archer wrote: It's no longer an issue, this was back in 2009, I'm on medicare now and couldn't be happier. At the time I had a couple more years on an individual policy and the cost was rising over 25%/year with BC/BS. I did my due diligence in trying to find another company that would cover me, or change to a different policy with the same company but was turned down. Cover Colorado was more expensive than what I already had. Insurance for the over 60 crowd is expensive, no matter who you get it from. And most people by that age have a pre existing condition, or two. Seriously, we have several friends here in AZ who continue to work because although they wish to be retired they keep working because they need the health insurance for a younger spouse, or in my neighbors case she is single and only 63. She started Obamacare Jan 1 and will be leaving her job at the end of this month. This is all anecdotal, and as had been pointed out to me several times, means nothing coming from a liberal. But I think you all need to get out into the real world more, talk to the people the ACA is designed to help, and listen to the success stories as well as the horror stories. This law is not the definitive answer, I know that, it's not even what I wanted, but it has solved some very pressing problems. With some tweaks and improvements, I've actually heard some good ones from a few Republicans, like selling insurance across state lines, I think we can make real progress in improving our health care system.
Archer, NO ONE wants to see this issue objectively, because it is MUCH more fun to bitch and
moan.....the simple truth is this.....healthcare delivery system is FUBARRED and it will take
alot of "work arounds" and revisions to create an efficient and SANER system...JMO
Who are these "NO ONE's" you speak of? Perhaps if you had been close to death several times in the last few years (literally) you would see my worry and "bitching" about this f***ed up law a bit differently. I suppose I can't see this law objectively since my life may literally depend on it, but I do have common sense and I have done my homework... I also understand math. This "affordable" health care bill is only going to be good for the poorest folks and the rest of us will pay more and eventually get worse service (the evidence is already here). And as the CBO has reported, in ten years there will still be 31 million uninsured so what good is the ACA if we still have so many uninsured, the service is more limited, and the prices are through the roof?
The fact that homeagain said "NO ONE", she is obviously including both herself and archer.
Last edit: 01 Oct 2014 22:23 by MyMountainTown. Reason: Starring out a word not intended for this forum based on its rating
Durbin’s claim that 10 million now have health insurance because of Obamacare
The Pinocchio Test
Even if one took the high end of these estimates, the most one could claim is that about 4 million people have gained insurance because the Affordable Care Act, but that’s being extraordinarily generous.
In the meantime, given the fuzzy nature of the numbers and the wide publicity devoted to the recent surveys, Durbin has little excuse for going on national television and claiming that every one of these people had been previously insured. This has now become a Four Pinocchio violation.
Worse than the provable lies are the sheep who believe the lies and refuse to do their own research into the real truth. Those who blindly believe these government liars deserve to be screwed by them, over and over and over.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
I can't remember if this other BAD liberal prediction was posted here yet..
Supporters of President Obama’s health care law had predicted that expanding insurance coverage for the poor would reduce costly emergency room visits because people would go to primary care doctors instead. But a rigorous new experiment in Oregon has raised questions about that assumption, finding that newly insured people actually went to the emergency room a good deal more often.
Oops
The study, published in the journal Science, compared thousands of low-income people in the Portland area who were randomly selected in a 2008 lottery to get Medicaid coverage with people who entered the lottery but remained uninsured. Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts during their first 18 months with insurance.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
ACA is just falling apart... hmmmm... didn't the LAW originally refer to businesses with fewer than 50 workers?
Employers with fewer than 100 workers won’t have to provide health insurance until 2016 under Obamacare, as the administration said it would again delay a key requirement of the health law.
2016 is a convenient date is it not? Just another cork in the hole of the Titanic... the sheep are still playing guitar on the sun deck as if nothing is wrong.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Obama is well aware of the impact it will have on business. He doesn't dare enact it before 2016, otherwise it would virtually guarantee a GOP takeover of the senate. Can't have unemployment shooting up right at election time, right?
Would be nice if they would get rid of the employer mandate completely. That would allow companies to hire what they need, instead of worrying about this addl mandate, and trying to keep the staff below 50 or cut hours to comply.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
RenegadeCJ wrote: Obama is well aware of the impact it will have on business. He doesn't dare enact it before 2016, otherwise it would virtually guarantee a GOP takeover of the senate. Can't have unemployment shooting up right at election time, right?
Would be nice if they would get rid of the employer mandate completely. That would allow companies to hire what they need, instead of worrying about this addl mandate, and trying to keep the staff below 50 or cut hours to comply.
Remember. The individual mandate is still in force. Everyone is required to sign up for health insurance or pay a fine. This is going to push more people into the exchanges, more subsidized participants, effect business, effect employment and effect the cost of this whole debacle.
The CBO is probably going crazy right now trying to calculate the effect this new "law" change will have on the overall ACA impact.
RenegadeCJ wrote: Obama is well aware of the impact it will have on business. He doesn't dare enact it before 2016, otherwise it would virtually guarantee a GOP takeover of the senate. Can't have unemployment shooting up right at election time, right?
Would be nice if they would get rid of the employer mandate completely. That would allow companies to hire what they need, instead of worrying about this addl mandate, and trying to keep the staff below 50 or cut hours to comply.
Remember. The individual mandate is still in force. Everyone is required to sign up for health insurance or pay a fine. This is going to push more people into the exchanges, more subsidized participants, effect business, effect employment and effect the cost of this whole debacle.
The CBO is probably going crazy right now trying to calculate the effect this new "law" change will have on the overall ACA impact.
It's going to be bloody and messy.
Yep. I understand that. Most of the young people I know are ignorning the mandate and are willing to pay the fine. They would rather have jobs. One friend has been trying to get full time and their employer only will give them 30 hrs. They are regretting voting for Obama.
It is going to be a massive expense to the taxpayer. Removing the mandate will at least allow employers to hire people now...since they can guarantee no addl costs till 2016
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
archer wrote: It's no longer an issue, this was back in 2009, I'm on medicare now and couldn't be happier. At the time I had a couple more years on an individual policy and the cost was rising over 25%/year with BC/BS. I did my due diligence in trying to find another company that would cover me, or change to a different policy with the same company but was turned down. Cover Colorado was more expensive than what I already had. Insurance for the over 60 crowd is expensive, no matter who you get it from. And most people by that age have a pre existing condition, or two. Seriously, we have several friends here in AZ who continue to work because although they wish to be retired they keep working because they need the health insurance for a younger spouse, or in my neighbors case she is single and only 63. She started Obamacare Jan 1 and will be leaving her job at the end of this month. This is all anecdotal, and as had been pointed out to me several times, means nothing coming from a liberal. But I think you all need to get out into the real world more, talk to the people the ACA is designed to help, and listen to the success stories as well as the horror stories. This law is not the definitive answer, I know that, it's not even what I wanted, but it has solved some very pressing problems. With some tweaks and improvements, I've actually heard some good ones from a few Republicans, like selling insurance across state lines, I think we can make real progress in improving our health care system.
Archer, NO ONE wants to see this issue objectively, because it is MUCH more fun to bitch and
moan.....the simple truth is this.....healthcare delivery system is FUBARRED and it will take
alot of "work arounds" and revisions to create an efficient and SANER system...JMO
Who are these "NO ONE's" you speak of? Perhaps if you had been close to death several times in the last few years (literally) you would see my worry and "bitching" about this f***ed up law a bit differently. I suppose I can't see this law objectively since my life may literally depend on it, but I do have common sense and I have done my homework... I also understand math. This "affordable" health care bill is only going to be good for the poorest folks and the rest of us will pay more and eventually get worse service (the evidence is already here). And as the CBO has reported, in ten years there will still be 31 million uninsured so what good is the ACA if we still have so many uninsured, the service is more limited, and the prices are through the roof?
Rick, I blew off the idea of GOOD healthcare several years ago.....(I posted this info previously
but I will REPOST the scenario again.
Several years ago (when Ophray Winfred still had her talk show)....she was experiencing
some pretty serious health issues (burning too many candles at both ends)...she went to her
TEAM of doctors....they did multiple tests,ran multiple diagnostics, tossed around mutlitple
possible issues, but in the end....came up empty handed for her symptoms.....now this is
a woman who can hire the BEST OF THE INDUSTRY, money being no object.....one day a staff
member asked her if she had checked her THYROID??
Gee, guess what......HER THYROID WAS TOASTED.
THAT is indicative of the kind of healthcare delivery the United States provides.
My level of trust or reliance on GOOD MEDICAL CARE was cemented that day......there is NO
good health care, if one of the richest women in the world can't get a good diagnostic doctor
who uses common sense. JMO
