# Supreme Court upholds health care law



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

are you sure you dont want to change the thread name to what country are we all moving too?? lol

the whole thing is obsurd and inconsistent so how they can actually make this work is beyond me..


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Obamacare- (def) Do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

Looks like the fire's going under the Tea Party now! I'm off to rally bc I don't like rationed health care.
Read Mitch McConnell's well written press release:
*Press Releases - News - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell*

Don't be afraid of this precedent. If precedents ruled our lives, the court system wouldn't allow arguments. 
REMEMBER, this is a law, NOT a Constitutional Amendment, and we replealed Prohibition with the 21st. It CAN and WILL be done.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

I tried to find any actual numbers on how much you have to pay for insurance with this law, and I couldn't find anything (only how much you'll be charged if you don't buy one). Has anyone seen it?


----------



## Susan Crumrine (Oct 5, 2009)

Because I have psoriatic arthritis, our insurance is 180 dollars a week, and that is no dental and with a HUGE deductable.
Can't do it, won't do it.


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

What the Supreme Court's Ruling Means for Consumers - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

I'm struggling to figure this out also.
My insurance is around $700 a month. Hub has a "Pre existing" condition so we struggle EVERYDAY to continue. Our rate has risen EXPONENTIALLY over the last two years because he had a flair up.

So as I understand it:
1. If he goes 6 months without healthcare insurance he will qualify for "free" coverage. Not sure where or how, but we DON'T WANT TO DO THIS!
2. So now it's a TAX. What they promised it wasn't.
3. Now say a person around 65 HAS to go get coverage, raising rates for everyone because they can't be denied even if they are very ill
4. It's cheaper for say, a young person with no problems to pay this tax instead of paying say $2,400 a year.
5. Then because they can't be denied they can go get a policy when they find out they need one.
6. This again raises the costs for EVERYONE with private insurance.
7. Everyone is supposedly getting a rebate from their insurance company this year. They knew it was coming and increased their prices to cover this "rebate". 

Val, I don't know the answer to your question. Right now we could get a VERY cheap insurance policy. We were ECSTATIC when we found it... Then we read the fine print. No cancer, large organ failure, and a couple other biggies included! What? That's really the only reason one needs it!

So I don't know what to do. Subbing to see if someone else understands this better than I.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Insurance Costs | HealthCare.gov

Obamacare Taxes: Deep Impact

Employers of 50 or more will be forced to provide Health Insurance or face a Tax Penalty

People who do not Purchase Healthcare Insurance will be subject to a 1% wealth Tax Penalty.

Medicade will be cut over 500 Billion Dollars by this Plan

Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act :twisted:

Can anyone tell me how this make Healthcare affordable to anyone but the Rich?

Can anyone tell me WHY Insurance Companies will lower their Premiums as now we are Forced to but from them?

Can anyone tell me why Hospitals will quit gouging for their Services now that this is has passed the Supreme Court?

80% of what I see is a way to generate more Taxes for the Spend Thrifty Government

The Good News is, when John Roberts remarked on Obamocare is considered a Tax and the final SCOTUS ruling, this will lead to a filabuster proof Congress and make it a lot easier to repeal as it is considered a TAX.... sneaky that Roberts Guy is :lol:



.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

gypsygirl said:


> What the Supreme Court's Ruling Means for Consumers - Yahoo! Finance


"The law contains a few mechanisms to curb premiums, but it also requires that many insurance providers make their benefits more generous, which will raise their cost."

Thanks Obama...............




.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

kitten_Val said:


> I tried to find any actual numbers on how much you have to pay for insurance with this law, and I couldn't find anything (only how much you'll be charged if you don't buy one). Has anyone seen it?


This is what I meant to post earlier, same site but the actual link I think you may be looking for

Insurance Choices | HealthCare.gov




.


----------



## FlyGap (Sep 25, 2011)

I was shocked when he did it, now it's becoming more clear. Very wise.
Now, everyone in Washington needs to be replaced. Some of this is good, some is bad, it's up to us and the market to decide, not the Gov.

Last night I went to a dinner party and met an AMAZING woman from GB. She Immigrated here 20 years ago. She was the first woman to parachute off the Eiffel tower, she hand makes world renowned parachute harnesses, teaches motorcycle classes, you name it. She moved here to get away from Europe and welfare states. She also said she could never have done all this in GB.
She said that then and now, the US is the last hope on the PLANET where a person with a strong work ethic and a dream can come to succeed. In the past several years she has been pounding her head in frustration because we are following in the footsteps of Europe, all miserable failures. 

I hope this all works out for the best.
Thanks for those links.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

*Long Live John Roberts.*

I for one am elated that the Mandate was upheld.
Getting millions insured will reduce the burden on all of us.
Having insurance is important and requiring people to buy it is as Chief Justice Roberts wrote a form of another tax.
The Affordable Healthcare Act will assure the health not only of individuals in this country but our countries economic health as well.
Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> I for one am elated that the Mandate was upheld.
> Getting millions insured will reduce the burden on all of us.
> Having insurance is important and requiring people to buy it is as Chief Justice Roberts wrote a form of another tax.
> The Affordable Healthcare Act will assure the health not only of individuals in this country but our countries economic health as well.
> Shalom


As usual, I admire your intent, but you need to face reality. Obamacare has a long and bumpy road ahead of it before it - if ever - becomes anything significant. There are things imbedded within the program that will be decided by the Supreme Court down the line. And despite what you might think to the contrary, there is no way we can pay for it. Heck, even the Democratic leadership is beginning to admit that - don't you listen to your own folks?

Your elation surprises me a bit for a couple of reasons that affect you and your patients directly. 

First is the fact that the government will be able to seize people's medical records. That is a violation of both the letter and principle of HIPAA, and will no doubt end up as a Supreme Court case. In the case of your own patients, that means their drug and mental issues would go directly into their dossier. Between hacking, leaks, and such, their issues would be far from private. I have a real big problem with that myself, and I would think you would too, as that virtually destroys patient confidentiality. 

The second issue is the fact that the court decided it was not constitutional for the federal government to force states to expand their Medicaid programs. I believe the current count stands somewhere around 30 states that are not going to do so, and I suspect more will follow. Sadly, this will limit how much Obamacare will help those the program is intended to help to begin with - those without the means to secure insurance on their own. I'm honesstly not sure where that will leave us. As silly as it may sound, we may end up with segregated states - it is possible that poor people may migrate to those states with the better handouts. We could end up with 30 states with predominantly kiddle and upper class people, and 20 states with predominantly poor people. This could also portend a massive migration that would have a lot of demographic rammifications.

In different times, I wouldn't view these and other issues withthe flawed legislation as major stumbling blocks. Historically it is not uncommon to pass legislation and then go through a period of modifications until it is actually viable. But in this day and time, as polarized as we are, I can't see that happening. As I said, Obamacare is in for a long, bumy ride before anything comes of it - if ever.

Some of the provisions of Obamacare are both good and needed - I don't know of any reasonable person that would argue that. But the package as a whole is flawed, inefficient, far less inclusive than intended, and of course carries a price tag neither the public, business, or government can meet.

Of course that's inevitable when you have a bunch of wacko liberals passing legislation behind closed doors, and then make the famous Pelosi remark that Congress needs to pass it so they can see what it says. Obamacare will never come to full fruition without consensus, and as long as their are morons like Pelosi - on both sides of the isle - consensus will never happen. Whether it is this fall or 2 or 4 or 8 or however many years from now, Obamacare will be repealed - unless it is modified, of course to become viable. I'm just not sure what event or series of events it will take to get both sides of the isle working to gether to modify it. Right now it seems as if the term compromise is no longer in the beltway dictionary...


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

I going to make this one comment. This subject I can not get my head around... Its complexes and did I say complexes? 

I miss my NHS back at home! not perfect but I had less issues with front line treatment and seen a doc than I do in Maine. 

Right now tho my wife spending $400 a month on my care though her state. I told her to drop me because now we are fighting to keep the house as well feeding and paying gas and trying to get ready for next winter. Also I hardly see the doctor and I am now worried that as we can not get any support of any kind this going to to cost me more one way or another...


----------



## Tennessee (Dec 7, 2008)

I'll admit, I'm young and slightly clueless on the whole subject, but I can't imagine how this is going to affect my parents considering my father has Leukemia and my mom has Multiple Sclerosis. =/ I am just glad that I am about to be in the Navy and one less responsibility for them.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman both of us agree that our present and past system of providing healthcare needed reform
Yes there will be more challenges and the system and provisions will need to be adjusted as the AHA becomes effective.
We as a nation had to do something.
I volunteer here at an AIDS service organization.
There are 1,000 active clients that utilize the services of the agency.
Most are using Medicare or Medicaid to pay for their Medical needs.
We have always encouraged our clients to work.
However if they do they could lose their access to medical care.
the affordable Healthcare Act will prevent insurance companies from denying them insurance due to pre existing conditions.
We can now encourage people to work and provide for themselves.
Regain their independence and dignity.
You and I both understand that any legislatioin will not satisfy everyone.
On another note,
What are yuour feelings about the Chief Justice's surprise stance on the issue.
I and others thought it would be up to Kennedy.
Perhaps we have another Sandra Day O Conner. Shalom


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

one of the provisions of the law is to make preexisting conditions not elibible as reasons for exclusion.
I am not sure how I personally will fare with this new law. From what I have heard , out health care system was at the point of collapse anyway. Well, maybe not collapse. But the need to pay for the many poor people who got their medical care at emergency rooms, funded by donations from the hospital, then fobbed off on paying customers was about to bring down the system anyway. And Medicare, too. It really was at a WE MUST DO SOMETHING place. 

I don't know enough about this new law to have an opinon on it. It does make me wary though.


----------



## azwantapaint (Feb 5, 2012)

I give it a year before it gets axed by the new administration.
I also foresee the people that voted for it getting tossed in November.
I foresee the"crack the whip" effect...the people are ****ed, and w will come out come November.
The crack heads that put this abomination into place will find themselves in the unemployment lines, it will be repealed in its entirety, and there will be a reckoning trading place.
We have more people receiving entitlements than eve before in history.
W have government agencies PROMOTING welfare and similar programs.
We have the fewest people employed in the history of our great nation.
The notion that we can spend ourselves into prosperity is tantamount to trying to tell me that its possible to pick up a turd from the clean end.
It is an unsustainable model of society, it is fiscally impossible, and I am quite sure there will be a fight about it in one way or another.
Will it help some people? Yes.
However, to help 30 million, 420 million just got hosed in a bad way.
Oh, wait, my bad. Almost forgot.
25% of us receive some sort of subsidy, the true unemployment rate is well above 15% when taking into consideration people who quit looking for work, and we have more debt than we can fathom.
So, respectfully to everyone, I appreciate your perspectives on this hot topic, but of we hope to have any semblance of survivability as a nation, this trash has to go.
Sorry if my thoughts hurt your feelings, or you stand to gain with it, but the facts are the facts, and it id an unsustainable path.
Europe already did this type of thing.
It failed miserably.
Massachsetts tried it.
They almost went bankrupt shortly after inception because it was unsustainable


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

AZ I do not share your contempt for the Affordable Healthcare Act.
This is a lnadmark decision that will affect us all . More people will now have access to preventive healthcare than ever before.
This alone will reduce the amount of money the federal government provides to state and local medical facilities.
Thereby saving money for all Americans.
This decision will probably not cost Obama or the Democrats any votes.
Those opposed to the measure were not likely to vote for Obama anyway.
The majority of americans do see the benefits of the AHA.
The unpopular part was the mandate that required Americans that are uninsured to purchase insurance.
Shalom


----------



## oobiedoo (Apr 28, 2012)

Don't know about other states but where I'm living we're already under state government mandatory auto insurance and annual auto inspections so the idea of mandatory insurance coverage is not an entirely new one.

Yep, Massachusetts was Romney care wasn't it?

Don't know what it will take to fix the healthcare system. A lot less greed but seems you can't mandate that.
maybe a nationwide movement to vote all the current congressmen out and start new cause it really won't matter who the president is if congress behaves like a bunch of spoiled kids. Why dont we replace them with some of the currently unemployed people and we could even cut back on the benefits and freeze raises and the unemployed would probably still think it's a good deal.


----------



## Shropshirerosie (Jan 24, 2012)

FlyGap said:


> Last night I went to a dinner party and met an AMAZING woman from GB. She Immigrated here 20 years ago. She was the first woman to parachute off the Eiffel tower, she hand makes world renowned parachute harnesses, teaches motorcycle classes, you name it. She moved here to get away from Europe and welfare states. She also said she could never have done all this in GB.
> She said that then and now, the US is the last hope on the PLANET where a person with a strong work ethic and a dream can come to succeed. In the past several years she has been pounding her head in frustration because we are following in the footsteps of Europe, all miserable failures.
> 
> I hope this all works out for the best.
> Thanks for those links.


Purely in the interest of balance I'm just popping into this discussion to say that the vast majority of people in the UK are strong supporters of our National Health Care System. We all pay National Insurance Tax which contributes to the cost of the NHS. And everyone is covered by the NHS. Thank goodness!

Sure, there are debates here about the level of taxes we pay, and the cost of the NHS, and 'whether smokers should be treated for lung disease', and what elective surgery should or should not be covered by the NHS.... but you'd be looking for a needle in a haystack if you tried to find a wannabe Member of Parliament who wasn't a supporter of the basic tenet of universal health care through the NHS. He or she just wouldn't get elected.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> AZ I do not share your contempt for the Affordable Healthcare Act.
> This is a lnadmark decision that will affect us all . More people will now have access to preventive healthcare than ever before.
> This alone will reduce the amount of money the federal government provides to state and local medical facilities.
> Thereby saving money for all Americans.
> ...


Americans have never supported Obamacare, that is a fact. Anywhere from 55% to 65% have opposed it from day one, as you see the majority wants it repealed even with its few good points.

"A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 36 percent of voters nationwide think the president's health care plan is a good idea. That means a solid majority of the electorate--64 percent--think the plan is either a bad idea (45 percent) or are unsure about it (19 percent). Moreover, nearly half of those polled (49 percent) would like to see the law repealed; 42 percent oppose repeal."

Health - Ron Faucheux - Poll: Only 36 Percent of Americans Support the Affordable Care Act - The Atlantic

Even the Obama-nation of a Law does have a few good points, no one disputes that, no one disputes we need some kind of reform.....

I can post links all day long, but it does no good for some, I have already previously posted links of the unseen costs no one wants to talk about.

90% of the people who do not have health insurance do not want it at any price, those 90% can get quality Insurance for under 150.00 a month if they chose too.

The premise that it will save everyone money is the biggest hoax since the Martians landed.

Have you not read how this plan will cut some services of Medicade, how it will hurt small business.

There are better ways to help people who can't afford Healthcare than Obamacare, but some defend it for no other reason than a Democrat thought if it.

95% of the Democrats never read the Bill before they voted on it.... Let's get real.

Now that people have actually read it, they know how bad it is.



> Those opposed to the measure were not likely to vote for Obama anyway


Great, according to that statement Obama will loose by a landslide ...lol...



.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

STG I too can post poll after poll that supports my information that whil 65% oppose the individual mandate that same number or greater support the AHA's most sweeping reforms.
Pre excisting conditions and more people having pre ventive Healthcare are welcome ideas. Shalom


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Thereby saving money for all Americans.


With the healthcare been complexes and all but this where I don't see it. Only way that US going to save money if they run it like the NHS and the government will own hospitals. Which like I said tho I like my NHS but not perfect. 

I have noticed one thing about the US government since I moved here. What ever they touch seems to screw thing up. Like Student loans and Car company's and pick and choosing industry to spend money on in the name of saving american jobs instead attacking the real issue and changing the environment so Americans can compete against world wide etc. 

I mean I seen a lot of folks not agree with this and I somewhat thing too big for the federal government to get in and play with us.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

Years ago when Tommy Douglas had watched children die because of extreme poverty (Depression) he publicly voices his concerns for a nation health care program whereby everyone had the right to medical care. He was branded with all matter of ugly terms and investigated. It is to him we owe a great debt of gratitude. Our province when thro a time where a family had to pay a monthly premium based on income but it was about $100. That was eliminated years ago. Obama's plan is that you pay a rate based on income. When Medicare was introduced here, my uncle doctor said that now he would get paid for every patient.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> This is what I meant to post earlier, same site but the actual link I think you may be looking for
> 
> Insurance Choices | HealthCare.gov


ST, I've seen this one about precondition before. But what really ticks me off there you have to be uninsured for 6 months before you are eligible. From my understanding (reading here and there) health insurance companies can't reject you anymore if you have precondition starting 2014 (I'm saying that because my relative was rejected while back exactly because of the precondition). But how much will be the insurance? If same $700/month (or even more) than what's the difference really?


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> Some of the provisions of Obamacare are both good and needed - I don't know of any reasonable person that would argue that. But the package as a whole is flawed, inefficient, far less inclusive than intended, and of course carries a price tag neither the public, business, or government can meet.


This. I do think that medical reform is needed, because too many people are uninsured and not because they go greedy or some other silly reason. However I don't think it was done right.


----------



## azwantapaint (Feb 5, 2012)

One of the more interesting things I have read about yesterdays scotus decision was comments by justice Roberts.
He essentially defined the mandate as a tax, making it applicable under reconciliation, and making it a little easier to repeal, as it only requires 51% majority instead of 60%.
While I do think everyone deserves healthcare in some fashion, I also think that if you want it, you best figure out how to make it happen for yourself.
I'm so very tired of people living off my tax dollars and not lifting a finger for their own betterment.
Folks that are physically able to work, yet perform no useful function at or expense is what I take issue with. Not those who are totally unable to work, or their caregivers.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> STG I too can post poll after poll that supports my information that whil 65% oppose the individual mandate that same number or greater support the AHA's most sweeping reforms.
> Pre excisting conditions and more people having pre ventive Healthcare are welcome ideas. Shalom


I do agree with making Healthcare Affordable, I also agree with cutting the gap of costs for Insurance between those with pre-existing conditions and those without.

As far as preventative care mandates, as a Consumer I should have the Right to pay for what I want and what I don't want.

A simple Affordable Care Act of less than 100 pages could have been passed with some simple things like...

- Shopping for Healthcare Insurance across State Lines, this creates competition keeping Costs Lower.
- Eliminating frivolous Lawsuits.
- A provision to do a way with discrimination of Pricing on Policies
- Make provisions for Allowing Consumers to buy the Portion of Insurance they want.

Of course Common Sense will tell you Insurance Companies will Charge EVERYONE more to make up for the difference in the High Risk Groups, I am willing to pay a little more on my plan to help those people. 

The 2,409 page Obamacare is not about Affordable Healthcare it is about Tax Revenue for the Government, it is about Political Power over the un-educated, the Democrats will Campaign as they have already on One Thing "if you repeal Obamacare the old will die and children with Autism will sufferer" Obama's own words....

Forget Party Lines and look at some Facts and Common Sense, do you really think the Republicans want people to die and suffer?, no they want a Plan that will not Bankrupt America and actually Reduce Healthcare Costs so everyone can afford Insurance.

I have read over half of the 2,400 page Obamacare, it is quite shocking what is hidden in it, it will do more harm to America than it will help...... I urge everyone to actually do some reading and don't be like Pelosi and most of the other Democrats and say Oh, lets pass it we will read it later...lol...

We need an Affordable Care Act that is what it says, affordable for Everyone and will actually reduce Healthcare Costs!, not the lie that we have now.



.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

AZ thats my point.
With the ability to get insured despite pre conditions the people that have chronic illnesses can return to work.
AIDS medication cost thousands of dollars a month for 1 prescription.
You must take a combination of three.
Some people have medication that totals 9,000 $ a month.
They utilize Medicare or Medicaid.
Now they can become employed and access insurance.
In the long run this will save the US billions and insurance companies can no longer pick and choose their customers. Shalom


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

kitten_Val said:


> ST, I've seen this one about precondition before. But what really ticks me off there you have to be uninsured for 6 months before you are eligible. From my understanding (reading here and there) health insurance companies can't reject you anymore if you have precondition starting 2014 (I'm saying that because my relative was rejected while back exactly because of the precondition). But how much will be the insurance? If same $700/month (or even more) than what's the difference really?


That is the Trillion Dollar Question.

I have pre-existing conditions, not major but pay a higher rate now than someone without a pre-existing condition. It is private Insurance as I am Self Employed. I am over 50, have a 3,500.00 Maximum out of Pocket per year (include copay and deductible) and pay less than 200.00 a month.... I would bet in 2014 my premiums will be going up a LOT......

The problem is a friend in another State with no pre-existing condition pays currently 375.00 for the exact same type policy with all the same features.
THIS is one of the main thing Obamacare does not address, COMPETITION across State Lines which actually Makes Healthcare more Affordable.....



.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman...On another note,
> What are yuour feelings about the Chief Justice's surprise stance on the issue.
> I and others thought it would be up to Kennedy.
> Perhaps we have another Sandra Day O Conner. Shalom


I don't like politics on the Supreme Court. I am not naive and realize that a conservative person will have different leanings than a liberal person, and therefore interpret constitutionality a bit differently, but I would like to see much less political involvement.

I believe the decision was the correct one, and give kudos to Roberts for voting for what was right rather than giving in to his political leanings. 

However, even though I believe the decision was correct, the case was merely to decide the constitutionality of the law - not the merits of the law.

I still oppose Obamacare and think it should be repealed if it cannot be modified to be viable. As I think I said earlier, you are living in a fantasy world if you think it is viable as it stands. Your interpretation of the costs is out of date and incorrect. Even the Democrats are admitting the cost is going to be far higher than the initial hype, which was lies of course, and many Democrats have become as concerned with the real cost as the Republicans have been all along. Nothing is free, which you and most liberals don't seem to be able to fully grasp. There is a limit on how much you can tax the 50% of the population that pays tax. We are not able to meet our obligations now with 50% of the people carrying 100% of the load. All of Obama's proposals reflect his intent to reduce that even farther, having only 40% of the people carry 100% of the load. That is insanity, quite frankly. Small business formation and expansion, and their accompanying job creation, is already greatly stifled by excessive taxes and regulations. Liberals do not seem to understand that 10 people or entities paying a 25% tax generates more revenues than 4 people or entities paying a 50% tax. I don't know if liberals have poor math skills or can't afford a $10 calculator or what their problem is. In any case, the first order of business should be to get our economy in order - then look for ways to improve our healthcare system and/or our quality of life. You guys are putting the cart before the horse. You are concerned about your patients, which I understand, but if the economy were robust, they could get good jobs with good benefits, which would resolve much of their problem. Sure, pre-existing conditions should not be an issue, and sure, there should be no catastophic limits, but those kinds of issues can be attaacked without jeopardizing our national economic condition and prolonging the recession, which quite frankly, economic formulas aside, is actually a depression where the rubber meets the road.

We need a starting point to resolve our healthcare issues. And Obamacare COULD be a starting point (as ANY plan could, regardless of its origin). But that is in theory. But when it comes to practical applications, as I said in an earlier post, we are too polarized in this point of history to modify that plan to the extent it needs to be modified to make it viable. That is why it will be repealed at some point. I wish the situation were different - I wish we could take that proposal, modify it, implement it, and move on down the road. But I think it is unrealistic and idealistic to seriously consider that possible at this time...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> I am over 50, have a 3,500.00 Maximum out of Pocket per year (include copay and deductible) and pay less than 200.00 a month....


You have good rates in your state! I'm paying mom's private insurance right now, and it's much worse here. :?


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> With the ability to get insured despite pre conditions the people that have chronic illnesses can return to work.


dba, but lots of people with precondition work. I don't think people stay off work just to use Medicaid or Medicare simply because they have a precondition. Frankly I doubt this particular reason will save billions.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

kitten_Val said:


> dba, but lots of people with precondition work. I don't think people stay off work just to use Medicaid or Medicare simply because they have a precondition. Frankly I doubt this particular reason will save billions.


KV, I don't believe that is true. Even I, as adverse as I am to public assistance, would quit work if I had cancer or something, no money, and the only way I could get treatment and keep from croaking off was with Medicaid. That is one of the inherent weanesses in our system that needs to be fixed. I don't think Obamacare is the answer, but it, among other things, needs to be fixed...

Just wanted to add, I do agree of course that it won't "save billions" - that is just another liberal lie. What it would save in Medicaid would be faar, far offset by higher insurance costs across the board. The other thing, and I'm not sure db understands, although I have explained it, is that all states are not going to get on board...thus the Medicaid expansion will only be in a minority of states - it's not as if everyone is going to have access to the expanded Medicaid that goes hand in hand with Obamacare...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> KV, I don't believe that is true. Even I, as adverse as I am to public assistance, would quit work if I had cancer or something, no money, and the only way I could get treatment and keep from croaking off was with Medicaid.


FM, I absolutely agree with what you are saying. What I meant is if the person works and has insurance through the company you wouldn't drop out just to get Medicaid, and some people with precondition prefer to work and keep the expensive insurance with big deductible (because it's still cheaper that way depending on how much you are making). So I'm not sure there are that many people who don't work just to get an insurance. 

BTW, I do support the idea that company should provide insurance for the employees. I think it would be a fair treatment. Speaking from the own experience some contracting companies charge the federals the "benefit" money but lacking to provide those benefits to the employees.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> That is the Trillion Dollar Question.
> 
> I have pre-existing conditions, not major but pay a higher rate now than someone without a pre-existing condition. It is private Insurance as I am Self Employed. I am over 50, have a 3,500.00 Maximum out of Pocket per year (include copay and deductible) and pay less than 200.00 a month.... I would bet in 2014 my premiums will be going up a LOT......
> 
> ...


 
by our standards , you have a screamin' deal on insurance. I think most people pay more than that.
We were paying $1,400. a month for a family of four, medical and dental. The coverage was good, with normal deductables and limits. It was COBRA and we only had to do it a few months, thank God!
now we pay about $500 per month (our portion) and hubby's company pays rest, for same coverage for four persons. Really good deal for my state.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

I am thrilled the law was upheld and I think the voters will uphold it in November when they vote.

I was uninsurable because of my Arthritis and Degenerative Joint Disease in my spine. Before I was dropped all together, my rates were over $1500.00 / month with a $5000.00 deductible - for just me. I was tickled to turn 65 and get on Medicare with a supplement. I, once again have insurance.

I think all of the hacks that would rather see someone die (like the Tea Party members that cheered at the idea at one of the Republican debates) than see any kind of universal health care should face a loss of their good insurance.

Every person I have talked to about the bill and the problem that opposed the health care act ALL HAD INSURANCE. You get a pretty prejudiced opinion from those people.

We personally know people that have died of very treatable diseases or would not see a Doctor when they should because they had no insurance or way to pay. If you own anything and have a low paying job, you can lose everything to one health problem or accident. Health insurance for lower income people is not even an option. Preventive health care is not an option. Low income people often have to chose between food and a Doctor and the emergency room becomes their Doctor. ER waits are frequently 24 hours or more in big cities. Preventive health care is non-existant to these people.

More than 80% of bankruptcies filed site medical bills as the major problem contributing to the action. Medical bills are responsible for a huge number of foreclosures. 

As cited before, many people refuse to work just so they have Medicaid for their children or for serious health problems. This is not just a few. There are many right here in the small town I live near.

When you cite polls -- they are mostly done by phone and are entirely done on land-lines. This tilts the numbers toward older and more conservative voters. They ignore young voters that only have cell phones or Computer phones like Vonnage. On the street, you see a LOT more acceptance of of Obama and Universal Health Care than you see reflected in land-line polls. I just hope they get out and vote. 

When people find out how many good things are going to happen to THEM because of this bill and combine that with very popular parts of it (like children being able to stay on parents' policies until they are 26) and 'caps' removed for catastrophic illnesses, i think there will be fewer and fewer that want to get rid of it -- especially since no Republican has offered any other plan to help any of the the people that have no access or no money for health care or insurance but still work or want to work.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, once again its all about "obama", and not the health care problems which existed long before this obamination of a health care "reform" law. It seems that people that are "for it" feel it is the best document ever prepared because Obama likes it, nevermind the contents. This can be evidenced by the fact they figure the product of Romney's health care dabblings were all bad, horrible, and evil - or, oddly, "no better than" Obama's. When healthcare law is decided by "team fans", you can bet it isn't going to end well. 

There is no question we needed health care reform. It was not worth our freedom, imo, and I don't just mean in the way of being forced to pay for insurance. 

I have not read it all...God bless anyone that can and does. When and if one reads even parts of it ..notice the "cutting and pasting" of verbage from current CFR's. That right there tells me this thing was slapped together in an "all nighter", and the great rush to slam it through congress by bypassing the ordinary "democratic republic" process tells me there were ulterior motives. WHAT was the rush? 

Here is a fact: one can cross the border and buy an amazing number of "perscription drugs" (perscription in the US) off the shelf in Mexico....most of them manufactured in the US, and all of them for pennies on the dollar. Why ever is that???? Law suits. With respect to health care and its associated costs, this country's citizens would have benefited far, far more from tort reform than this particular "reform" action. No mention of that from "team obama", a BAR member, I believe.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Cherie, I very much agree with lots of what you are saying. As someone with family members with precondition who worked for the employer that didn't provide the insurance I'm very well aware of what you are saying. But my question again IF you have a precondition how much will you be paying for the private insurance under this law? So far I have NOT seen the numbers. I have a bad feeling that the rates still will be outrageous. If I'm wrong - that's great.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Cherie said:


> I am thrilled the law was upheld and I think the voters will uphold it in November when they vote.
> 
> I was uninsurable because of my Arthritis and Degenerative Joint Disease in my spine. Before I was dropped all together, my rates were over $1500.00 / month with a $5000.00 deductible - for just me. I was tickled to turn 65 and get on Medicare with a supplement. I, once again have insurance.
> 
> ...


I'm trying to work out the math here, if one has to pay $1500 for health insurance prior to age 65 and prior to this health care reform measure, how would they be any better off if they have to pay $1500 after the measuse was passed but prior to age 65??? NOWHERE does this bill say, in plain english, how much _anyone_ will "_have to_" pay.

I can see why people that currently have private insurance are upset. Its the "unknown" factor - as in it is entirely "unknown" how thier current rates will be affected by this measure, and it will remain unknown for some time. Insurance companies are in the business of making money, so they will raise their rates if this law causes them to lose more money than the years w/o it. The only entity that operates w/o a care for profit or amount spend is the government, which gets its money from loans from China and the Fed, the taxpayer, the taxpayer's children, their children's children, etc.,.


----------



## QOS (Dec 8, 2008)

I happened to be in a hospital yesterday. Hubby was having a procedure done. None of the people (employees) were happy about this and said the level of care will go down. 

We pay $900 a month for insurance for hubby, me and our 21 year old college student daughter. We have been without insurance before and needed medical care so we have been on both ends of this issue. 

I don't want the government in my personal business and I don't want to be forced to purchase insurance that is subpar to what we currently have. I don't want the government to say " oh.....my....you're at that cut off age for this that or the other thing". I want my dr. to decide what I need and me make that decision. 

I don't want to wait months for a procedure. I want it when I need it.

I was also sitting in an ER all morning Wednesday morning with my cousin who is 71. His kids don't live around here. My other cousin just happens to be the director of that ER so I hear quite a bit about how much the hospital writes off because of indigent care and it is a huge huge amount. 

It has got to the point where so many don't/won't work. They are plenty comfortable taking their government check, Medicare, etc. instead of working. Why work when it is "free". Well, it isn't free. I am paying for it. 

The amount of people who pay NO income tax is astonishing...and the law that gives them more back through credits, etc. than they pay in will shock people who are unaware of the law. My sister-in-law got back $5,000 in income tax while she only paid in $900. So, who made up that other $4,100? Tax payers did. 

They are getting to the point that there are more non payers than payers and the payers are being taxed to death. I do believe, as we come up on July 4, that is the reason this country was founded in the first place...unreasonable taxes being laid on people. 

It would be great to have affordable healthcare, food, housing, etc. for everyone. American is a great country where dreams can come true for those who work. There are so many now who believe work is for someone else. 

I think this law will cause so many people to be laid off - therefore they will be on the governments role. So many small businesses will not be able to afford this and will not expand, hire and prosper. 

If the government was a success at running something this might work but since the government is generally isn't a great manager of our money, what makes them think they can manage our healthcare?


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

Cherie said:


> I
> 
> I think all of the hacks that would rather see someone die (like the Tea Party members that cheered at the idea at one of the Republican debates) than see any kind of universal health care should face a loss of their good insurance.
> 
> Especially since no Republican has offered any other plan to help any of the the people that have no access or no money for health care or insurance but still work or want to work.


I am not a Republican, but an Independent who leans more to Libertarian than a Conservative, but non the less, I find *"I think all of the hacks that would rather see someone die"* is rather OFFENSIVE and UNTRUE.

*"Especially since no Republican has offered any other plan"
*
Again another statement I find UNTRUE, ther have been dozens of Plans from Healthcare to the Economy, all are still Sitting on Reids desk.....

Just to name a few plans the Republicans have, now I do not agree with everything they have suggested, but at least they are not a 2,409 page Obamanation

Repeal and Replace the Job-Destroying Health Care Law - A Pledge to America - GOP.gov

http://camp.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Summary_of_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan.pdf

As Faceman said something similar earlier if the Democrats had spent as much time on the Economy as they did Obamacare maybe more Americans would be working and have or afford Healthcare, but the obvious often flies over some people heads 


.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

tinyliny said:


> by our standards , you have a screamin' deal on insurance. I think most people pay more than that.
> We were paying $1,400. a month for a family of four, medical and dental. The coverage was good, with normal deductables and limits. It was COBRA and we only had to do it a few months, thank God!
> now we pay about $500 per month (our portion) and hubby's company pays rest, for same coverage for four persons. Really good deal for my state.


Like my earlier example a comparable plan cost my friend almost twice as much...

Why does Obamacare not allow Competitive Shopping across State Lines?

.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> I am not a Republican, but an Independent who leans more to Libertarian than a Conservative, but non the less, I find *"I think all of the hacks that would rather see someone die"* is rather OFFENSIVE and UNTRUE.
> 
> *"Especially since no Republican has offered any other plan"*
> 
> ...


Yup.

Here's a trivia question for you - know who proposed the first universal healthcare plan?

Nixon's Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words - Kaiser Health News

Surprise, surprise, it was Richard Nixon - a Republican. Somehow liberals think Republicans are against universal access to healthcare, which is preposterous, as well as ignorant. We want a good healthcare system just as much as liberals do. But we want one we can afford.

Good grief, sometimes I want to bash my head against a wall. We are in the midst of a horrible recession that has gone on for years now and has negatively affected millions and millions of people - to say nothing of the negative global affeccts. The primary reason we are in this recession is a people and government that cannot seem to live within their means. You know, I am old enough to remember a time when people wanted something, but said "I can't afford it". Whatever happened to those days? A universal healthcare plan is no different than anything else...we don't need the best money can buy...we need the best we can afford. Buying more than we can afford will only make our economic situation worse than it already is...


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

1) I thought $1500.00 / month for $5000.00 annual deductible for only me (husband gets free Indian Health Care as he is a member of the Chickasaw Indian Tribe) was high, but I was still trying to keep it -- But then on January 1st 2006, my insurance was cancelled completely. 

2) I have 2 brothers (actually half-brothers) that are younger but also have my wonderful Degenerative Joint Disease. Both have had multiple spinal surgeries. One had his 4th spinal fusion 2 months ago to try to keep him from becoming a paraplegic because he has nerves being destroyed by the disk degeneration in his back. He has already lost 100% of the use of one arm. My youngest brother (20 years my junior) is a 'junkie' from multiple unsuccessful surgeries and numerous prescriptions for pain meds. He is on Medical Marijuana in Colorado and several other drugs just to survive. He was a very good machinist until he became crippled by the family genes.

The first brother would work from his home on either his computer or the phone, but the only way he can get health care is to be on disability and SSI (I am eligible for Disability) that keeps him from working. Not only that, his wife has MS. Our laws have made more people not work than a poor work ethic. We hear about the welfare mothers that won't work, but I know many more people on disability and Medicaid from medical problems and they are prohibited from working or owning anything. 

You don't have a health care crisis until something beyond your control happens and then you find out just what you have.

3) People SHOULD be offended by the people that cheered about someone dying because they did not have insurance -- not because I repeated the TRUE story about them. I heard them cheer when I was listening to the debates.

4) Can you give me the number of the bill any Republican proposed? I cannot think of a single health care reform bill that was introduced by the Republicans during the Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton presidency, GWs two terms or this President's term. I have read vague suggestions or ideas but have not seen one concrete proposal with the details of how it would work. All I hear them do is bash everyone else's proposals or bills. Can you tell me of any proposal that Romney has made -- other than his own Massachusetts law that he proposed and was enacted that he has now tried to disown? Never mind that it was the bill that Obama pretty closely followed.

Is this bill perfect? Absolutely not. They pandered completely to the insurance companies so they would not mount a huge fight against it like they did with Hillary's ideas. The liberal left hates it. They wanted a Canadian or European style Universal Health Care solution. They all wanted a single payer system. My Liberal friends are not at all happy with this bill.

There is a lot of room for improvements -- like crossing state lines. I think that was done to keep insurance companies happy. 

Nothing in this bill will ration health care. Nothing stops those that can afford it from getting all of the 'Cadillac plans' they want to buy. I have not heard if people are going to be able to get off of 'Disability' and still get health care. That, alone, would get a lot of people back to work. 

Speaking of work, I got to get back to work and haul hay.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> Why does Obamacare not allow Competitive Shopping across State Lines?.


My understanding was the price should be same all over the states? Am I wrong?


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> You know, I am old enough to remember a time *when people wanted something, but said "I can't afford it"*. Whatever happened to those days?


Lol! Some still do. :wink:


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Cherie said:


> was high, but I was still trying to keep it -- But then on January 1st 2006, my insurance was cancelled completely.


In my state Blue Cross Blue Shield did this trick beginning of 2000th (don't remember the exact year). They opened up a "cheap" insurance (relatively cheap of course) for those with issues, and then a year or 2 later cancelled it completely leaving lots of people behind. Of course they got all data about people with preconditions, and simply refused right on spot when you tried to get into their plan after that. BTW, even though they are not supposed to share your medical data, the insurances still able to sneak around and get them.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

Cherie said:


> 4) Can you give me the number of the bill any Republican proposed?


Sure, here are a few, I honestly got tired of copying and pasting, there are actually about this many more :lol:

H.R. 20, Melanie Blocker Stokes Mom’s Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act

H.R. 46, Family Self Sufficiency Act

H.R. 577, Vision Care for Kids Act

H.R. 756, National Pain Care Policy Act

H.R. 908, Missing Alzheimer’s Disease Patient Alert Program Reauthorization

H.R. 1017, Chiropractic Care Available to All Veterans Act

H.R. 1253, Health Insurance Restrictions and Limitations Clarification Act

H.R. 1469, Child Protection Improvements Act

H.R. 1585, FIT Kids Act

H.R. 1933, A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery Center Act

H.R. 4626, Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act

H.R. 5712, Veterans’, Seniors’, and Children’s Health Technical Corrections Act

A lot are about Kids, but that right according to Libs, Republican want kids with Autism to suffer...... Libs really make it hard for me to not join in on their favorite pastime... name calling :lol: , but I try to have a civil debate, sometimes I regress, I am only Human 

Would you also like the 20 something JOBS BILLS that have passed the House and sitting on Reids Desk? I can provide those too :wink:


I do not listen to Rush or watch Fox News, I do my own research......


.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

kitten_Val said:


> My understanding was the price should be same all over the states? Am I wrong?


From what I have found, States still control their own pricing, I have about 900 more pages to go 


.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

While no one knows what they will have to pay, it is clear that premiums will continue to rise, and it is highly probable that the quality of care will decline. So, how this law "saves us all", I don't know. Below, an excerpt from the Huffington Post (a rather biased media outlet), describes how many people will not have to pay a penalty. Such a carefully crafted document could not POSSIBLY have made these "loopholes" by accident. 

full article: Health Care 'Tax' Would Average $1,000 A Year, Though Few Americans Will Pay 

"_According to the CBO's most recent estimates, *that leaves 26 million Americans in 2016 who will be uninsured and thus possibly liable for paying a penalty*. *But there are exemptions -- lots and lots of them.* American Indians will be exempt, as will be prisoners and illegal immigrants. So, too, will be people opposed for religious reasons. Workers with an income low enough that they don't have to file a tax return will be exempt as will be anyone whose premium would exceed a specific share of their income -- initially 8 percent._ "


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> I have about 900 more pages to go


You have to share with us all most important points when you are done reading!


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Don't forget MM,

The people who passed it do not have to use it either .....lol.......


.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

kitten_Val said:


> You have to share with us all most important points when you are done reading!


Mike would Banish me if I took up that much server space 


.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> I do not listen to Rush or watch Fox News, I do my own research......
> 
> 
> .


I always find this (having to identify ones thoughts as their own, and not controlled and provided by the media) as so sci-fi like. I never watch TV, am an independent, and vote as such. Yet, the TV addicts in the society seem to only be able to identify others in accordance w the "thoughts" that were injected into their brains from there latest TV fix - rendering them entirely unable to process the concept of "the individual". It's just creepy!!


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

32 million will become newly insured.
16 million new Medicaid beneficiaries
105 million Americans who no longer have a lifetime cap on insurance coverage.
3.1 million young people who are still covered under their parents insurance plans.
5.3 million seniors who have already SAVED 3.7 billion on prescription drugs.
Faceman, STG, Missy Maqy this is not a liberal or conservative issue.
It is a HEALTHCARE issue.
Even with this legislation which, by the way is now Law, 27 million people will not have insurance.
If anyone cannot see that the numbers that are posted will in the long run save this country money you are refusing to.
Not only will having insurance coverage release the Federal government from
providing emergency care to millions of people, it will increase productivity by catching diseases such as Cancer Diabetes, heart diesease, and others at earlier stages.
I have known people who have died from lack of preventive healthcare.
I for one will gladly pay more taxes if more people have access to meaningful medical care.
It is human nature to resist change.
Change however is needed to assure the health of millions of people.
More and better acces to medical care means a healthier population and economy. 
That is all the math I need to understand when it comes to human lives.
We will spend trillions to destroy our enemies.
Should we not spend trillions to ensure 300,000,000 million of us have access to healthcare.
Which by the way IMO is a right not a privelege. Shalom


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

This bill needs to be repeiled. It has already started to limit and ration health care. Seeing it with my Grandma.

This bill is also very intrusive. It gives the IRS/govt. more power then it has ever had. You are going to give the govt even more access to your bank accounts and all of your income. This is how they determen what exchange you will fit into and where you will have to get your insurance and such. Not good.

It is a one size fits all system. A 20 Yo male will have to buy the same HC Ins. as a 65yo woman.

It will also limit how much drug compains will spend in reserch. Think about it. Why would they risk all that money to come up with a new cancer drug and not be able to recope that money and make a bit more. For ever drug that makes it to market there are 10 that do not so they take a huge risk.

Best way to get affordable health care is tort reform, being able to cross state lines to get insurance, and pick only what you need. Just like car ins. Not sure why this is such a hard concept to get for the govt. They can not do things better then what the free market can do. When was the last time the Govt invented anything new? Build anything that we use everyday?


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

You have the right to peaceful assembly, where-by you are free to voice your opinion. The state does not have a right, on paper, to deprive you of your property. But, I can't find that "right to healthcare" you believe we all have, db. I _feel_ (which doesn't mean it is a right) there should be a system in place, but this law was far from a reasonable solution. 



It is _very _easy to design software for the IRS that will take out more tax dollars than owed on an individual and voluntary basis from those that have a burning desire to "gladly pay" more for any given social program. YET, I have yet to see any group peacefully assemble and demand that public servants pass a law to allow a "voluntary" increase in taxes on an individual basis to go to a given "program". Why is that?


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

I just wish those idiots in Washington would address the real problems that exist in healthcare instead of this socialist crap agenda stuff. That problem being COST. I had to go the ER last week for a cut on my head to see if it needed stitches. I was in the ER for 20 minutes, didn't need stiches. PA (never saw a doctor) put ointment on it and two bandaides. I had to pay a $100 copay and the bill was an additional $250. How the hell does a few squirts of ointment and two bandaides come to $350????? That's what they need to get to the bottom of. If it had been $50 or so for a consulation and $5 for the "treatment", anybody, insurance or not, could pay for that. Our system is so broken, and they don't want to do squat about it.


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

Puck you're paying for the building and the huge collection of staff. It was my understanding that your Supreme Court passed that an insurance company cannot turn you down for a pre existing condition. We are all destined to die, that was carved in stone when we were born.


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

Saddlebag said:


> Puck you're paying for the building and the huge collection of staff.


Pretty sure I'm paying for over priced malpractice insurance and uninsured people, most of whom aren't supposed to be in my country anyway. I get that mistakes happen and people die. It's sad and I understand that nothing can bring them back. But how does that justify these 20 million dollar lawsuits that are brought everyday? There needs to be a cap on this stuff. 

By the way, how is Obamacare planning on taxing the illegals who don't buy our mandated insurance? Guess they still get to continue on their free ride while I get to work longer hours to pay for them?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy may according to the Talmud a Jew is forbidden to live anywhere there is no physican.
BT Sanhedrin 17 b " one is not entitled to refuse medical treatment".
Exodus 21:19 Jews are commanded to heal a person that they have caused injury to.
The preamble to the Declaratioin of Independence states that all men have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This is based on the Hebrew Bible.
Jews are also commanded to visit and comfort the sick.
Missy May i do not intend to bring religion into this debate and I understand that not everyone believes as I do.
However my religion has shaped how I think and live my life.
Therefore I believe Healthcare is a Right. Shalom


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> 32 million will become newly insured.
> 16 million new Medicaid beneficiaries
> 105 million Americans who no longer have a lifetime cap on insurance coverage.
> 3.1 million young people who are still covered under their parents insurance plans.
> ...


32 Million newly Insured but 27 million still will not have Insurance after teh Law is fully Implemented.... for an estimated cost of a 1.76 Trillion dollars over 10 years? I can guarantee that will double in the end.

16 Million new Medicade? Medicade is issued by the State, why the heck does The Federal Government get involved, Besides this will almost double Medicade recipients, half the States in the US are almost bankrupt now.

105 Million with no lifetime Cap... That could have been easily fixed without Obamacare

3.1 Million adults still treated as Children ... hmmmmm, is this needed?

Liberal or Conservative issue? When Bush passes the Prescription Drug Benefit Plan who went wacko? Libs....
Libs only want anything if it is their wa.
Seriously, look at some more facts, it was the Republicans who passed almost all types of Equal and Civil Rights Laws.... 

Insurance coverage releasing the Federal Gvt (taxpayers) form providing care to millions...lol... where do you think Obamacare money is coming from? THE TAXPAYER

People have died from lack of Healthcare? Yes and people with All the money in the world have died too... Farrah Fawcett, Michael Landon to name a few.

I already stated I would pay a few more dollars in taxes to help others, just the same as I think anyone would, that is not the issue..

I am a realist, Money does not grow on trees, 49 million are on Food Stamps, 18 Million are un-employed, 12 Million have lost their Homes, 20 Million have lost their Life Savings, 30 million are working for 20-40% less than what the used to make 5 years ago. More than half of the people in the US are in debt from CC over 10k, people are barley feeding their families now and you Libs want to add to the Tax Burden? Drive Small Companies out of Business? Borrow more Money from China? Need I go on? It would not matter, Truth and Reality are just not in the mindset of a Liberal.

Why not work on Jobs 1st? 24 Bills that would actually help the Economy and give American a Chance to afford the new Higher Prices for Insurance that IS COMING and you Libs let Reid sit on them for years while you play with a Pipe Dream called Obamacare that is not reality. It has nothing to do with Controlling Costs! It will only double or triple them!


I have already mentioned some real ways to keep Healthcare affordable and so have others but....

Almost all of your statement are Talking Points, have you actually done research on your own or read any of the 2,409 pages of Obamcare?

As so many have stated in this Thread there are much deeper implications of Obamacare, are so imbedded in the Liberal Philosophy you cannot see the Real Facts anywhere in the 2,409 pages of this Obamanation?


.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> Missy may according to the Talmud a Jew is forbidden to live anywhere there is no physican.
> BT Sanhedrin 17 b " one is not entitled to refuse medical treatment".
> Exodus 21:19 Jews are commanded to heal a person that they have caused injury to.
> The preamble to the Declaratioin of Independence states that all men have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
> ...


DB, I too believe in the same Old Testament, to an extent as I believe the New Testament overules much of the Old, no offense meant in this. We all have our beliefs.
Jesus teaches us to care for the sick and elderly, but He also says to take care of your Family 1st, how much can one give of their hard work to care for others before it effects your Family and your Life... is that not part of this issue also?

The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution....lol....
*The Declaration says America has* "the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." *from England.....*. 


.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

STG having 27 million uninsured is better than having 59 million.
Extending coverage for adult children until they are financially able to afford their own is good legislation .
Once again you are insisting on playing the partisian politics rampant on Capital Hill.
The affordable Healthcare Act is LAW.
Upheld by all three branches of our government.
Millions will now be covered by insurance.
Funny that you neglected to bring up the 3 billion in savings that seniors have enjoyed. That is very telling. 
It proves you are more willing to argue than to accept reality. Shalom


----------



## MyBoyPuck (Mar 27, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> .
> Extending coverage for adult children


What the hell is an adult child??? In this country you are an adult at age 18. They can get jobs and pay for their own healthcare like the rest of us. 
What kind of lazy country have we become that we expect 26 year olds to still be living with mommy & daddy? 

dbarabians, if you're so hell bent of insisting everyone have health insurance, pay for it yourself. I'm sick of having my hard earned money go to everyone else. This country has gone from a hard working population to a handout for the lazy. 

And BTW, healthcare was never voted into law. At the time the Obama administration pushed it through, they did not have the votes in the house. I know this because the swing seat was from my state. It was a mid-term election to replace someone who had to retire for reasons I can't remember. My very blue liberal state elected a republican for the sole intention of sending someone there to stop the law from passing. I don't know how this was "pushed through" as they say, but it was not passed by congress in the traditional sense.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

STG Your beliefs are valid and I respect them.
However the Declaration of Independnce states that " We are endowed by our Creator with certain Unalienable rights of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not from England.
My minor was in American History not that I'm an expert but i enjoy using that knowledge my parents spent a lot of money on. LOL
I meant that as a joke not bragging.
Now that the AFA is law we as citizens need to urge our elected officals to cooperate and enhance this legislation.
If we do not then they will do nothing. Shalom


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

MY boy puck, I pay my taxes. I work for myself. I own a business.
Since my father died and I inherited property and income I have not recieved a refund since 1985. So I and every other american pay for healthcare for the uninsured already.
Would I complain if my taxes were increased. No
Shalom


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> STG having 27 million uninsured is better than having 59 million.
> Extending coverage for adult children until they are financially able to afford their own is good legislation .
> Once again you are insisting on playing the partisian politics rampant on Capital Hill.
> The affordable Healthcare Act is LAW.
> ...


59 Million? OK... that is debatable, where is the response to making Healthcare Actually Affordable?, the response to Jobs so people can pay for it?

3.1 Million Adults, insured till 26, why not 50? when does personal responsibility go into effect?

Partisan? I voted Democrat a few times, not all are Trash 

3 Billions in savings to Seniors? Yes I did bring that up, when Bush passed the HUGE saving for Seniors he was mocked and called every name in the book by the Left.

Argue? Pot calling the kettle black...lol... 

You picked a couple of points out of a whole page to respond as an argument not a debate, one was even answered already.

Many have posted proof of the fallacies of this Law as I have.

All I have seen is Talking Points of dis-proportions, so maybe it is not a debate 


There is a big difference from what I see in the Liberal Mentality, and I am not saying this is you... but a generalization that I have seen from others including my Liberal friends.

Liberals think that they can save the world using other peoples money, but they forget that one day that money will run out. I would say 16 Trillion in Debt means we have run out.
They forget that personal responsibility is not only a Right, but a Duty. Taking from others is Theft, no matter what the cause. Yes, certain things are needed to run a Government and provide Security.
Hard work never hurt anyone, having two jobs to support yourself or your family.
Welfare of any kind is a gift not a Right.

.


----------



## Ladytrails (Jul 28, 2010)

kitten_Val said:


> Cherie, I very much agree with lots of what you are saying. As someone with family members with precondition who worked for the employer that didn't provide the insurance I'm very well aware of what you are saying. But my question again IF you have a precondition how much will you be paying for the private insurance under this law? So far I have NOT seen the numbers. I have a bad feeling that the rates still will be outrageous. If I'm wrong - that's great.


Kitten, I work in the insurance industry and my understanding is that they are restacking, if you will, the rating 'bands'. This means that the very ill or old, who used to pay very high premiums, will pay less. The very young and very healthy, who used to pay about $60/month in our policies, will pay something like $300 each - a five fold increase. The reason is that their dollars are subsidizing the very ill/expensive citizens' healthcare premiums. Now, all that would be fine -- except for the mandate/tax and the other administrative costs imposed by the law. Specifically, there is not a proportionate incentive to go buy insurance, either as an employer or an individual. The tax is waaaayyy less than the premium would be. People will say, I'll just pay the penalty/tax - forget buying insurance! Hospitals in my area say that their plan is to put clipboards with insurance applications into the ambulances. That way, people are 'insured' when they arrive in the ER after that car accident or heart attack. They don't have to buy until they need the insurance; due to 'guaranteed issue' the insurance companies have to take them, and then the sick person will cancel the insurance as soon as they get well. So, we pay $50K for 2 months of hospital and health care but will only get maybe $1000 in premiums, before the sick person cancels the policy. The penalty/tax goes to the government - it DOES NOT HELP THE HOSPITALS OR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES cover the cost of the healthcare for those who flaunt the law. So, just like any other illegal activity, those who want to flaunt the law will, and those who are obedient will comply. The penalties are so low that people will do the financial math, buy when they need it, and pay the tax if they don't.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Missy may according to the Talmud a Jew is forbidden to live anywhere there is no physican.
> BT Sanhedrin 17 b " one is not entitled to refuse medical treatment".
> Exodus 21:19 Jews are commanded to heal a person that they have caused injury to.
> The preamble to the Declaratioin of Independence states that all men have the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
> ...


No, I do not believe it is at all agreed on that the author of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" based the phrase on the Hebrew bible. Be that what it may, the subject at hand is a "law", not a philosophical position. So, the word "right" takes on "legal" meaning - especially when the failure to comply w the "law" has defined "penalties" - for some, that is. I am sure it is not a "right", but I feel it is the "right thing to do" to ensure people have access to health care. My position does not at all require that I believe that the law in question is the only way to achieve that goal.

It seems I remember the jewish religion being rather clear that it should not be a "borrower nation". I may be wrong. Whatever the case, the constitution is like most bibles, it is not meant to be taken "ala carte".


----------



## Ladytrails (Jul 28, 2010)

I think one of the most surprising things I've learned from the Supreme Court decision talk is that the very population who was intended to be most helped, will not be. Specifically, those who are the working poor - too far above the poverty level to be eligible for 'free' insurance, yet too poor to be able to afford to buy their own (especially after the rates increase for healthy and young people, as they will under Obama-care). If the 30 states do not opt to take on the financial burden associated with the expanded Medicaid program offered/required under Obamacare, these folks are left in the cold. They would have been eligible for the 'free' or subsidized health insurance but won't be if their states do not pick up the tab and opt in for the expanded program under Obamacare. (This is mentioned and described nicely by Faceman). To add insult to injury, this surprised group of people will also be subject to the penalty/tax if they do not purchase the insurance as required by the mandate. This is a terrible issue and under Obamacare there is no remedy. The federal government cannot afford to fund all the additional costs of Medicaid expansion to this band of working poor, and they will get no relief by the law which leaves this access to healthcare yet again outside their grasp. Now, if they were illegals in this country, THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE PENALTY/TAX AS THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT. I do not get this logic...I would rather see us pay taxes to take care of these folks first, before the illegals are given better access to healthcare than our own working citizens. JMHO.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> STG Your beliefs are valid and I respect them.
> However the Declaration of Independnce states that " We are endowed by our Creator with certain Unalienable rights of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not from England.
> My minor was in American History not that I'm an expert but i enjoy using that knowledge my parents spent a lot of money on. LOL
> I meant that as a joke not bragging.
> ...


I was not there in 1776 or a mind reader, but I can only guess the Declaration refereed to Independence from England as it is sated in the Declaration.

"We are endowed by our Creator with certain Unalienable rights of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" 

If we stayed British Citizens we would forgone those rights God Gave us, we would be Slaves to England, much as we have become Slaves now...... Our Congressmen and many other Elected Officials no longer work for us, 80% of them are more interested in getting re-elected.... JMHO 

"That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown."

To me that looks like we Declared Independence from England


.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

Ladytrails said:


> I think one of the most surprising things I've learned from the Supreme Court decision talk is that the very population who was intended to be most helped, will not be. Specifically, those who are the working poor - too far above the poverty level to be eligible for 'free' insurance, yet too poor to be able to afford to buy their own (especially after the rates increase for healthy and young people, as they will under Obama-care). If the 30 states do not opt to take on the financial burden associated with the expanded Medicaid program offered/required under Obamacare, these folks are left in the cold. They would have been eligible for the 'free' or subsidized health insurance but won't be if their states do not pick up the tab and opt in for the expanded program under Obamacare. (This is mentioned and described nicely by Faceman). To add insult to injury, this surprised group of people will also be subject to the penalty/tax if they do not purchase the insurance as required by the mandate. This is a terrible issue and under Obamacare there is no remedy. The federal government cannot afford to fund all the additional costs of Medicaid expansion to this band of working poor, and they will get no relief by the law which leaves this access to healthcare yet again outside their grasp. Now, if they were illegals in this country, THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE PENALTY/TAX AS THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT. I do not get this logic...I would rather see us pay taxes to take care of these folks first, before the illegals are given better access to healthcare than our own working citizens. JMHO.


Exactly,

The tax for not having Insurance is 95.00 per year or 1% of your Income, whichever is higher.

Let's say someone makes 40k a year and has no Insurance, penalty is 400.00..... wow he saves 400 per month, then has a problem. Two options: One) pays the 400.00 for Insurance and 5 days later has his Gall Bladder take out, Insurance company pay 21,874.00 ( i know had mine out last month) Option two) it is an Emergency, has and is rushed to Hospital, Tax Payers pay for it because he is not insured, goes Bankrupt or pay 20.00 a month to the Hospital for life....

Any way you look at Obamare it is an Obamanation


.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

Thing is that calling this the "Afordable Healthcare act" is like saying a radler would make a good pet.

You are adding millions more to a HC system what is already strained. You limit or decrease the amount of payment to the Dr so they are leaving the profesion. Fewer are taking up medicin. This is a HUGE problem. This bill does nothing to address that.

Then add in all the other factors that are in this bill. A panel of 15 people who are not accountable or elected to deside what is and is not cover. Already seeing this in my state with my Grandma. Think that can not happen? Already is as this "Law" is being implimented.

If you really want to have effective change this law MUST be repeiled. Then start with what WILL fix the system. 

Tort reform. Ins for malpractics makes up the large majority of their cost. Limit what people can sue a Dr. for and the amount and this cost drops. Their cost drops so does ours. Buying ins. over state lines. This would promote compitition between comp. What does compitition do? Lowers rates. Looka t the phone comp. and Car Ins. Being able to buy just what you want or need when it comes to ins. Younger people only really need catistrofic HC Ins. Other may want or need more so they should be able to get it. Getting good compitition into the Ins. business is the best way to lower rates.

Have hospitels and Dr offices list prices up front just like a Mc D's. That way when you go in you know what you are paying. So you can make an informed choice of what you may or may not need. 

There are so many ways to lower cost it is not funny but the min. you get the Govt involved in this way. The cost are not going to go down they will only go up. Drug comp. are going to stop doing reserch into new drugs b/c it no longer makes sence to take all that risk. There will be no pay back for them b/c of this. Of all the new drugs and brake throughs in med. over the past 30 years the vast majority came from US drug companies. Just think no new cancer drugs hart meds little purple pills. Non of that. Free enterprise got us all those things not the Govt.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May Jefferson stated in The Declaration that our rights were not given to us by the crown but by 'OUR CREATOR"
STG I do understand that we fought a war with England and gained our independence.
It is our G-D given rights that we declared independent of any government.
By the way nice saddles on the link. Any of that work yours? Shalom


----------



## RunSlideStop (Apr 21, 2012)

Blah blah insurance blah blah healthcare blah blah mandate. 

Canada is socialist. This is communist. I recommend folks look up the Tenth Amendment and remember that we are NOT governed by the Federal Government. We are the real federal government. Check out this video:






Sigh.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> Missy May Jefferson stated in The Declaration that our rights were not given to us by the crown but by 'OUR CREATOR"


This is not at all the same as citing the Hebrew bible. Jefferson was quite literate - if he had meant to cite the Hebrew bible, I am quite sure he would have stated so in the _multiple_ documents he prepared.

However, I am almost positive that the Hebrew bible DOES say not to be a borrower nation.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> Missy May Jefferson stated in The Declaration that our rights were not given to us by the crown but by 'OUR CREATOR"
> STG I do understand that we fought a war with England and gained our independence.
> It is our G-D given rights that we declared independent of any government.
> By the way nice saddles on the link. Any of that work yours? Shalom


Our Creator gave us Free Will, He gave us Life. 
He also made it so that we had to Earn our way in Life.
At least that is what I believe, having given us Free Will, to me that means we have a choice.
If you really want to look at the Religion aspect, our Creator Heals Sickness and give others the Talent to Heal.
It does say we are to be our bothers keeper, does that mean Blood Brother or Neighbors? 
It also says we are to help the sick and old, we do that already that, could we do it better, probably, *where does it say in the Bible we have to pay for healthcare for the Able Bodied Person?*
*Are saying all 59 Million not on Insurance are sick and old?*
It also says Our Family; Father, Mother, Siblings, Children our 1st in our Life, as I mentioned earlier If 50-75 million people are doing the best they can to pay for their Family how do you expect them to pay for others Healthcare?

Bringing Religion into this opens a whole big can of worms, do you really want that? You talk about 9k dollars a month to help your Aids patients, if Religion were brought into this discussion, how many people would have Aids if they followed the Old Testament?

No, lets not bring Religion into this debate, it will only get messy :wink:

This Debate is about The Supreme Court upholding a Stupid Law, Just Remember Slavery was a Law... it was a Stupid Law.

Being a Law does not make it correct, this Affordable Care Act, Like Slavery is something that needs to be Repealed.

We need a Law that makes Healthcare Affordable, this one does not for the Middle Class, It does not make things affordable for probably half of the Lower Income either. 


.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I do not intend to bring religion into this debate.
It is MY belief that Healthcare is a G-D given right. An undisputible one at that. 
Again this is why I and most Jews that I know believe the same way as I do. That will not change. We are commanded by G-D to feed clothe and shelter those that cannot do so themselves.
Again this is the basis of MY beliefs. I am not trying to Preach if you will just explaining MY beliefs.
STG if most of the clients that take HIV meds can be stabliized they can return to the workplace. Especially know that employers MUST offer healthcare insurance and pre excisting conditions no longer prevent coverage.
I have a niece that switched jobs last year.
Both she and her employer knew about her pregnancey.
However the employee insurance refused to pay for ay DR visits and the birth because it was deemed a pre excisting condition.
That is ludicrus.
Now insurance companies do not get to decide who is worthy or not
Shalom


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

Food for thought…
I was insured when my son was born with a plethora of health conditions. They were severe enough that I had to quit my job to care for him as he could not be looked after by anyone other than myself or a nurse. Yeah, lost my insurance too after the cobra payments were too high.

When I purchased private health insurance for him I hid nothing and paid all my premiums on time, which were not cheap as well as my co-pays.
I also used some of the benefits as my son needed them. Nothing huge or out of the ordinary and no hospital stays… but after just one year the insurance company dropped my baby like a hot potato.

Because of pre-existing I could not get private insurance anywhere else (and beleive me, i tried!) nor was I on welfare and could not afford his medications. Medications that without he would get very sick and need surgery. 

So, what is a parent to do when they are being responsible and try to insure their child and are told to go take a hike?? :-(
What is the answer for those of us who are hard working contributing members of society.... who are not illegal, lazy, or irresponsible, yet our children are still denied and are considered not worthy? 
Again, just a food for thought item here. Not directed at any one post and I'm not looking to get ripped either…..


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

Lockwood said:


> Food for thought…
> I was insured when my son was born with a plethora of health conditions. They were severe enough that I had to quit my job to care for him as he could not be looked after by anyone other than myself or a nurse. Yeah, lost my insurance too after the cobra payments were too high.
> 
> When I purchased private health insurance for him I hid nothing and paid all my premiums on time, which were not cheap as well as my co-pays.
> ...


 
While I feel for you I really do and I do think that is wrong that as long as you pay your premiums they should not be able to kick you off.

However I see this happening anyway. Keep in mind that privet healthcare b/c of this bill is going to be very very expensive. It also calls for a luxtury tax on high end polisies. So if you can not afford the privet Ins. What are you left with? The helthcare exchanges in each state. So now who is calling the shots here? You? Your Dr? No a panel of people who answer to no one. Not you not your Dr not anyone. So if they choice to not cover your son you are in the same boat and if they deam the cost to be too high....

If you think this can not happen think again. It already is. 

We (The US) need HC reform. However this is NOT it.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> I do not intend to bring religion into this debate.
> It is MY belief that Healthcare is a G-D given right. An undisputible one at that.
> Again this is why I and most Jews that I know believe the same way as I do. That will not change. We are commanded by G-D to feed clothe and shelter those that cannot do so themselves.
> Again this is the basis of MY beliefs. I am not trying to Preach if you will just explaining MY beliefs.
> ...


 
I will not debate the God given right to HC. I will however debate if that right is something that has to be given through the Govt. I say NO. 

First you sight the Hebrew bible basically the Old Test. However you cannot just take the OT and not also take the New Test. As prophecy in the OT was fulfilled in the new. If you do not look at the NT and only go by the OT then I ask you. Are you also making scarifies to God? Are you Kosher? Do you keep a Kosher kitchen? Do you follow all the OT laws? If not then....

As for taking care of others. Yes. I too believe we are commanded to care for others. However not in the way you are talking about. This care needs to come through the Church not the Govt. Jesus said to give unto Caesar what is Caesar and give on to God what is Gods.

This law and other laws made by out Govt. takes what is Caesars and a lot more. I and you and everyone else can do a lot better with OUR money then the Govt. can.

Again there is need for HC and Ins. reform. However this bill/law is not it. It does not change what is really needed. I just off the top of my head can think of several ways that can make HC affordable for all. Also ways to keep your HC even if you change jobs and so on. It is not even hard to do these things. Would take the Govt out of our HC choices and make thing A LOT more affordable for all.


----------



## littleamy76 (Jun 30, 2011)

I'm not happy with this at all. Not one bit. Let's put it this way, I'm a smoker. I know I need to quit but I would like to quit on my own terms when I am ready. I am considered healthy. My bloodpressure and cholosterol is fine. I don't go to the doctors very often. I only go when I feel like something is seriously wrong or to get regular checkups. My employer just got bought out a few months ago by a very large and well known company and we got slapped in the face by some changes. Change #1, I am now paying $136 more every 2 weeks for my new insurance even though we were told that the new company would cover the additional costs between our old costs and our new. I still need to find out if this is in fact true or not. Change # 2, smoking ban is being put in place on Monday so there will be no smoking on the company's property. Change # 3, In order to get a "discount" on our insurance premiums we have to complete Wellness programs such as get a Biometric Screening, go through coaching, and smoking cessessation programs. Change # 4 (which really ****es me off), If we do not stop smoking by January 1st, we will get charged an extra $25/month "Tobacco Surcharge Fee" and the fee will increase every year. I hate the fact that I am literally being forced to stop. I don't need the government to step in and tell me how I should live my life.


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

What IRRITATES me is that NO ONE seems to know what's in this monstrosity, yet it affects EVERYONE! It didn't fall from the sky and magically land on members of congress' desks. People wrote it, people know what's in it, Congress should have gathered them together and asked... 

I want to put the cost factor, government intrusion and religious issues aside for a moment and address the access/availability factor - specifically doctors and new patients. I'm not in the healthcare profession, so I'm looking at this from a personal experience perspective. 

I'm not sure that having health insurance is the same as having healthcare. Nor do I see accessibility synonymous with availability. When we moved here, I had a devil of a time finding a doctor that was both taking new patients and accepted our insurance coverage. What happens when millions more are added to this equation? If you can't find a doctor that accepts the terms of the policy you have, what do you do? Does having new and preventive care coverage matter if you can't find a doctor who will take you? What good is a bus pass (accessibility) if there are no seats available on the bus?


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

Horse Poor said:


> What IRRITATES me is that NO ONE seems to know what's in this monstrosity, yet it affects EVERYONE!
> *Well almost everyone. It does not affect members of congress the house of reps or the president in any way. They have their own HC so will not have to have any part of this past forcing it on us.*
> 
> It didn't fall from the sky and magically land on members of congress' desks. People wrote it, people know what's in it, Congress should have gathered them together and asked...
> ...


This is going to be a huge problem. More so then anything. There are not enough Dr to go around now. I know of several who are leaving the profesion b/c of this bill and I am sure there will be more. 

It is true that it is very very hard to find a Dr. Even my mom had a hard time when her Dr retired. I have has to switch Palmanoliges 3 times b/c of my Ins over the past few years. I am now back with the original one I had and really like but that could change if for some reason she desides to stop taking my ins. 

There are just so many problems with this bill/law and what is there does not take care of any of the real problems.


----------



## littleamy76 (Jun 30, 2011)

Horse Poor said:


> What IRRITATES me is that NO ONE seems to know what's in this monstrosity, yet it affects EVERYONE! It didn't fall from the sky and magically land on members of congress' desks. People wrote it, people know what's in it, Congress should have gathered them together and asked...
> 
> I want to put the cost factor, government intrusion and religious issues aside for a moment and address the access/availability factor - specifically doctors and new patients. I'm not in the healthcare profession, so I'm looking at this from a personal experience perspective.
> 
> I'm not sure that having health insurance is the same as having healthcare. Nor do I see accessibility synonymous with availability. When we moved here, I had a devil of a time finding a doctor that was both taking new patients and accepted our insurance coverage. What happens when millions more are added to this equation? If you can't find a doctor that accepts the terms of the policy you have, what do you do? Does having new and preventive care coverage matter if you can't find a doctor who will take you? What good is a bus pass (accessibility) if there are no seats available on the bus?


That is a good question. I haven't had any trouble finding doctors that take my insurance but I have seen signs posted at various places saying that they do not accept such and such insurance and it has been in the news the past few years about major hospitals around my area not accepting certain insurance as well due to contract negotations and such. So what happens if there is an emergency and the hospital you end up going to won't accept your insurance? You will get screwed.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

littleamy76 said:


> That is a good question. I haven't had any trouble finding doctors that take my insurance but I have seen signs posted at various places saying that they do not accept such and such insurance and it has been in the news the past few years about major hospitals around my area not accepting certain insurance as well due to contract negotations and such. So what happens if there is an emergency and the hospital you end up going to won't accept your insurance? You will get screwed.


 
Try finding a Dr if you have Medicar or Medicaid. Next to imposible.

Keep in mind that there is NOTHING in this law that say a Dr has to take your ins. So if you end up in one of the govt exchanges you are going to have a very very very hard time finding a Dr who will take that ins.

If you end un in a Hospital with an Emergency. The hospictal will treat you to the point you are stable. Your ins will be billed as you will be for out of network and you will be transfered to a hospital that takes your Ins. Have been there. It is not a big deal. Although I have a feeling that is going to change.


----------



## Ladytrails (Jul 28, 2010)

These last few posts hit on some of the major issues - this law is not healthcare reform. It really does nothing to increase access to healthcare providers. There are over 120 panels set forth in the law to make sure that you only get what the government wants you to get. It is health insurance reform. The politicians knew that if they talked about controlling your doctors and hospitals, there would be a revolt. However, nobody loves insurance companies so they are fair game. In the new world, if you buy insurance you want from an insurance company, even if it's cheaper than those you might find on the law's approved Exchange, YOU WILL NOT GET CREDIT FOR COMPLYING WITH THE LAW AND YOU WILL STILL BE TAXED/PENALIZED. This is one way to try to force the insurance companies out of business....They won't be able to sell policies that actually meet the needs of people who do not need all the law's mandated coverage, like birth control or pregnancy coverage, because if people buy them they will still be taxed by the government. You only get credit for complying with the law if you buy one of the policies that covers everything that Uncle Barack thinks your neighbors need. Behind closed doors, Nancy Pelosi and her cronies stated explicity that their intention is to eventually force the insurance companies to go under so that there is no choice other than government-controlled healthcare. 

In the future, some of us in the industry are predicting that the government moves forward with what they also want to do, which is to require by law that all physicians in the US accept Medicare or else they can't be in the networks that provide heathcare for the Exchange products. This means that when Medicare drops their payments again, and drs want to stop seeing Medicare patients because they don't get paid enough to cover their costs (a big problem in itself), they will be between a rock and a hard place. The only option left is to be a provider for the luxury policies....and there aren't many of us left in the US who can afford those policies. If it goes to government healthcare, the physicians will be employees of the government and they will be told WHERE and HOW they will be practicing. This is for real, folks - the government can do this. This is going to be a mess. I, for one, do not want the people who couldn't even execute 'CASH FOR CLUNKERS' to be in control of the entire health care industry eceonomy. Do you?


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> I do not intend to bring religion into this debate.
> Shalom


Of all the posters, db, you are one of the very few that almost always does bring religion into the discussion. If you don't intend to - do you do so by accident on a consistant basis?


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Horse Poor said:


> I'm not sure that having health insurance is the same as having healthcare. Nor do I see accessibility synonymous with availability. When we moved here, I had a devil of a time finding a doctor that was both taking new patients and accepted our insurance coverage. What happens when millions more are added to this equation? If you can't find a doctor that accepts the terms of the policy you have, what do you do? Does having new and preventive care coverage matter if you can't find a doctor who will take you? What good is a bus pass (accessibility) if there are no seats available on the bus?


I've read about this concern quite a bit on Internet. I have a feeling that medical providers are as lost about the whole bill as some of us (not saying all, but I'm definitely lost). 

Hmmmmmm.... May be it's time for me to get to 900 pages and read through all of them to get at least some understanding....


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

Since parts of this bill are already in play you can see the writing on the wall so to speak. Not to mention what was up even before this bill.

If you think having an Ins card gets you HC give this a try. Call around to differnt Drs offices and tell them your GP retired and you are looking for a new Dr. Tell then you have Medicare or Medicaid as Medicaid is what the vast majority will end up with that do not have Health Ins now. They will end up on the state run exchanges wich is expanded Medicare. Call around and see how many Drs take these ins plans.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I noticed oral surgeons in this area require full payment up front - but they will file insurance claims for you. That is rather clever. They have no want for business. Doctors don't do this b/c they want the unnecessary visits from hypochondriacs with insurance.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

nrhareiner said:


> Since parts of this bill are already in play you can see the writing on the wall so to speak. Not to mention what was up even before this bill.


nrhr, I got email some time back with some parts from those 900 pages, and those parts looked quite off. I've been waiting on decision to be made before spending my time to go and look if what I received was indeed true. My biggest concern is I'm not sure the Congress actually read through _all_ those 900 pages. There are points that were addressed and discussed heavily all over the internet, but those points probably take 20-30 pages. I really wonder what the rest of the pages have to say.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Missy May said:


> I noticed oral surgeons in this area require full payment up front - but they will file insurance claims for you. That is rather clever. They have no want for business. Doctors don't do this b/c they want the unnecessary visits from hypochondriacs with insurance.


MM, is oral surgeon paid by medical insurance? I had a feeling it's part of the dental. (I may be wrong though)

BTW, most dentists in my area take PPO only (no to HMO). So you have to pay quite a bit out of your pocket anyway.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

Missy May said:


> I noticed oral surgeons in this area require full payment up front - but they will file insurance claims for you. That is rather clever. They have no want for business. Doctors don't do this b/c they want the unnecessary visits from hypochondriacs with insurance.


 
Thing is that an Oral Surgeon can get away with doing this. Lets face it there are not a large call for them nor are there a lot of them out there.

Now take a GP. This is what most people are going to need. There is a large need for GP and there are not many out there. They are the first leg of defence with in the HC area. Yet they are the lowest paid the most over worked Drs out there. With this bill these are the first Drs who will be bailing out. With the cost of THEIR Ins. and cost of keeping their doors open and the cost that the Govt. wish to make they will run for the hills.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Is GP "general practice" aka "family doctor"?


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

kitten_Val said:


> MM, is oral surgeon paid by medical insurance? I had a feeling it's part of the dental. (I may be wrong though)
> 
> BTW, most dentists in my area take PPO only (no to HMO). So you have to pay quite a bit out of your pocket anyway.


My medical (BC/BS) covers part of it - depending on what it is. But, think about it - no one goes to an oral surgeon unless they _have_ to. People shouldn't go to the dr unless they _have_ to, either. 

I am guessing that this would be perfectly legal for a doctor's office also - they are not denying insurance, they are simply exercising their right to determine how they will collect payment.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

kitten_Val said:


> Is GP "general practice" aka "family doctor"?


Ya sorry should have typed it all out. Trying to do several things and get through it all faster then I should.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

nrhareiner said:


> Thing is that an Oral Surgeon can get away with doing this. Lets face it there are not a large call for them nor are there a lot of them out there.
> 
> Now take a GP. This is what most people are going to need. There is a large need for GP and there are not many out there. They are the first leg of defence with in the HC area. Yet they are the lowest paid the most over worked Drs out there. With this bill these are the first Drs who will be bailing out. With the cost of THEIR Ins. and cost of keeping their doors open and the cost that the Govt. wish to make they will run for the hills.


Well, luckily my insurance does not require that I have a referal from my primary doctor in order to go to a specialist. This, I am sure, saves them a lot of money. Most people figure that if their ear hurts they need to see an ENT and shouldn't need to pay to see some diagnostician (i.e., doctor) so they can "refer them" them to one. Otherwise, a diagnostician does not just "look" at someone to make a diagnosis, they have 15-25 tests order so one has to go to a diagnostics lab and have those super costly tests performed. Generally, doctors order far more tests that is necessary in order to cover themselves "legally". But, since Obama, a lawyer and all, wouldn't want to limit the BAR's ability to sue w/o limits - he has not and will not address tort reform. Bush did...but was not successful as the most all of the senate are lawyers. On and on it goes.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

Thing is that is part of the problem. If your ear hurts does not mean you need to go see an ENT. It is a lot less expensive to go see a GP and rule out a simple ear infection which most likely is what it is then to go see an ENT and have them tell you the same things. A GP is about $75 and a ENT is about $300+ So what is $75 when the majority of the time it is something a GP can fix for the one time they need to refer you to the ENT.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> *STG having 27 million uninsured is better than having 59 million.*
> Extending coverage for adult children until they are financially able to afford their own is good legislation .
> Once again you are insisting on playing the partisian politics rampant on Capital Hill.
> The affordable Healthcare Act is LAW.
> ...


As to the first statement I bolded, Obamacare only resolves half the problem, so I assume you will agree that it is a half-assed plan.

Yes, Obamacare is law, but not for long. The first time Republicans control the White House and both houses, it will be history. Sorry 'bout that. Oh, by the way, I can't bring myself to call it "The Affordable Healthcare Act" - we can't afford it any more than you can afford to buy Israel.

As to the second statement I bolded, you have to be kidding. I am a senior, and thanks to your spendthrift radical liberal President, seniors are losing billions and billions of dollars in lost income from their investments and nest eggs. Any savings in healthcare cost, which will only be temporary in the first place once insurance and Medicare premiums go up, is a drop in the bucket compared to the lost income. Seniors can't risk their money in the stock market - you know what a CD pays these days? Less than 1%...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Now that the AFA is law we as citizens need to urge our elected officals to cooperate and enhance this legislation.
> If we do not then they will do nothing. Shalom


Here, let me correct that statement for you...

Now that the AFA is law, we as citizens need to urge our elected officials to repeal this legislation. If we do not they will do nothing.



There...much, much better...:clap:


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

nrhareiner said:


> Thing is that is part of the problem. If your ear hurts does not mean you need to go see an ENT. It is a lot less expensive to go see a GP and rule out a simple ear infection which most likely is what it is then to go see an ENT and have them tell you the same things. A GP is about $75 and a ENT is about $300+ So what is $75 when the majority of the time it is something a GP can fix for the one time they need to refer you to the ENT.


Point taken, however, in this specific example it is heavily dependant on the individual GP, the actual problem, and individual dr's rates. And, there is no real reason for a GP to have all the instrumentation an ENT does. In the end, it is probably better to go to the ENT.


----------



## Ladytrails (Jul 28, 2010)

Maybe I can help with a couple of clarifying comments. 

A family doctor (who could be a general practitioner, or of the specialty of internal medicine or family medicine doctor, or - for children - a pediatrician) generally is agreed upon by all to be the most effective healthcare provider for routine primary care. An earache is routine primary care. A draining and bleeding ear from a kid sticking a pointed object in his ear canal is maybe not routine and then an ENT is advisable. NHRA is right about the costs; it is under $100 versus over $250 in the KC area for primary care versus specialists. A family doctor (especially in the new patient centered medical home model) is going to organize your meds, your shots, your other illnesses, etc. A specialist is going to deal with just the one thing in front of him that is in scope for his specialty and at most, tell you to go somewhere else for the other conditions. A primary care doctor is going to try to work with you until and unless it is totally out of his scope and experience, and then he should coordinate with the other physicians he advises you to see. Some are better than others about this, I agree. 

Oral surgeons are generally not covered under medical insurance policies except for trauma or birth defects. For run of the mill wisdom teeth extractions or root canals, the insurance they will file for you is your dental insurance, not your medical insurance. Some of the citizens of the US do not have dental insuranace, surprise, surprise. These guys are not as much affected by the Obamacare law, therefore. They get their money up front because if they don't, they have to spend money on collecting their fees and the collection agencies take a huge chunk of the money.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Ladytrails said:


> Maybe I can help with a couple of clarifying comments.
> 
> A family doctor (who could be a general practitioner, or of the specialty of internal medicine or family medicine doctor, or - for children - a pediatrician) generally is agreed upon by all to be the most effective healthcare provider for routine primary care. An earache is routine primary care. A draining and bleeding ear from a kid sticking a pointed object in his ear canal is maybe not routine and then an ENT is advisable. NHRA is right about the costs; it is under $100 versus over $250 in the KC area for primary care versus specialists. A family doctor (especially in the new patient centered medical home model) is going to organize your meds, your shots, your other illnesses, etc. A specialist is going to deal with just the one thing in front of him that is in scope for his specialty and at most, tell you to go somewhere else for the other conditions. A primary care doctor is going to try to work with you until and unless it is totally out of his scope and experience, and then he should coordinate with the other physicians he advises you to see. Some are better than others about this, I agree.
> 
> Oral surgeons are generally not covered under medical insurance policies except for trauma or birth defects. For run of the mill wisdom teeth extractions or root canals, the insurance they will file for you is your dental insurance, not your medical insurance. Some of the citizens of the US do not have dental insuranace, surprise, surprise. These guys are not as much affected by the Obamacare law, therefore. They get their money up front because if they don't, they have to spend money on collecting their fees and the collection agencies take a huge chunk of the money.


Not all insurances work the same way. A primary, as you said, may not be a general practitioner, however, _some, not all,_ insurance companies require that one is refered to a specialist by whoever it is that one identifies as their primary. BC/BS does not work this way, but others _do_. I rarely ever go to the doctor, so I am not an expert. But, I have noticed that doctors are not always available the same day or even within the week. I am a full believer in specialized instrumentation as well as getting out of pain as soon as possible. There is a risk in delaying care and doubling bills by going to a primary first and not an ENT, if one has seriouse earache - or other "ear symptom"..... which was _only_ given as an example.

Many, _not all_, medical insurance plans cover some percentage of almost all the procedures one might go to an oral surgeon for as well as many one would go to the dentist for. Most oral surgeons _and dentist_ will file first with your medical and then with your dental insurance. I can assure you this is not an "opinion", it is a fact.

It is obviouse why oral surgeons collect up front. My point was not that they collect up front in an effort to eliminate unnecessary visits, but rather that as a result of this practice, "unnecessary" visits are all but eliminated. Perhaps you have never met, known, or heard of anyone that went to the doctor if they stubbed their left toe or got a sniffle...I have. However, as I pointed out..doctors would never _want_ to collect up front b/cit would reduce the number of "unnecessary visits" which dr's are, YeS... paid for by insurance....which was the point.


----------



## RunSlideStop (Apr 21, 2012)

Did anyone watch the video I posted? ... Anyone at all?


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

Missy May said:


> Not all insurances work the same way. A primary, as you said, may not be a general practitioner, however, _some, not all,_ insurance companies require that one is refered to a specialist by whoever it is that one identifies as their primary. BC/BS does not work this way, but others _do_. I rarely ever go to the doctor, so I am not an expert.
> 
> *This is the case with most Ins any more. You do not need to see a primary to see a specialist but there is a reason to have and use a primary. One is they are a clearing house to keep everything straight. I have 5 specialist that I see on a reg. bases. I also have a primary who I do not see all that often but he is CCed on everything that is done all test all meds. He is the one who can see if there are any cross overs that might not be good. I do not need to see him to get into any of the other Drs. However IF my ear hurts which it does from time to time I go see my primary even though I have an ENT in speed dial. Why? B/C is it less expensive for me my Ins company and so on. *
> 
> ...


So again lest do the math and I will use your ear as in this example. Lets say 5 people ear hurts. Out of those 5, 4 are simple ear infection which is the norm. Lets say they all went to an ENT at $300 each. That is $1500 an Ins company now has to pay out. Not to mention that it sets people back who NEED to see the ENT from getting in faster. Now lest say those same 5 people went to see their family Dr. Since 4 where just simple ear infections they got the same script that the ENT gave them and went home. The cost to the Ins comp. is, on the high side, $400 then lets take the 5th person. This person was something that did need an ENT. So now we have the $100 for the GP and he goes to see an ENT for $300. So now we have a totel of $800 to the ins comp vs $1500. Not to mention the difference in Co Pays. I know mine is more for a specialist vs a GP. No wonder Ins cost so much if people are doing this a lot.


I do under stand why you would want to go to the ENT but in reality it is hurting everyone. I people where more aware of what they where doing and the cost it might help. This is why I said in an earlier post that Drs need to list their prices like you would see at Mc D's This would help people make informed choices.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

RunSlideStop said:


> Did anyone watch the video I posted? ... Anyone at all?


I had to look back and find it...sorry I missed it the first time. It is rather long, I can't watch it in one sitting. BUT, what I have seen so far...:thumbsup:.

THANKS FOR SHARING!


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I question these dire prediction some have about our future.
Especially when made about a program that has yet to be fully implemented.
\Obama was elected with the promise of implementing reform in the industry.He made good on the promise.
Most american like all but the individual mandate that requires them to purchase insurance.
67% of the voters approve of the rest. That is telling.
Yes this legislation needs to be adjusted. It is not perfect.
But allowing insurance companies to choose who and when they will cover paying customers only benefited them. Not the public.
I must withdraw from this debate until later.
A serious matter has required my attention concerning my family.
I would like to address certain post but sadness has clouded my judgement and perhaps I can reply to them later.
If not enjoy the debate and thank you for distracting me for 30 minutes or so whilke reading yesterdays post. Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Missy May said:


> People shouldn't go to the dr unless they _have_ to, either.


I very much agree (except the preventing services like blood tests, screening, and alike, which I think should be done as they are recommended and be paid by insurance). 

BTW, talking about "have to" I know at least one family doctor in my area who make people on Medicaid/Medicare to come to his office at least once/month for "check up". And I'm talking about those who are NOT sick. I think that's something that should be traced and stopped, because it's nothing but pure making money from nothing.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

That is part of the problem and one that is not being addressed. Whe need REAL HC reform not this. This does nothing to addess the under lieing problems. Of which there are many.

As the end of the day if the Govt. ends up running HC in the US we are all in big trouble.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

nrhareiner said:


> Thing is that is part of the problem. If your ear hurts does not mean you need to go see an ENT. It is a lot less expensive to go see a GP and rule out a simple ear infection which most likely is what it is then to go see an ENT and have them tell you the same things. A GP is about $75 and a ENT is about $300+ So what is $75 when the majority of the time it is something a GP can fix for the one time they need to refer you to the ENT.


nrhr, I agree and disagree with you in same time. My insurance doesn't require a referral for me to go to the specialist (thank God!). I do go to one specialist a lot (because I have no choice) and asking a referral every time would be a nightmare. In my experience GP doctors are quite useless when you have a real problem (and so far I never went to the family doctor with something simple - it always required a specialist and just went directly). Moreover we had a bad experience with my mom when she went to family doctor (instead of going to the specialist as I tried to push her), and the diagnose given was wrong giving us all kinds of problems several months later when she had to go to specialist anyway and it got much worse than it should. Frankly I'd much rather to get an advice from the specialist when I feel something is really off than some "general" doctor not knowing much (and just to add, I do NOT go to the doctor unless there is a real need for it). But it's just me.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

nrhareiner said:


> I do under stand why you would want to go to the ENT but in reality it is hurting everyone.


Well, but more often than not you can NOT schedule the appointment like for tomorrow. So you have to schedule one with FD (family doctor) in 2 weeks (or month), and then have to schedule other one with the specialist (which can take even couple months or more). When you have something that can't wait that long, it doesn't sound like a smart way to go.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

kitten_Val said:


> nrhr, I agree and disagree with you in same time. My insurance doesn't require a referral for me to go to the specialist (thank God!). I do go to one specialist a lot (because I have no choice) and asking a referral every time would be a nightmare. In my experience GP doctors are quite useless when you have a real problem (and so far I never went to the family doctor with something simple - it always required a specialist and just went directly). Moreover we had a bad experience with my mom when she went to family doctor (instead of going to the specialist as I tried to push her), and the diagnose given was wrong giving us all kinds of problems several months later when she had to go to specialist anyway and it got much worse than it should. Frankly I'd much rather to get an advice from the specialist when I feel something is really off than some "general" doctor not knowing much (and just to add, I do NOT go to the doctor unless there is a real need for it). But it's just me.


I am not talking about every time. Beleive me I have 5 specilaist and only 1 do I need a referal everytime and it also has to be Oked through my Ins. I am talking about either the first time or if it is something simple like your ear hurts. As that was the example given. Most of the time it is just an infection. So why would you need an ENT for that? Also there are times that you do not know what is going on so how could you know what specialist to go to? I have been there.

The things is also that YOU need to take some responsibility for your health care too. If you go and they treat you and you do not start feeling better then you need to talk to them and say maybe I need to see a specialist for this or that.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

kitten_Val said:


> Well, but more often than not you can NOT schedule the appointment like for tomorrow. So you have to schedule one with FD (family doctor) in 2 weeks (or month), and then have to schedule other one with the specialist (which can take even couple months or more). When you have something that can't wait that long, it doesn't sound like a smart way to go.


 
Must be the area or somthing. I can get into my GP wiht in a day 2 at the most. All my specialist take 4-6 weeks with the exception of my Pulmanologest who sees me every 3-6 months. If I called and said I was not feeling very well and my breathing was getting worse. She would fit me in tomorrow but then again I have been seeing her for about 6 years. However if It had nothing to do with my breathing if I thaught I had a cold or somthing like that I would call my GP not her. I am not going to take up her time which she has very little of for somting that my GP could handle.


----------



## NdAppy (Apr 8, 2009)

Depends on the time of year and what is going one and what you need to see the GP/PC here for. Some times I can get in same day with ours, and sometimes its a couple of weeks wait if nothing serious.

*Everything* other then the GP/PC *must* have referrals or prior authorizations unless it is an emergency for our insurance to cover it, otherwise we pay out of pocket. I can't complain though... We don't have copays, don't have to pay monthly for it, and have extremely minimal med costs (hubby pays nothing for his meds)... What insurance is this you ask? Military/TriCare. The "we are going to drown you and your doctors in paperwork" insurance.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

nrhareiner said:


> So again lest do the math and I will use your ear as in this example.
> 
> I do under stand why you would want to go to the ENT but in reality it is hurting everyone. .


I agree with you in part. I made an assumption that I should not have made. I did not mean to say that some insurances require a referal from their primary to see a specialist in order for the insurance to "allow" _any_ of the charges. I assumed, incorrectly, that it would be taken for granted in a discussion about insurance that I _meant a_ referal is required by _some_ companies in order to ensure the charges would be fully covered to the extent allowable, i.e., not be penalized for "self refering". Lets do the math for the word "some", it is taken, universaly, to mean "not all", which means greater than 0%.

In your example you left out multiple variables. To begin with, there are 50 states and umpteen hundred counties,and not everyone has a general practitioner as their primary physician. It is not more expensive for me, for example, to go to an ENT than it is to go to my primary physician for the _identical_ treatment, it is LESS. So, I absolutely agree, a schedule of their charges should be posted - and it should be mandatory that they be posted. 

Lost in all of this "cost savings" to go to a primary (which is not always a general practitioner) was my point...which was that a lot of people go to the doctor that do not need to be going, period. Cost? It does not seem to be one of those things they wish to quantify...but I would guess it is a high multiple of billions. Incentive not to go when not necessary - _not much_ that I know of for the insured. One rather widely discussed piece of evidence of this (people going to an md when unnecessary) is - resistant strains of bacteria. 

If I have a tooth ache, I go to the dentist. The distinction between dentistry and medicine as they pertain to humans is an arbitrary one. If it were included as part of the medical world...the price of medical care would simply go up over all due to additional training and instrumentation costs, yet there would _still _be "dental specialist". And, if I had a tooth ache in that "hypothetical" - I would go to the specialist, not my primary physician who is not a general practitioner.

BTW, most cities, not towns...and I said most, which does not mean all...have "urgent care centers" with what I assume to be general practitioners. Since most people live in cities...the availability of a general practitioner in cases where one needs immediate care, but not an ER, is already established. 

Like I said, I almost never go to the doctor. If everyone went to the doctor as much as I do, insurance would not even be an issue. But, from that, should I then assume that _all _those that go more frequently than I, do so b/c they simply don't understand something? I say this b/c you made the assumption that people such as myself drive up insurance costs by going to a specialist. I _guess _I should have qualified what I said w "when necessary", but since my main point was the cost of the vast number of "unnecessary" visits people make, I mistakenly assumed that that was a given.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

nrhareiner said:


> Must be the area or somthing. I can get into my GP wiht in a day 2 at the most. All my specialist take 4-6 weeks with the exception of my Pulmanologest who sees me every 3-6 months. If I called and said I was not feeling very well and my breathing was getting worse. She would fit me in tomorrow but then again I have been seeing her for about 6 years. However if It had nothing to do with my breathing if I thaught I had a cold or somthing like that I would call my GP not her. I am not going to take up her time which she has very little of for somting that my GP could handle.


I have even less problem than that. I can see my primary physician within a couple of days and my cardiologist within a week. The longest is my dermatologist (I have a history of skin cancers), who is so busy he needs about a 2 week notice. All of them are available immediately for emergencies, though. When Mrs. Face shattered her heel in a horseback riding accident, she saw her primary the same day for Xrays, her surgeon the next day, and had surgery the following day. 

As has been the history in countries that have socialized medicine, other than the overall high costs, the two things people here will notice most is the increase in waiting time and the government making the decisions concerning your healthcare. When people begin to realize we won't be asble to make our own healthcare decisions, you know what is going to hit the fan...which is what happened with the HMO fiasco a few years ago...


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

nrhareiner said:


> I am talking about either the first time or if it is something simple like your ear hurts.


Yes, this one I agree on. Although in my area even though we have lots of choices some specialists are hard to schedule in advance, especially for the 1st time (dermatologists would be one example). Plus you don't want to go to whoever really, but want to stick with the good one too. 



nrhareiner said:


> The things is also that YOU need to take some responsibility for your health care too. If you go and they treat you and you do not start feeling better then you need to talk to them and say maybe I need to see a specialist for this or that.


Well, unfortunately the situation I was talking about was more complicated than that. There was no treatment to start with. I just don't want to go into details on public board.


----------



## Lockwood (Nov 8, 2011)

dbarabians said:


> I question these dire prediction some have about our future.
> Especially when made about a program that has yet to be fully implemented.
> \Obama was elected with the promise of implementing reform in the industry.He made good on the promise.
> Most american like all but the individual mandate that requires them to purchase insurance.
> ...


DB- Thoughts and prayers to you and your family for whatever situation you are dealing with.


----------



## gunslinger (Sep 17, 2011)

This redefines a tax. Taxes have always been on things you buy. Now they can be on things you don't buy.

There is no power the federal government is not willing to assume.

This loss of liberty is alarming.

Vote the fool out in November and lets repeal Obama care.

The interstate commerce clause needs some work too.

The founding fathers just rolled over in there graves.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Basically, imo, the federal government has been assisted in overstepping its bounds for decades by people that firmly believe that they know how to spend their neighbor's money far better than their neighbor does - and that if their neighbor doesn't agree, then certain rights _are_ inalianable from their neighbor.

This healthcare "reform" law is a clear example of that.


----------



## Ladytrails (Jul 28, 2010)

DBarabians, prayers for the family situation are coming your way. Regardless of whether we agree on all points in this post, at the heart of the matter is respect for one another's beliefs and I read into your posts that you are a good man with a strong faith. May G-d support you in your time of need, and may your family issue be quickly and safely resolved.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

kitten_Val said:


> I tried to find any actual numbers on how much you have to pay for insurance with this law, and I couldn't find anything (only how much you'll be charged if you don't buy one). Has anyone seen it?


According to this I found The Sates will be setting up the exchanges with Billion a year from the feds fro subsidies, some interesting reading

Exchanges & Premium Subsidies | ObamaCare Watch

Health Insurance Exchanges Getting More Federal Funding

I am also finding some States are saying they will refuse to set up the State Exchanges....

Very Interesting..... 


.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Seems This site is keeping up with progress of exchanges 

Health Insurance Exchanges - Kaiser State Health Facts

Lots of other interesting things on that site too


.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Thanks for the support and prayers everyone.
This matter concerns my daughter who is hospitalized.
My ability to concentrate is limited now.
I think our consevative members may think it always is.
The PM's , messages ,and likes that were given are encouraging.
This forum is a relief from my fears and hopefully tommorrow will bring good news..
That and I may have some insight to share with you all in this debate.
Once again thank you. Shalom Donald


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

dba, prayers go your way. I wish your daughter to feel better very soon!


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

dbarabians said:


> I for one am elated that the Mandate was upheld.
> Getting millions insured will reduce the burden on all of us.
> Having insurance is important and requiring people to buy it is as Chief Justice Roberts wrote a form of another tax.
> The Affordable Healthcare Act will assure the health not only of individuals in this country but our countries economic health as well.
> Shalom


PRETTY TRICKY voting a law with a Mandatory tax that won't be demanded until you are re-elected. When we vote this clown (and his clown VP) out in November, we won't get to feel the full brunt of it's UN-affordability.
*I SAY, we need to demand that our Federal Government can only pass laws which are implemented immediately. *It is OUTRAGEOUS that a member of Congress can gleefully announce that "we need to pass it to know what's in it." W T H ?!?!?!?!?
We haven't always had health insurance. It was an incentive for companies wanting to hire WWII Vets in the 1950's/1960's. YES, health care insurance has grown into a mega-beast. But our government is the beast that eclipses this beast.  You _don't know_ or are not aware of the enormous number of bad laws at the local, state and federal level which are not widely enforced bc of the uproar that would result.
Right now the IRS is readying itself to employ workers who will have the power to demand of you all income sources Starting with your 2012 Tax Return. You probably haven't been audited, but I have. You are guilty until you prove yourself innocent with the IRS, and the IRS will be penalizing everyone who doesn't buy this insurance.
If you can understand a well has a limited amount of water and can _run _dry, maybe you can understand that we don't have enough money to support the 10% of uninsured Americans that can get this free from everybody else's taxes.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Yeah, I don't get it either corporal. They also change the reasons it was "necessary" to fit the argument...or its "status". First, it was _not_ a tax - now it necessarily is a tax as a matter of the supreme court ruling. No members of congress rushed in on that one to say, "no! Wait, it is not a tax, so please reconsider your ruling"...or, "oh, since we are to stupid to know what a tax is...we will scrap all 2400 pages of this 'tax' and start anew".

The reason given for this obamination of a tax, depending on the day of the week, was/is to ensure that all people, w multiple exceptions, are insured? One could have easily, _easily_ instead have said, in _less_ than 10 pages, the IRS has full authority to hound the uninsured that incurr medical bills - 'till the end of time if necessary - in order to recoup the costs. I think that would have been "incentive" enough.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

The Affordable Healthcare Act has allowed me to carry my youngest daughter on my Pivate insurance. She is getting her Masters degree.
My daughter's hopital bill will be enormous with her current medical care required. She had ememrgency surgery Sat.
Also having insurance assured that my daughter would recieve the Best care money could buy. She is in a private hospital
I have insurance through the VA and TRICARE. I have always carried private insurance for my daughters dental and other needs.
What the USA cannot afford to do any longer is to pay for emergency care for the 59 million uninsured in this country.
I have defended this law for a few years now I have even more reason to do so. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> What the USA cannot afford to do any longer is to pay for emergency care for the 59 million uninsured in this country.
> I have defended this law for a few years now I have even more reason to do so. Shalom


*Sigh*

The USA will have to pay for those 59 million in any scenario - with or without Obamacare...just as we do now. The finite cost of that healthcare will be higher with Obamacare than without - obvious to even the most uninformed person, due to the increased beaurocracy necessary to administer it. IRS alone is projectring between 13,000 and 16,000 additional personnel, and that has nothing to do with program administration and delivery.

I understand your reasoning with your daughter, and others in certain circumstances, and fully grant (as I have before) that there are some good things about Obamacare, just as there would be in any improved healthcare delivery program.

But doggone it, db, I wish you would drop you "cost savings" mantra. For about the umpteenth time, even the Democrats are now admitting costs will go up - as they have already done. I don't have a problem with espousing the benefits of the program, which is a value judgment, but cost savings is NOT one of the benefits - and that is a fact, not an opinion or value judgment. The" cost savings" is history - it was a campaign ploy, has ALREADY been disproven, and disproven to the point that, as I said, even the Democratic leadership admits the costs are, and will continue to, go up. You need to quit saying man cannot fly while planes are buzzing overhead.

I can't think of a simpler way to put it than MORE PROCEDURES FOR MORE PEOPLE MEANS HIGHER OVERALL COST. Now, if you want to justify that higher cost for humanitarian reasons, that is fine, or if you want to debate which pocket (public or private, rich or poor) the costs should come out of, that is fine too, but costs are increasing due to Obamacare, not decreasing...


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Missy May said:


> Yeah, I don't get it either corporal. They also change the reasons it was "necessary" to fit the argument...or its "status". First, it was _not_ a tax - now it necessarily is a tax as a matter of the supreme court ruling. No members of congress rushed in on that one to say, "no! Wait, it is not a tax, so please reconsider your ruling"...or, "oh, since we are to stupid to know what a tax is...we will scrap all 2400 pages of this 'tax' and start anew".
> 
> The reason given for this obamination of a tax, depending on the day of the week, was/is to ensure that all people, w multiple exceptions, are insured? One could have easily, _easily_ instead have said, in _less_ than 10 pages, the IRS has full authority to hound the uninsured that incurr medical bills - 'till the end of time if necessary - in order to recoup the costs. I think that would have been "incentive" enough.


Well, it is and always was a tax. Obama knew it and simply lied, as did Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the socialists and radical liberals. The Supreme Court merely confirmed it. If it looks like a duck...

If I were a liberal Democrat, which I thankfully am not, I would be embarrassed and ashamed that my President looked me right in the eye and assured me to my face it wasn't a tax, and then sent his lawyers to the Supreme Court to say it was a tax.

You know Dubya did some things I was ashamed of, but when he did I stopped supporting him. I guess liberal Democrats just don't think independently enough to do that...


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> The Affordable Healthcare Act has allowed me to carry my youngest daughter on my Pivate insurance. She is getting her Masters degree.
> My daughter's hopital bill will be enormous with her current medical care required. She had ememrgency surgery Sat.
> Also having insurance assured that my daughter would recieve the Best care money could buy. She is in a private hospital
> I have insurance through the VA and TRICARE. I have always carried private insurance for my daughters dental and other needs.
> ...


Well, db, look at it this way....I believe human societies and civilizations need _some_ form of tax to progress, survive and prosper. This does not mean I agree with every single tax that is currently in existance all over the globe and which may be imposed on any yet to be discovered planets. Since you agree w one part, you feel everyone should rejoice in each and every word of a 2400 page document.

It was not passed by ordinary means. There are so _many_ other countries one can go live if the freedom that this democratic republic offers/offered makes them so terribley unhappy, but instead they think it best to "change" it - do away with it, and "let us all find out" what it is they intend to replace it with.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> The Affordable Healthcare Act has allowed me to carry my youngest daughter on my Pivate insurance. She is getting her Masters degree.


That's something different I have to say (and I also want to add that I've always been fully supportive of extending the age of the child dependent). There is a difference between the child dependent and taxing you for not paying for insurance. 

Again, personally I have a feeling that all of us will be left behind again by insurance companies, especially those with pre-conditions, when it'll come to 2014. And this bill won't bring any good changes really.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Faceman said:


> Well, it is and always was a tax. Obama knew it and simply lied, as did Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the socialists and radical liberals. The Supreme Court merely confirmed it. If it looks like a duck...
> 
> If I were a liberal Democrat, which I thankfully am not, I would be embarrassed and ashamed that my President looked me right in the eye and assured me to my face it wasn't a tax, and then sent his lawyers to the Supreme Court to say it was a tax.
> 
> You know Dubya did some things I was ashamed of, but when he did I stopped supporting him. I guess liberal Democrats just don't think independently enough to do that...


Ain't that the truth!!! When I tell people I do not support Obama - they often lash out at Bush and "know" I supported him (which I never did), as if not supporting Obama is synonymous w having worshipped Bush. I have ceased to be amazed by this. I just never thought that russian, chinese, or nazi germany style propaganda would work in the US...where if one doesn't agree with _every single thing_ mein fuhrer says, does, eats, drinks, attends, buys, flies, or snorts ---- they are verbally attacked by different people that use identical statements, almost to the _letter_, and that are pure dogma.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

MissyMay, Faceman ,contrary to your beliefs I can and do think independtly.
I also have never said that I like everything about the bill.
I'm not so against it that I call it Obamacare or anything else to distract from the debate.
We are going to have to find ways to pay for it.
Just like we found the money to blow up and rebuild Irag.
Now I understand that most people are going to have to adjust to pay for their share of healthcare.
There is even talk of the government offering an parralell insurance to prevent private insurance companies from raising rates and to keep them affordable. I don't even know if that is feasible.
the law is going to have to be adjusted.
Even the people in Washington know this. That fact is the miracle.
Missy May I was going to PM you and thank you for your support for my daughter. So thanks for caring. Shalom


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> MissyMay, Faceman ,contrary to your beliefs I can and do think independtly.
> I also have never said that I like everything about the bill.
> I'm not so against it that I call it Obamacare or anything else to distract from the debate.
> We are going to have to find ways to pay for it.
> ...


 
You want to know how they are going to pay for it? By rationing care. It has already started as of Jan 1st 2013. That is how they will pay for it and be careful. Next time your daughter may end up on the short end of that rationing. 

There are several things in this bill that are good but at the end of the day what they will end up doing is backrupthing the ins comp. and then the only thing that will be left is govt run HC which is the last thing we want or need.


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> I'm not so against it that I call it Obamacare or anything else to distract from the debate.


It was called Obamacare before it was called Affordable Care Act and then became Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Not everyone knows what PPCA is, but everyone knows what Obamacare is. And no one seems to mind the terms Hillarycare or Romneycare, so why should Obamacare be any different? Perhaps Barrycare would be better? The only reason the term Obamacare became controversial is because so many people do NOT like it. If the majority of people liked it, then the dems and Obama would LOVE the term Obamacare.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

It is much easier for critics to disparge something called, Obamacare, Hillary care, or Romneycare, than the AffoRdable Healthcare Act.
HorsePoor it is a play on words and when done critics can insinuate the President is overstepping his bounds. That it is unconstitutional. Which after the Supreme Courts ruling is now false.
You can then more easily bring up socialism and any other unflattering things and link them to the President.
It is only called Obamacare by those who have major problems with it.
If you ask anyone if they want Affordable Healthcare for themselves or anyone else they will overwhelmingly say yes.
I have never heard anyone who supports this bill call it Obamacare.
This play on words adds to the partisian fued and distorts the debate.
Just as the Anti abortion crowd calls their movement the Right to Life
and a fetus the unborn. Shalom


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

I call it Obamacare because I have yet to find anything in it to make Healthcare Costs Affordable for the average American.

Has it Lowered Insurance Premiums? NO
Has it Lowered Prices charged by Hospitals? NO
Has it Reduced Prices Charged by Doctors? NO
Has it Reduced Frivolous Lawsuits? NO
Has it Lowered Taxes? NO
Has it Produced Jobs? NO

IT DOES ALL THE OPPOSITE!

The CBO Estimates now that it will cost 1.1 TRILLION in New Federal Taxes in the next 10 Years.

The CBO Estimates now that is will cost the States 1.5 TRILLION in Medicade Costs in the next 10 years.

Someone please show me Affordable anywhere in Obamacare and I will do two things: Call it The Affordable Care Act and I will Shut Up :lol:



.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Yeah, calling it "Affordable" anything is rather silly. While db may be correct is his observation that opponents call it "Obamacare", the opposite is also true - only its supporters are going to call it "Affordable".

At least the term "Obamacare" is not a blatant lie to the American people.



> 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
> Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
> What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
> Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
> ...


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Wow, I totally missed the latest intolerance for the informal. So, its Barrack Hussein Obama's PPACA?


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I did not know that the house will vote on a full repeal on July 11, and has done so so once before. It won't pass the senate - obviousely, since parties control us and we have no representation.

Now it is getting interesting. Since day one Obama and crew insisted this was not a tax, but since it has been upheld as constitutional on the basis it _is_ a tax - it now is inarguabley a tax...so it can be defunded or reconciled.


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

dbarabians said:


> It is much easier for critics to disparge something called, Obamacare, Hillary care, or Romneycare, than the AffoRdable Healthcare Act.
> 
> *Problem is there is NOTHING affordable about this act. It enlarges the govt quite a bit. Ins will go up HC will go up taxes will go up. Everthing will go up and care will go down. That is just a fact. We do need reform. However like I have already said this is not it.*
> 
> ...


 
I know a lot of people who like this bill call it Obamacare. However these are all union people who seem to be exempt from this bill. humm wonder why they like it so much???


----------



## nrhareiner (Jan 11, 2009)

Faceman said:


> Yeah, calling it "Affordable" anything is rather silly. While db may be correct is his observation that opponents call it "Obamacare", the opposite is also true - only its supporters are going to call it "Affordable".
> 
> At least the term "Obamacare" is not a blatant lie to the American people.


Face if I could give you more then one thumbs up I would just based on the quote.


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

I have a question about my legal statues will force me to buy insurance? Atm I can not get any federal help from food stamps to medicare etc. So me and my wife are wondering with my legal statues as a brit do I have to pay taxes or buy insurance? 

My Problem is I am stuck in a job that has crappy pays (Walmart) and dropping insurance because we can't afford it.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

northwesten said:


> I have a question about my legal statues will force me to buy insurance? Atm I can not get any federal help from food stamps to medicare etc. So me and my wife are wondering with my legal statues as a brit do I have to pay taxes or buy insurance?
> 
> My Problem is I am stuck in a job that has crappy pays (Walmart) and dropping insurance because we can't afford it.


I don't know if any updating has been done - the act is likely to undergo quite a few updates, but here is a link addressing your question...

http://www.ciab.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2189


----------



## northwesten (Apr 28, 2012)

Faceman said:


> I don't know if any updating has been done - the act is likely to undergo quite a few updates, but here is a link addressing your question...
> 
> http://www.ciab.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2189


awesome ok now i have some reading to do


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

northwesten said:


> I have a question about my legal statues will force me to buy insurance? Atm I can not get any federal help from food stamps to medicare etc. So me and my wife are wondering with my legal statues as a brit do I have to pay taxes or buy insurance?
> 
> My Problem is I am stuck in a job that has crappy pays (Walmart) and dropping insurance because we can't afford it.


NW, I believe it won't come into effect until at least 2013, and the "tax" will increase in 3 or 4 years.

Sorry about your situation BTW! Hopefully you'll find a better job soon!


----------

