- 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: LA Times: Now its 12m newly insured
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:10 am to a want
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:10 am to a want
a want
From Eurocrat:
I'm just wondering a want how you cannot fathom the enormous taxpayers money that is needed to sustain this program. All I can surmise from your pov is that you are willing, no matter the cost to you, to be content that everyone has health insurance, cost be damned.
quote:
The reason Texas, Louisiana and several other states turned it down is purely political......and for the most part, idiotic.
From Eurocrat:
quote:
more could be signed up if 24 states expanded their Medicaid programs
I'm just wondering a want how you cannot fathom the enormous taxpayers money that is needed to sustain this program. All I can surmise from your pov is that you are willing, no matter the cost to you, to be content that everyone has health insurance, cost be damned.
1
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:16 am to Lsut81
quote:
Would you accept someone paying for you to live in a mansion rent free for 3yrs, only to be required to pay more than you can afford after those 3yrs?
But I just showed you this not to be the case. See my previous posts.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:20 am to a want
quote:
But I just showed you this not to be the case. See my previous posts
You didn't show me shite... You showed that "Savings would likely outweigh spending" but that is not guaranteed. The same assumptions told us that everyone's premiums would go down, that the law would only cost X, etc...
The assumptions are flawed
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:22 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
I'm just wondering a want how you cannot fathom the enormous taxpayers money that is needed to sustain this program. All I can surmise from your pov is that you are willing, no matter the cost to you, to be content that everyone has health insurance, cost be damned.
Well...yes, everyone should have health insurance. And here's why: everyone gets sick. And some will have catastrophic illnesses or accidents that would bankrupt a person without insurance. The mandate is great! And the Heritage Foundation agrees with me...or they did until Obama won the presidency. They designed the thing.
Is ACA the best solution? Almost certainly not. But is it a first step in the right direction. Probably so.
Let's not forget: people weren't paying their hospital bills before ACA too. It's not like that's new. And in fact: ACA is an attempt to encourage (force) everyone to buy health insurance.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:28 am to a want
quote:
This 2.8 percent figure significantly overstates the net impact on state budgets because it does not reflect the savings that state and local governments will realize in other health care spending for the uninsured. The Urban Institute has estimated that overall state savings in these areas will total between $26 and $52 billion from 2014 through 2019. The Lewin Group estimates state and local government savings of $101 billion in uncompensated care.
And the CBO originally estimated that Obamacare would reduce the deficit and not cost more than $1 trillion. Both of which we know to be wrong.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:29 am to a want
You're being disingenuous when you talk about Heritage and a mandate for complete coverage
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:34 am to fleaux
quote:
You're being disingenuous when you talk about Heritage and a mandate for complete coverage
Nope
quote:
The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.
and
LINK
LINK
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:36 am to a want
You'll also remember the former Republican nominee for the President of the United States first implemented the plan in Mass. Insured rates went from 90% to 98% there (highest in the nation).
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:38 am to a want
quote:
Is ACA the best solution? Almost certainly not.
We agree there.
quote:
But is it a first step in the right direction. Probably so.
It's a step but not in the right direction. It's appearing that the first step is going to be right off a financial cliff. Before we just willy nilly take the first step I think we'd be better served to just stand there for a while and calculate how far down the fall is and come to a conclusion on whether or not it's worth the risk.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:47 am to Lsut81
Paluka Times: Now it's close to 100 Trillion newly insured! Illegeal (Intergallactic) aliens have signed up.
Who Knew?!!!
Who Knew?!!!
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:48 am to a want
quote:
More leaches signing up....to buy insurance....because they were definitely paying for it before....
Whatever they were doing before saved me $3K compared to my Obamacare premium.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 11:03 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
It's appearing that the first step is going to be right off a financial cliff. Before we just willy nilly take the first step I think we'd be better served to just stand there for a while and calculate how far down the fall is and come to a conclusion on whether or not it's worth the risk.
It's been in the public discussion since 2006. "Let's wait" is what republicans have been saying since Obama rolled out the mandate idea in the first place - when he was hoping of bi-partisan support in lieu of singe payor.
I'm still waiting on the "replace" option from the GOP.
This post was edited on 4/17/14 at 11:04 am
Posted on 4/17/14 at 11:12 am to a want
quote:
nd here's why: everyone gets sick. And some will have catastrophic illnesses or accidents that would bankrupt a person without insurance.
And some take care of their bodies, and rarely get sick. Why must the healthy support the unhealthy? Why can't individual citizens make their own choices in regards to their health and insurance? The only thing ACA did was add government to the mix. As much as you lefties bitched about insurance companies raising prices, the ACA did nothing to quell that. It actually caused an increase in prices, and now taxation against it's citizens too. The insurance companies are getting even richer, meanwhile average citizens are getting poorer. Less disposable income equals less tax receipts. This so called "income inequality gap" is a direct result of overtaxation and crony capitalism. You can't pick favorites, and thats exactly what Obamacare did.
quote:
Is ACA the best solution? Almost certainly not. But is it a first step in the right direction.
How does taking away citizens choices equal a step in the right direction? Nearly 100% of all doctors believe that the more personal and involved a relationship between patient/doctor, the better. Obamacare simply takes away that decision making process and throws in 3 or 4 more levels of bureaucracy. When has more government intervention EVER helped this country.
quote:
Let's not forget: people weren't paying their hospital bills before ACA too. It's not like that's new. And in fact: ACA is an attempt to encourage (force) everyone to buy health insurance.
What evidence makes you think that those that didn't pay before, will pay now? All you are doing is guaranteeing subsidies to those that do not pay, even if they don't get sick. You are basically doubling down on stupidity. Terrible reasoning for this bill.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 11:17 am to a want
quote:
I'm still waiting on the "replace" option from the GOP.
Presented in 2013 i believe. Harry Reid refused to allow it up for a vote.
American Healthcare Reform Act
Actual text of the bill
Please feel free to read it. It's only 160 pages, and fixes the shitshow the left are dying for.
Seriously a want, please read it. It opens up access across state boarders, driving costs down, and sets up a fund for those with pre-existing conditions. It basically gives citizens more OPTIONS, as to what plan they want to buy.
This post was edited on 4/17/14 at 11:18 am
Posted on 4/17/14 at 11:21 am to a want
Nope again, the Heritage idea was for everyone to have "adequate coverage ", as shown in your link. Not old people and men with maternity coverage and not people who never will have kids paying for childcare......
Posted on 4/17/14 at 11:27 am to Lsut81
Yea, the numbers aren't true.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 12:17 pm to a want
quote:what they are buying, is not insurance.
to buy insurance..
Posted on 4/17/14 at 12:24 pm to a want
quote:Yep. This has been thoroughly eviscerated multiple times. BBONDS did it again here in the last several days...
Nope
Posted on 4/17/14 at 12:25 pm to a want
quote:Hell no. The MA plan and Obamacare share almost NOTHING in common. Even the individual mandate is different.
You'll also remember the former Republican nominee for the President of the United States first implemented the plan in Mass. Insured rates went from 90% to 98% there (highest in the nation).
Posted on 4/17/14 at 12:27 pm to Lsut81
quote:
Now its 12m newly insured
How many of those newly insured were denied coverage prior to last year? I don't get why people become insured because you will be fined otherwise is a big deal? If a law came out that you had to drive a red car or pay $$ fine I bet more people would drive a red car. The issue has been how does this affect health care and adding more people while restricting doctor access is not going to increase quality of care.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News