.Thing.As.Free. Someone - or someone else - is paying for it. Please, I really wish people would grasp this.
◾More than 10 million Texans, including 1.6 million children, have a pre-existing health condition, such as asthma or diabetes. Because of Obamacare, insurers are not allowed to deny coverage to kids because of pre-existing conditions. Starting in 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to charge more or deny coverage to adults with pre-existing conditions.Again, why should someone without a pe have to pay more so that those with pe's get to pay less?????
◾Because of the new law, health insurance companies now have to spend at least 80 percent of your premium on health care costs, or provide you a refund. This means that 726,237 Texas residents with private insurance coverage will get $46,327,708 in refunds from insurance companies this year.What were they paying on h/c costs prior to that 80%? You're ok with the gov't telling companies how much they have to spend on services/products they provide? Wow.
◾Obamacare bans insurance companies from imposing lifetime dollar limits on health benefits, a boon for cancer patients and other people with chronic diseases. 7,536,000 people in Texas, including 2,094,000 children, no longer have to worry about lifetime coverage limits.I don't have a problem with this, but it will likely make costs higher for everyone.
◾Because of Obamacare, Texans with Medicare have so far saved nearly $421 million on prescription drugs. In 2012 alone, 206,304 people in the state in saved an average of $680 each.Didn't the (un)aca double count medicare cuts? Are these savings being doubled counted somewhere as well?

.

 

[Claudette]

Mother Jones huh. No wonder its a glowing tribute to Obamacare.

Of course its a load of horse shit but hey, gotta spread a little shunshine on a pile of shit somehow.

 

[arKangel]

Hey, this isn't a republo-pinko vs. democrato-fascist arguement.

What about the whole concept of "insurance" to begin with?
Y'all realize that "insurance" is a gangster extortion scheme right?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Poll: Majority believe health-care Web site problems indicate broader issue with law

Fifty-six percent of Americans say the Web site problems are part of a broader problem with the law’s implementation ​

 

[arKangel]

bumpity bump bump

 

[arKangel]

Insurance itself is the scam people.

Insurance gangsters want "healthcare" to be so expensive you cannot afford it.
First they want you to gamble.
Then they want you to be forced to gamble by law.
Then you somehow must accept that "you cannot live without it".
Then they own you.

This is how people are enslaved.

The topic of the thread is "The real winners", this is not about Repub vs. Demo B.S.
This is about how everyone you know must now pay more extortion to the gangsters.

Review some of the comments in this thread by those who support gangsters vs. those who are intelligent.

Very interesting how things have turned out isn't it?

 

[Rozman]

I saw an interview with a doctor who was closing his practice after 20+ years.
He took out an ad in a local paper giving his patients 30 days notice telling them
when to come by the office to pick up their records.

The reason he was shutting down was ObamaCare.
He said that he could not afford the new requirement of connecting to
the network so he could transfer patient information via computers.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, and they will continue to win until we have Single-Payer.

"Single payer" is yet more extortion. Nice try pinko.
Run along now, this is an adult conversation.

So you want a system that is only accessible to the healthy and wealthy; good luck with that. Eventually we will have single payer, there is no way around it in the long run. For now, this will do.

How are you going to get single payer through a Republican house?