Something the Dog Said wrote: Toad, that is one of the most idiotic statements in awhile, which is quite the feat considering the amout of such statements being made. I hate to tell you this (not really) but the ACA (commonly referred to as ObamaCares and I am assuming that you are trying to call Barrycare) passed several years ago. It is the law of the land.
The ACA (affordable care act) is affordable in name only. It is only more affordable to those with huge expenses due to preexisting conditions, or those who get subsidies. That $$ to pay for those 2 groups is $$ transferred from the rest of us, which means costs for us go up. There is no free lunch.
It appears that you really hate the idea of lower income individuals actually being able to have access to medical care. The ACA does not create more patients, it only ensures that medical providers will be paid for taking care of their patients. Why that is a bad thing, I just don't understand.
Nope, but this is a horrible way to do it. We need people to have a vested interest in what their medical costs are. A vastly superior way to do "universal healthcare" would have been to have medical savings accounts for all with insurance for major medical. Then you might be right. (u)ACA DOES create more patients, because when people don't have to pay for things, they tend to go to the doc more often, even for things they could have stayed home and had some rest and gotten better, but because someone else (the insurance company) is paying for it, and not them, they go anyway. Ask any primary care doc that question.
It is sad that you would prefer that those in lower incomes be denied access to medical treatment.
It is sad that you use false statements to disparage those who happen to disagree with you. Just because some of us believe there is a much better way doesn't put us in the camp of denying medical care. It has never been denied to anyone...ever.
Nothing like taking quotes out of context. Just another deceitful tactic, like making up lies and passing them off as quotes from news sources. My remark in regard to the lower income be denied access to medical treatment was not made to you or your posts, but to Toad who was bemoaning that since the ACA makes health care accessible to others, he might have to wait longer for medical care. That is the major benefit of the ACA, that even those of lower incomes, the working poor, will be able to afford access to medical care.
The ACA does require personal responsibility toward individual health care for the first time. It is the responsibility of every individual or their caretaker to have health insurance or be penalized for not doing so. You so called "solution" for medical savings accounts for those with health insurance does nothing towards enabling access to the medical care for the lower incomes. Your solution just pisses on them.
And your mischaracterization of the ACA is still typical of your deceit. Individuals still must "pay" for their health care. No one receives anything for "free" under the ACA. They may receive assistance to afford their premiums, but they still must meet the deductibles and copays and coinsurance of their particular plan. Yet another ignorance, lie or deceit.
So you agree with Toad that is terrible for the working poor to "clutter" the waiting rooms of medical providers?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote:
It is obvious from your previous posts that you do not understand the ACA. Try sources other than right wing blogs.
You seem to have a good grasp of this, so maybe you can answer this question.
Will young folks premiums go up higher than the same coverage would cost them currently?
Please define "young folks". If they are 26 or younger, then under the ACA their premiums may be lower as they can stay on their family's health insurance plan, which previously they could not. If they currently have a plan that meets the minimal essential coverage as defined in the ACA, they can keep that plan at the premiums set in that plan. If they seek better coverage and take advantage of the exchanges, then they can shop apples for apples for competing plans, and if they are below 400% of the federal poverty levels, they can receive tax credits to greatly reduce their premiums.
So in order to answer your question, the following information is necessary: The age, tobacco use, residence, family insurance, level of coverage sought, income level among other factors. Since you allege that you are journalist, I am sure the truthful, factual information will be forthcoming.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote:
It is obvious from your previous posts that you do not understand the ACA. Try sources other than right wing blogs.
You seem to have a good grasp of this, so maybe you can answer this question.
Will young folks premiums go up higher than the same coverage would cost them currently?
Please define "young folks". If they are 26 or younger, then under the ACA their premiums may be lower as they can stay on their family's health insurance plan, which previously they could not. If they currently have a plan that meets the minimal essential coverage as defined in the ACA, they can keep that plan at the premiums set in that plan. If they seek better coverage and take advantage of the exchanges, then they can shop apples for apples for competing plans, and if they are below 400% of the federal poverty levels, they can receive tax credits to greatly reduce their premiums.
So in order to answer your question, the following information is necessary: The age, tobacco use, residence, family insurance, level of coverage sought, income level among other factors. Since you allege that you are journalist, I am sure the truthful, factual information will be forthcoming.
My next article is on the Elk Creek 4a proposition. I asked you, you answered.
FredHayek wrote: Why would you choose to change your doctor? Let me explain our situation. The wife's company, a state agency, is trying to decrease costs by moving everyone over to Kaiser Permanente instead of the Aetna plan which let you choose your GP's and specialists. So if you aren't on the Kaiser plan, the deductibles have tripled, and her MRI went from a $100 co-pay to a $1000 co-pay. So due to higher costs, we are moving to the Kaiser Permanentee system of doc in a box.
Dog, this is real life, not puff cheerleader pieces written by a media that wants to support ACA versus objectively breaking it down with serious analysis.
And that is between you and your employer, not the ACA. The ACA is not demanding your wife's company decision to switch insurers.
But by ACA requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, "children" up to 26, going from a one million dollar limit to no limit, they are raising the costs of insurance.
Do you think if you went from a million dollar life insurance policy to a billion dollar policy you wouldn't have to pay more per month?
Yet more nonsense from Fred. Why do I waste my time with you? According to numerous reports, insurance premiums have risen less than 1% due to the ACA. Overall, insurance premiums for health care have risen less than 4% last year, the lowest increase in fifty years. So it is just more conservative propaganda that the health insurance premiums have risen dramatically due to the ACA. Because they have not.
Look at the fine print, the co-pays are going up. So the poor will have insurance, yippee! They just won't have the money to get care. Like my wife's co-pay for her MRI's going from $100 to $1000. Next time her specialist suggests a MRI, think she will go along?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
otisptoadwater wrote: I hope those suffering from cancer, heart disease, and other fatal diseases can withstand the waiting rooms created by the ACA, never mind being able to afford it. Those that don't - that blood is on the hands of Barry and all of his supporters.
"The sky is falling..."
Yes, and isn't it great that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS who would have been denied coverage AT ALL for a pre-existing condition, or hit their lifetime maximums will now be able to GET treatment for their cancer, heart disease, etc. Whereas under the old system, the Randroid sociopaths would have just said, "Gee, that's tough."
FredHayek wrote: Look at the fine print, the co-pays are going up. So the poor will have insurance, yippee! They just won't have the money to get care. Like my wife's co-pay for her MRI's going from $100 to $1000. Next time her specialist suggests a MRI, think she will go along?
Oh, really?...That's "the buzz today"???
The fact that there are tiered-levels, "Bronze", "Silver", "Gold", and "Platinum"---(Wow, just like in REAL LIFE with REAL INSURANCE COMPANIES!!...Maybe that's because they ARE REAL Insurance companies)---And the lower-tiered plans are...as they have always been...a trade-off between saving money on premiums vs. copays and minimums...?!?!?!
I'm SHOCKED, I TELL YOU, SHOCKED!!!!
GASP!?!?!?! Did you pick that up on the Echo-Chamber all by yourself?!?! You mean, if you buy a better plan, you have lower out-of-pocket costs?!?!?! Those charlatans!!!!!
Gee, Fred... They can't slip anything by you, can they?
Something the Dog Said wrote: You have made false statement and outright lies throughout, such as claiming that the penalty beginning in January 1, 2014 is $95 per month when it is clearly and unequivocally $95 per YEAR, then lying about it being a quote from MSN. So yes it is obvious that you are either ignorant or deceitful in your posts about the ACA. You simply have no credibility. I have provided complete documentation on the FACTs about the ACA which you simply dismiss as unicorns and puppies with not a single bit of factually evidence about why my facts are wrong. So yeah, your posts about this subject are pure BS.
The quote was directly from MSN...I put in the link, and directly copied from their site. They have since changed it to $95/yr, to go up every year.
You have no standing since you don't actually have to deal with obamacare. I do. Dismissing my opinions as BS just shows your utter lack of character. Many of us in small business are struggling to figure out how to pay for all this. We can't suddenly charge our customers more...they won't pay more, plus, as I said, many of our competitors cheat the system. Many business owners I know are moving hours back to 30 or less, or making sure they stay below the 50 employee limit. How is that good? It is bad for our unemployment, and bad for a generation of young people who will never reach the middle class because of stuff like this. You are old, so it doesn't affect you. Just like a lot of what you support....screw the young people. I got mine. Don't touch my entitlements I helped give myself....at the expense of the future generations.
You post a ton of "theory" about obamacare, but until you own a business, you have no standing here...just a lot of your own opinions which won't be proven out for years. I have mine too...lets bet on who is right, although you win either way. Either obamacare is still here, and our deficits are going thru the roof even more than today, or we are on single payer, and will have rationed care...just like other countries.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
Something the Dog Said wrote: You have made false statement and outright lies throughout, such as claiming that the penalty beginning in January 1, 2014 is $95 per month when it is clearly and unequivocally $95 per YEAR, then lying about it being a quote from MSN. So yes it is obvious that you are either ignorant or deceitful in your posts about the ACA. You simply have no credibility. I have provided complete documentation on the FACTs about the ACA which you simply dismiss as unicorns and puppies with not a single bit of factually evidence about why my facts are wrong. So yeah, your posts about this subject are pure BS.
The quote was directly from MSN...I put in the link, and directly copied from their site. They have since changed it to $95/yr, to go up every year.
Right, sure.
You have no standing since you don't actually have to deal with obamacare. I do. Dismissing my opinions as BS just shows your utter lack of character. Many of us in small business are struggling to figure out how to pay for all this. We can't suddenly charge our customers more...they won't pay more, plus, as I said, many of our competitors cheat the system. Many business owners I know are moving hours back to 30 or less, or making sure they stay below the 50 employee limit. How is that good? It is bad for our unemployment, and bad for a generation of young people who will never reach the middle class because of stuff like this. You are old, so it doesn't affect you. Just like a lot of what you support....screw the young people. I got mine. Don't touch my entitlements I helped give myself....at the expense of the future generations.
You post a ton of "theory" about obamacare, but until you own a business, you have no standing here...just a lot of your own opinions which won't be proven out for years. I have mine too...lets bet on who is right, although you win either way. Either obamacare is still here, and our deficits are going thru the roof even more than today, or we are on single payer, and will have rationed care...just like other countries.
More BS. Poor, poor RenegadeCJ. All hearsay, ancedotal without a single factual basis. You keep crying about small businesses being hurt by the ACA, yet small businesses are exempt from the business mandate and are even eligible to use the exchanges to shop for competitive insurance and may be eligible for tax credits and deductions. Small businesses are making out great under the ACA.
You make broad based generalizations about me without knowing me. Try providing facts and you might have credibility. I work as technology consultant for small and large businesses. Those who are able to adapt to the current environment thrive and do fine. Those who cry about it and complain and fail to adapt go belly up.
You make a lot of crap allegations about the ACA without providing anything to back it up. Then attack those who do provide fact information. FYI, the deficits are dropping under the current administration, first time since the last Democratic president.
You keep crying wolf about single payer and rationed care, yet there is nothing remotely on the horizon in that regard. The ACA provides access to health care to the working poor by providing exchanges for competitive shopping, tax credits to enable the working poor to be covered by credible health insurance, and yes, incentives for large employers to provide affordable health insurance as a benefit. There is not a single thing in the ACA that provides the government to be involved with "rationing" care or with your medical diagnosis.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
FredHayek wrote: Why would you choose to change your doctor? Let me explain our situation. The wife's company, a state agency, is trying to decrease costs by moving everyone over to Kaiser Permanente instead of the Aetna plan which let you choose your GP's and specialists. So if you aren't on the Kaiser plan, the deductibles have tripled, and her MRI went from a $100 co-pay to a $1000 co-pay. So due to higher costs, we are moving to the Kaiser Permanentee system of doc in a box.
Dog, this is real life, not puff cheerleader pieces written by a media that wants to support ACA versus objectively breaking it down with serious analysis.
And that is between you and your employer, not the ACA. The ACA is not demanding your wife's company decision to switch insurers.
But by ACA requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, "children" up to 26, going from a one million dollar limit to no limit, they are raising the costs of insurance.
Do you think if you went from a million dollar life insurance policy to a billion dollar policy you wouldn't have to pay more per month?
Yet more nonsense from Fred. Why do I waste my time with you? According to numerous reports, insurance premiums have risen less than 1% due to the ACA. Overall, insurance premiums for health care have risen less than 4% last year, the lowest increase in fifty years. So it is just more conservative propaganda that the health insurance premiums have risen dramatically due to the ACA. Because they have not.
Look at the fine print, the co-pays are going up. So the poor will have insurance, yippee! They just won't have the money to get care. Like my wife's co-pay for her MRI's going from $100 to $1000. Next time her specialist suggests a MRI, think she will go along?
It's called personal responsibility. Or are you an advocate of getting health care for "free". Take that up with her employer, or better yet, get a job yourself and get better insurance for your family instead of posting here all day.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Look at the fine print, the co-pays are going up. So the poor will have insurance, yippee! They just won't have the money to get care. Like my wife's co-pay for her MRI's going from $100 to $1000. Next time her specialist suggests a MRI, think she will go along?
