- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Killing Americans... why Bobby Jindal needs to stop his lies regarding Medicaid
Posted on 4/15/14 at 2:57 pm to Rex
Posted on 4/15/14 at 2:57 pm to Rex
Page 64:
"If consumers paid directly for more of their common medical care, the insurance policies they purchased would be less costly than current policies- covering only the more expensive, but much less likely, medical services".
Hmm sounds a lot like what healthcare.gov defines as a catastrophic plan....let's see:
LINK /
you want more?
"If consumers paid directly for more of their common medical care, the insurance policies they purchased would be less costly than current policies- covering only the more expensive, but much less likely, medical services".
Hmm sounds a lot like what healthcare.gov defines as a catastrophic plan....let's see:
quote:
Catastrophic plans usually have lower monthly premiums than a comprehensive plan, but cover you only if you need a lot of care. They basically protect you from worst-case scenarios like serious accidents or illnesses.
LINK /
you want more?
1
Posted on 4/15/14 at 2:58 pm to BBONDS25
BOOM BOOM Mancini !!!!
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:01 pm to Rex
quote:
The debate is over.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:11 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Page 59: "Ideally, consumers should purchase as much possible of their routine medical care out-of-pocket and use health insurance only to cover very expensive and unpredictable illnesses."
Ideally, I agree with that and I have said all along that Obamacare should have stopped with requiring catastophic insurance, only.
But in that sentence they're only describing an ideal, not repeating their actual plan element written earlier. Nowhere in that paper or in their other supporting papers on the matter do they say major medical only, to the exclusion of everything else, is the plan. They only call for it as a baseline. Their other publications, which we've discussed here and which I'm currently looking for, describe major medical as something that should be covered "as a minimum".
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:26 pm to Rex
quote:
But in that sentence they're only describing an ideal, not repeating their actual plan element written earlier.
what happens to this stated ideal under their supposed ACA brainchild, again?
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:38 pm to 90proofprofessional
I agree, as I always have, that some of the elements under Obamacare, especially the contentious ones like birth control, should not have been included.
I just don't see in the linked paper where the Heritage Foundation says a family should be required to cover major medical and nothing else. Maybe that was their intention, but you certainly couldn't tell it from their other explanatory papers where they say protection against catastrophic costs should be included, at the very least.
I just don't see in the linked paper where the Heritage Foundation says a family should be required to cover major medical and nothing else. Maybe that was their intention, but you certainly couldn't tell it from their other explanatory papers where they say protection against catastrophic costs should be included, at the very least.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:38 pm to Rex
quote:
But in that sentence they're only describing an ideal, not repeating their actual plan element written earlier
wrong again Page 59 is describing the way to avoid political opposition to eliminating the tax exclusion for employer-provided plans...
The plan suggests expanding tax credits and deductions to all individuals for health insurance purchased directly by workers....and to use health insurance to cover catastrophic events. This is detail on how to tailor the plan to overcome objections.
quote:
Their other publications, which we've discussed here and which I'm currently looking for
Is 11 pages and I linked it pages ago. In that publication it states it is a very brief summary of the 140 page publication I am currently referencing.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 3:40 pm to Rex
quote:
Maybe that was their intention, but you certainly couldn't tell it from their other explanatory papers where they say protection against catastrophic costs should be included, at the very least.
I guess your limit on what you can read is 11 pages. I linked the 140 page detailed plan....it explains it very nicely....as you like to say... the debate is over.
BTW..everyone else could tell the intent. You were too busy telling us we were functionally illiterate.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 3:42 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:11 pm to BBONDS25
I'm inclined to believe you actually think it says something it doesn't say, despite the wording and despite explanations elsewhere from the same group that coverage for potentially catastrophic costs should be included rather than the only acceptable package, but I'm not inclined to argue this until we're blue in the face.
However, here's something you seriously can't deny: that Obamacare's universal coverage in the form of a mandate for health insurance and penalties for those who don't comply is based on a Heritage Foundation proposal. And that, not which services above and beyond major medical would be reimbursed to a family, is the important political question. It sparked the fury that ran all the way to the Supreme Court. Too bad for Republicans that it was a Republican idea.
However, here's something you seriously can't deny: that Obamacare's universal coverage in the form of a mandate for health insurance and penalties for those who don't comply is based on a Heritage Foundation proposal. And that, not which services above and beyond major medical would be reimbursed to a family, is the important political question. It sparked the fury that ran all the way to the Supreme Court. Too bad for Republicans that it was a Republican idea.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:14 pm to Rex
quote:
I'm inclined to believe you actually think it says something it doesn't say, despite the wording and despite explanations elsewhere from the same group that coverage for potentially catastrophic costs should be included rather than the only acceptable package, but I'm not inclined to argue this until we're blue in the face.
No. You are inclined to stick to your representation of what one sentence in an 11 page document meant. Even when the 140 page document that 11 page document was referencing explains things thoroughly and clearly. Feel free to stick to that base level of "research". I've provided the source document and the meaning is clear. You just can't admit to being mistaken. An admirable quality, for sure.
quote:
that Obamacare's universal coverage in the form of a mandate for health insurance and penalties for those who don't comply is based on a Heritage Foundation proposal.
Are you asserting the Heritage Foundation was the very first group to present the idea of an individual mandate?
Yikes....
Oh..and the Heritage plan specifically states that an employer mandate won't work. Guess the drafters of Obamacare misunderstood the Heritage plan... Keep trying Rex...
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:16 pm to Rex
quote:
Rex
you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. Bonds is walking you around the prison yard while you hold on to his belt loop
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:25 pm to Choctaw
quote:
you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. Bonds is walking you around the prison yard while you hold on to his belt loop
Like I said... your attempts to rile me up are comical. You would say precisely the same if he argued that 2+2=5.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:29 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Are you asserting the Heritage Foundation was the very first group to present the idea of an individual mandate?
I clearly said no such thing.
It doesn't matter if the Heritage Foundation were the first. Romneycare was an iteration of the HF proposal and Obama and the Democrats felt that they could get at least some Democratic support by citing those Republican examples.
Here's the remaining question.... if it's evil for Obamacare to include a mandate requiring people to buy health insurance and imposing penalties for those who did not was it also evil of the Heritage Foundation to propose it?
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:31 pm to Rex
Because the people could vote on it at the state level
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:34 pm to Rex
quote:
Like I said... your attempts to rile me up are comical. You would say precisely the same if he argued that 2+2=5.
-20=-20
16-36=25-45 (16-36=-20,25-45=-20)
4^2-36 = 5^2-45 (4^2=16,5^2=25)
4^2-36 = 5^2-45
4^2-2.4.9/2 = 5^2-2.5.9/2 (2.4.9/2=36,2.5.9/2=45)
4^2-2.4.9/2 +(9/2)^2 = 5^2-2.5.9/2 +(9/2)^2 (adding both the sides (9/2)^2
[4-(9/2)]^2 = [5-(9/2)]^2 (let 4=a,9/2=b)
4-(9/2) = 5-(9/2)
4 = 5
2+2 = 5
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:35 pm to Rex
quote:
if it's evil for Obamacare to include a mandate requiring people to buy health insurance and imposing penalties for those who did not was it also evil of the Heritage Foundation to propose it?
I have never asserted it was evil. That is you building a straw man. I have simply asserted your trying to link Obamacare to the Heritage Foundation proposal is comical...as they have very little in common. This should be obvious to you.... or do you honestly think Obamacare and the Heritage Plan are similar?
Also...are you saying that Romneycare and Obamacare are similar?
Or are you simply stating that you thought Obama and the Dems thought they could dupe people into supporting Obamacare by citing those Republican examples?
quote:
Obama and the Democrats felt that they could get at least some Democratic support by citing those Republican examples.
Oh.. I see.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:42 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I have simply asserted your trying to link Obamacare to the Heritage Foundation proposal is comical
They clearly are linked. The perception was that the program had been successful in Massachusetts, it provided the impetus for a proposal that Obama thought some Republicans might accept, and Obama and other Dems used it in their defense of ACA before passage.
And, like I said, the element of Obamacare that caused the most fury is the mandate, and that's the most important question.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:47 pm to Rex
quote:
They clearly are linked.
Heritage proposal says NO EMPLOYER MANDATE, NO GOVERNMENT LAYER, TAX CUTS FOR ALL PREMIUMS, COVERAGE FOR MAJOR MEDICAL and ideally only major medical. Please tell me how they are linked...other than Dems desperately trying to justify Obamacare?
I really am amazed at your inability to simply say: "Thanks for linking the 140 page document. I now better understand the Heritage proposal".
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:49 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Please tell me how they are linked
I've already told you. The proposals do not have to be identical to be linked, I never said the programs were identical, and the important political controversy is the inclusion of the mandate.
Posted on 4/15/14 at 4:54 pm to Rex
quote:
I've already told you. The proposals do not have to be identical to be linked
They are nearly completely opposite. In fact the only link is the mention of an individual mandate. Implementation is 100% opposite. Yet you have a strong desire to link them. Affinity to the Heritage foundation, or something else?
quote:
important political controversy is the inclusion of the mandate.
if that is what you need to hang your hat on, go for it. This really has reached the point of being silly. You and I both know you haven't ever read the 140 page document. Just be a man and admit you learned something today.
This post was edited on 4/15/14 at 4:55 pm
Page 16 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News