President Obama announces health law fix

[Publicus]

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

+1

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

Quite a few Americans have cobbled together careers where they were never uninsured just by virtue of their employment. Just like lots of Americans still have defined benefit pension plans.

I can understand why they resist changes. They have made out quite well under the status quo.

But, just like defined benefit pensions and lifelong careers with the same company (or gov't entity), those benefits are unavailable to millions of Americans. And they're available to fewer and fewer every year.

I'm not a fan of Obama (I was, not any more- but that's not because of Obamacare), and ACA is not even close to an ideal solution. But it's a step in a direction, away from a system that was fundamentally unfair to millions, unsustainable to the nation's economy, and a national disgrace. Something needs to change. If it needs tweaking later, so be it. But doing nothing is not a viable option.

I'm tickled pink at the prospect that I may now find any insurance (at any cost) that will cover all the bits. I'm looking forward to being able to choose a career based on my skills and ambitions and not based on which choices cover me for the possibility I may need health care.

You guys are focusing on one thing - pre-existing conditions. Therefore, apparently, that must make the whole ACA good.

Such logic. That single issue could have been addressed without the train wreck called Obamacare.

And no, Obamacare is not a step in the right direction unless you are a health care provider, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, or a health care insurance company. In that case it's a real windfall at the massive expense of the average American.

If you are one of those corporate entities, then what's not to like? You've just had a trillion dollars thrown at you in new business and you are free to charge as much as you want for it, and spend it as you like.

Many people learn something new every day.

However there are always some who don't.

So there are certain people who can count today as a special and exceptional day.

ObamaCare is a leap in the right direction.

A small hard core seem to forget or not to know that Willard Mitt Romney's "Repeal and Replace" lost the election and that it lost for good and obvious reasons. For one thing, Willard just didn't get enough votes, either in the electoral college or in the popular vote.

While you are a majority here, in the United States you are the hard core reactionary minority of the uninformed, under informed, disinformed.

Obamacare’s most popular provisions are its least well known

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/obamacares-most-popular-provisions-are-its-least-well-known/

The Kaiser Family Foundation

Kaiser is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy.

Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research, journalism and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies.

We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, analysis and journalism for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public

http://kff.org/about-us/

Since you seem somewhat obsessed with Romney, it might be appropriate to point out that buyer's remorse seems to have set in.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Romney? Yes, if the election were held today

• BY AARON BLAKE
• November 19 at 12:01 am

For Mitt Romney, the 2012 election was held about a year too early.

Romney would hold a slight lead on President Obama if the 2012 election were replayed today, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll of registered voters shows Romney at 49 percent and Obama at 45 percent in the rematch, a mirror image of Romney’s four-point (51-47) popular-vote loss in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/19/president-romney-yes-if-the-election-were-held-today/

WOULD A MOD LIKE PLEASE TO CLEAN UP THIS POST AND THE POST FURTHER ABOVE THAT I PREVIOUSLY NOTED THAT ALSO IS TECHNICALLY FLAWED. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO MY POSTS BEING MANGLED SO THAT MY POSTS GET MISREPRESENTED BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL PROBLEMS OR MISUNDERSTOOD BECAUSE OF TECHNICAL SLOPPINESS.

THANKS.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

Why does Obama want to delay Obamacare for a year? Because polls which we've posted say it's killing his and his Democrats' popularity and there's an election in just less than a year.

He doesn't want people to have a year to see how bad it is before the election. He wants to hide it some more in the same fashion that he lied, telling people they would be able to keep their health care policy and doctor. Now everyone knows that isn't true, and every day more people learn how badly Obamacare is hurting them personally.

He doesn't want the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and the Democrat leaders are all over his azz because they also want to have the next president. It's too late, Democrats 555.

Right now the individual mandate has kicked in. In a year the employer mandate kicks in and it will increase unemployment and underemployment as employers balk at paying the high health care bills.

Dominoes. I'm watching the first few dominoes fall.

Perhaps we all do need a time out.

I don't like the idea because any "time out" now would occur amid a lot of uncertainty about the ACA which would be left in suspension for a year.

But, then again, a lot can be resolved during a time out over the course of a year. This would be true despite electoral politics during which the country can expect Republicans to try any means possible to kill the ACA in the belief the end justifies the means.

The Republican Party is generally being quite menacing towards the predicates of the Founders and their founding philosophy that the republic can succeed only if people are rational actors.

Where did the theory go that a successful democratic society is predicated on the "reasonable person"?

The teapublican party has become entirely unreasonable, anti-rational, consistently and proudly so.

Change and improvement is the constant of US society, culture, civilization. Yet the more and the faster things change, the crazier the lunatics become.

With all due respect, if you want a time out, take it.

You won't get it by continuing to argue your points, and calling people names like "teapublicans", implying that you are the "reasonable person" and therefore others must not be.

I think what you really want is the "last word."

[NeverSure]

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

+1

F430Murci, there are some of us who do NOT have insurance because of a pre-existing illness from childhood. That illness, which never caused me so much as a doctors visit or a day of illness or a penny in medication, prevented me from getting insurance as a adult. Once I was dropped from my parents' insurance, I was out-of-luck.

For people such as myself, the only chance I will have to get insurance is Obamacare. I am for it.

I don't find it particularly comforting, but I do find it amusing, that others are now getting to experience what I have experienced all my life.

Quite a few Americans have cobbled together careers where they were never uninsured just by virtue of their employment. Just like lots of Americans still have defined benefit pension plans.

I can understand why they resist changes. They have made out quite well under the status quo.

But, just like defined benefit pensions and lifelong careers with the same company (or gov't entity), those benefits are unavailable to millions of Americans. And they're available to fewer and fewer every year.

I'm not a fan of Obama (I was, not any more- but that's not because of Obamacare), and ACA is not even close to an ideal solution. But it's a step in a direction, away from a system that was fundamentally unfair to millions, unsustainable to the nation's economy, and a national disgrace. Something needs to change. If it needs tweaking later, so be it. But doing nothing is not a viable option.

I'm tickled pink at the prospect that I may now find any insurance (at any cost) that will cover all the bits. I'm looking forward to being able to choose a career based on my skills and ambitions and not based on which choices cover me for the possibility I may need health care.

You guys are focusing on one thing - pre-existing conditions. Therefore, apparently, that must make the whole ACA good.

Such logic. That single issue could have been addressed without the train wreck called Obamacare.

And no, Obamacare is not a step in the right direction unless you are a health care provider, a pharmaceutical manufacturer, or a health care insurance company. In that case it's a real windfall at the massive expense of the average American.

If you are one of those corporate entities, then what's not to like? You've just had a trillion dollars thrown at you in new business and you are free to charge as much as you want for it, and spend it as you like.

Many people learn something new every day.

However there are always some who don't.

So there are certain people who can count today as a special and exceptional day.

ObamaCare is a leap in the right direction.

A small hard core seem to forget or not to know that Willard Mitt Romney's "Repeal and Replace" lost the election and that it lost for good and obvious reasons. For one thing, Willard just didn't get enough votes, either in the electoral college or in the popular vote.

While you are a majority here, in the United States you are the hard core reactionary minority of the uninformed, under informed, disinformed.

Obamacare’s most popular provisions are its least well known

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/22/obamacares-most-popular-provisions-are-its-least-well-known/

The Kaiser Family Foundation

Kaiser is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy.

Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research, journalism and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies.

We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, analysis and journalism for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public

http://kff.org/about-us/

Since you seem somewhat obsessed with Romney, it might be appropriate to point out that buyer's remorse seems to have set in.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Romney? Yes, if the election were held today

• BY AARON BLAKE
• November 19 at 12:01 am

For Mitt Romney, the 2012 election was held about a year too early.

Romney would hold a slight lead on President Obama if the 2012 election were replayed today, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll of registered voters shows Romney at 49 percent and Obama at 45 percent in the rematch, a mirror image of Romney’s four-point (51-47) popular-vote loss in 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/19/president-romney-yes-if-the-election-were-held-today/

So, people are sick of Obama, Democrats and Obamacare, and wish they'd elected the - Republican.

Obamacare was already law when that election was held. The Democrats hold a majority in the Senate which would still be gridlock.

What's your point?

[Publicus]

The above post by the poster chuckd is incorrectly formatted, which does occasionally happen to a number of us who are less than prudent and less than attentive or careful. Specifically, the incorrect post merges posts by NeverSure with mine as one running post. Moderators please take notice and take appropriate corrective action.

As to the content of the post by the poster chuckd, Willard Mitt Romney - Mr Repeal and Replace - lost the election that was regularly scheduled and held as provided by the Constitution. Willard lost that election on the arguments, the merits, the choices presented. Both Willard and the electorate had their choices at the appointed time and made it at the appointed time for the term proscribed by the Constitution.

The fact is virtually every recent president would have lost election on a given day during his term in progress had the election been held at a certain time during the term. Here's the most recent president, George W Bush, and his in-term election loss in public opinion polling only and exclusively.

Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

CNN) -- A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/

This poll was taken eleven months after Prez Bush had been reelected.

Such sentiments are inevitable at some point during the term of a given recent president. The sentiments are banal, reflect the passions of the moment and are essentially meaningless.

Such polls do pass as they are dust in the wind.

And what in your opinion would constitute " appropriate corrective action."?

???????

That the Mods make the technical corrections.

Whatever the mods normally do to posts that are technically mucked up.

According to my observations of previous actions mods take concerning posts that are technically jumbled.

Fix 'em.

[Publicus]

Why does Obama want to delay Obamacare for a year? Because polls which we've posted say it's killing his and his Democrats' popularity and there's an election in just less than a year.

He doesn't want people to have a year to see how bad it is before the election. He wants to hide it some more in the same fashion that he lied, telling people they would be able to keep their health care policy and doctor. Now everyone knows that isn't true, and every day more people learn how badly Obamacare is hurting them personally.

He doesn't want the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and the Democrat leaders are all over his azz because they also want to have the next president. It's too late, Democrats 555.

Right now the individual mandate has kicked in. In a year the employer mandate kicks in and it will increase unemployment and underemployment as employers balk at paying the high health care bills.

Dominoes. I'm watching the first few dominoes fall.

Perhaps we all do need a time out.

I don't like the idea because any "time out" now would occur amid a lot of uncertainty about the ACA which would be left in suspension for a year.

But, then again, a lot can be resolved during a time out over the course of a year. This would be true despite electoral politics during which the country can expect Republicans to try any means possible to kill the ACA in the belief the end justifies the means.

The Republican Party is generally being quite menacing towards the predicates of the Founders and their founding philosophy that the republic can succeed only if people are rational actors.

Where did the theory go that a successful democratic society is predicated on the "reasonable person"?

The teapublican party has become entirely unreasonable, anti-rational, consistently and proudly so.

Change and improvement is the constant of US society, culture, civilization. Yet the more and the faster things change, the crazier the lunatics become.

With all due respect, if you want a time out, take it.

You won't get it by continuing to argue your points, and calling people names like "teapublicans", implying that you are the "reasonable person" and therefore others must not be.

I think what you really want is the "last word."

Hey, that's not it but it's equally pretty simple.

It's as previously suggested by another poster a short while back.

I just don't haven't any work to do .

Presently I have eleven Notices in my box.

And your reason for being married to the TVF website?

Edited November 23, 2013 by Publicus

[impulse]

No, you are choosing to ignore an important component.

I don't understand. How do you say I'm ignoring it when I address it back to you each time, and say that I agree with you on that issue?

I'm saying I agree with you on that issue, but completely see the rest of the multi-thousand page bill as a train wreck.

I would have been very happy with a single new law that protected people with pre-existing conditions because they do need insurance.

Peace.

I'm almost with you there, except:

If you guaranty people they will be covered for any pre-existing conditions, why would they buy insurance before they have a condition that needs the coverage? The only people paying for coverage would be people who already have health issues needing care that exceeds the price of the insurance.

That's pretty much a non-starter- kind of like buying auto insurance after the accident..

I know that's a problem and I don't know the answer. We need an answer. There are children born with birth defects that can never get help with payment for health care unless they are poor enough to get Medicaid.

Medicaid covers pre-existing conditions. In fact your point is valid in that Medicaid very often takes on someone with pre-existing conditions because the patient has hit bottom. Medicaid for instance pays for many people who are elderly, poor, and in need of a nursing home. It will even start paying after they are in that nursing home if they meet the financial requirements.

One thing that can be done that many wouldn't approve of is to require the patient to hit financial bottom before covering them. Medicaid does that. A person over the age of 65 could have paid about $105 per month for Medicare B and been covered, but if they didn't, Medicaid won't pick them up until they are broke. For instance, you might have a retirement income of, say, $1,500 pm, but the nursing home costs $6,000 pm. Medicaid will take that $1,500 and pay the difference. They will leave you with a small stipend of $200 ?? pm but you are in a nursing home, disabled, and not needing much cash. You can't have more than a small amount of money to your name, either. It is for the truly poor.

I don't know. Obamacare doesn't solve that problem. People can buy insurance with pre-existing conditions even after the condition already appeared. In fact, they can pay a small fine to not have any insurance, and then run in and buy insurance when they need expensive medical treatment so the problem is already there.

I just did it with Medicare (not Obamacare) as it is open enrollment time for Medicare. I bumped my Medicare from Medicare C (Advantage) at about $150 pm to Medicare F (Medigap) at $290 pm because I had already discovered an expensive issue and it was all over my medical records. What the F does is cover the same things, but with no deductibles or co-pays. But I'm not the bad guy who doesn't buy insurance. I have had private insurance plus Medicare all along, and Medicare is the secondary payer.

I don't know the answer. I will say this. I have never known of anyone in the US who really needed health care and couldn't get it, one way or another through some program. I've never seen anyone left to just suffer in the street.

I figured that was why the penalties for not buying insurance ratcheted up every year. Sooner or later, the cost of not having a policy would exceed the cost of having a policy. Even folks who still chose not to pay for insurance would be paying enough into the system.

There will be a few years when people who have been irresponsible and chosen not to take out insurance will be able to skate in with those who have been locked out of the system in spite of trying to buy coverage. Bothers me, too- but not as much as the way things are today.

But that's another 5-10 pages of the law. Then there's another 10 pages to tell the insurance companies what they can and cannot deny coverage for. And another few pages to define open enrollment periods when people can jump in, or change their coverage options, or... Before you know it, you're at 1000 pages, including the inevitable pork for both sides of the aisle.

We all know it's flawed. But it's a start. The Repubs haven't put out any alternative. I wish they would. And if they're not going to have the courage put their political careers at risk by changing something as emotional, and as politically entrenched as health care, I'd prefer they just get out of the way and let something happen. The bugs can be worked out after the rollout.

Right, wrong, or indifferent- nothing will change until something changes.

Edited November 23, 2013 by impulse

[Scott]

If you want a post deleted because it is improperly formatted or the quotes are messed up then use the report button. I do not wish to re-read all the posts and then end up deleting the wrong post.

[NeverSure]

I don't understand. How do you say I'm ignoring it when I address it back to you each time, and say that I agree with you on that issue?

I'm saying I agree with you on that issue, but completely see the rest of the multi-thousand page bill as a train wreck.

I would have been very happy with a single new law that protected people with pre-existing conditions because they do need insurance.

Peace.

I'm almost with you there, except:

If you guaranty people they will be covered for any pre-existing conditions, why would they buy insurance before they have a condition that needs the coverage? The only people paying for coverage would be people who already have health issues needing care that exceeds the price of the insurance.

That's pretty much a non-starter- kind of like buying auto insurance after the accident..

I know that's a problem and I don't know the answer. We need an answer. There are children born with birth defects that can never get help with payment for health care unless they are poor enough to get Medicaid.

Medicaid covers pre-existing conditions. In fact your point is valid in that Medicaid very often takes on someone with pre-existing conditions because the patient has hit bottom. Medicaid for instance pays for many people who are elderly, poor, and in need of a nursing home. It will even start paying after they are in that nursing home if they meet the financial requirements.

One thing that can be done that many wouldn't approve of is to require the patient to hit financial bottom before covering them. Medicaid does that. A person over the age of 65 could have paid about $105 per month for Medicare B and been covered, but if they didn't, Medicaid won't pick them up until they are broke. For instance, you might have a retirement income of, say, $1,500 pm, but the nursing home costs $6,000 pm. Medicaid will take that $1,500 and pay the difference. They will leave you with a small stipend of $200 ?? pm but you are in a nursing home, disabled, and not needing much cash. You can't have more than a small amount of money to your name, either. It is for the truly poor.

I don't know. Obamacare doesn't solve that problem. People can buy insurance with pre-existing conditions even after the condition already appeared. In fact, they can pay a small fine to not have any insurance, and then run in and buy insurance when they need expensive medical treatment so the problem is already there.

I just did it with Medicare (not Obamacare) as it is open enrollment time for Medicare. I bumped my Medicare from Medicare C (Advantage) at about $150 pm to Medicare F (Medigap) at $290 pm because I had already discovered an expensive issue and it was all over my medical records. What the F does is cover the same things, but with no deductibles or co-pays. But I'm not the bad guy who doesn't buy insurance. I have had private insurance plus Medicare all along, and Medicare is the secondary payer.

I don't know the answer. I will say this. I have never known of anyone in the US who really needed health care and couldn't get it, one way or another through some program. I've never seen anyone left to just suffer in the street.

I figured that was why the penalties for not buying insurance ratcheted up every year. Sooner or later, the cost of not having a policy would exceed the cost of having a policy. Even folks who still chose not to pay for insurance would be paying enough into the system.

There will be a few years when people who have been irresponsible and chosen not to take out insurance will be able to skate in with those who have been locked out of the system in spite of trying to buy coverage. Bothers me, too- but not as much as the way things are today.

But that's another 5-10 pages of the law. Then there's another 10 pages to tell the insurance companies what they can and cannot deny coverage for. And another few pages to define open enrollment periods when people can jump in, or change their coverage options, or... Before you know it, you're at 1000 pages, including the inevitable pork for both sides of the aisle.

We all know it's flawed. But it's a start. The Repubs haven't put out any alternative. I wish they would. And if they're not going to have the courage put their political careers at risk by changing something as emotional, and as politically entrenched as health care, I'd prefer they just get out of the way and let something happen. The bugs can be worked out after the rollout.

Right, wrong, or indifferent- nothing will change until something changes.

The Republicans (and I remind that I'm not one, nor am I a tea party supporter) have indeed proposed an alternative and it's a good start. The only thing I would add to it which never seems to get addressed is that we have a shortage of doctors who can charge what they want. We need more medicals schools, giving very bright students the opportunity to become doctors instead of being turned down for lack of room in medical schools. This would greatly increase supply and competition and by itself improve competition, prices and service.

That Republican proposal is posted in this thread. It's just a start but it makes a lot more sense. It could be tweaked in committee before it went live, and actually be workable.

Obamacare was done in secret behind closed doors, and then lied about to the public. The public is just now entering and finding out how bad it is, and how expensive it is, that they were lied to, and having policies canceled by the millions when they were promised they wouldn't be. It will never work and it can't be tweaked and improved because it goes too far in the opposite direction of where we need to go.

[NeverSure]

Why does Obama want to delay Obamacare for a year? Because polls which we've posted say it's killing his and his Democrats' popularity and there's an election in just less than a year.

He doesn't want people to have a year to see how bad it is before the election. He wants to hide it some more in the same fashion that he lied, telling people they would be able to keep their health care policy and doctor. Now everyone knows that isn't true, and every day more people learn how badly Obamacare is hurting them personally.

He doesn't want the Democrats to lose control of the Senate and the Democrat leaders are all over his azz because they also want to have the next president. It's too late, Democrats 555.

Right now the individual mandate has kicked in. In a year the employer mandate kicks in and it will increase unemployment and underemployment as employers balk at paying the high health care bills.

Dominoes. I'm watching the first few dominoes fall.

Perhaps we all do need a time out.

I don't like the idea because any "time out" now would occur amid a lot of uncertainty about the ACA which would be left in suspension for a year.

But, then again, a lot can be resolved during a time out over the course of a year. This would be true despite electoral politics during which the country can expect Republicans to try any means possible to kill the ACA in the belief the end justifies the means.

The Republican Party is generally being quite menacing towards the predicates of the Founders and their founding philosophy that the republic can succeed only if people are rational actors.

Where did the theory go that a successful democratic society is predicated on the "reasonable person"?

The teapublican party has become entirely unreasonable, anti-rational, consistently and proudly so.

Change and improvement is the constant of US society, culture, civilization. Yet the more and the faster things change, the crazier the lunatics become.

With all due respect, if you want a time out, take it.

You won't get it by continuing to argue your points, and calling people names like "teapublicans", implying that you are the "reasonable person" and therefore others must not be.

I think what you really want is the "last word."

Hey, that's not it but it's equally pretty simple.

It's as previously suggested by another poster a short while back.

I just don't haven't any work to do .

Presently I have eleven Notices in my box.

And your reason for being married to the TVF website?

Would you mind a do-over here and actually address the comments I made that you quoted please?

[Publicus]

This means all new policies must meet the standards of the ACA.

In other words it means that new policies must conform to the "law of the land". If Obama has espoused otherwise (and apparently he has), he is a scofflaw and is, among other things, in violation of his oath of office.

I'm sadly astounded that any insurance company or state would agree to violate the law and re-issue cancelled policies. Doesn't the US claim to be a nation of "laws" and not "men"?

The only reason I can think of to justify this action is that it is in their self-interest in some way to do so - politically or financially. IMHO, it is an immoral action. The fact that not all insurance companies/states made the decision re-issue should be a telling indicator that something is amiss. Does this disparity of justice possibly fall under the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or some such?

It could seem some people might be working themselves into an ObamaCare impeachment lather.

I oppose impeachment centered on ObamaCare, or for any alleged reason, but in a certain sense I would welcome the attempt because it would result In the most welcome final aspect of the suicide of the Republican Party.

We do need a two party system - a four party system might be even better under certain givens.

The present two party system is the exact one we no longer need.

Go for it.

Helllooooooo. Can we come back from Fantasyland now?

After my reply, I started thinking in terms of contracts (insurance) and the legality thereof.

Elements of a Contract (thefreedictionary.com):

"The purpose of a contract is to establish the agreement that the parties have made and to fix their rights and duties in accordance with that agreement. The courts must enforce a valid contract as it is made, unless there are grounds that bar its enforcement."

Void Contracts (wiki):

"A void contract, also known as a void agreement, is not actually a contract. A void contract cannot be enforced by law. Void contracts are different from voidable contracts which are contracts that may be (but not necessarily will be) nullified."

"An agreement to carry out an illegal act is an example of a void contract or void agreement. For example, a contract between drug dealers and buyers is a void contract simply because the terms of the contract are illegal. In such a case, neither party can go to court to enforce the contract. A void contract is void ab initio, i e from the beginning while a voidable contract can be voidable by one or all of the parties."

I heard a well-known Washington reporter state that the ACA has provisions that make it subject to administrative changes by the Executive Branch. I do not know if this is true and am not willing to wade through 2000 pages of the ACA to substantiate this. It probably doesn't matter because by the time anything gets to/through the courts with the inevitable delaying tactics, it will be too late to make a difference. But, perhaps, if the provisions exist, that is Obama's (and the insurance companys') avoidance of having void contracts being written that could potentially not be enforced by the courts.

Does anyone have any more information on this issue?

An interesting diversion that is neither here nor there and goes nowhere in this thread.

The ACA, as with almost any Act of Congress, does have provisions that authorize administrative changes by the executive branch. This is the norm in legislating as it is necessary to provide flexibility in implementing any new law.

The ACA has an expository text official Committee Report which presents the law in understandable prose, if one can read that many pages. Your US Representative or Senator can provide it to you, or you can read it online.

It's pretty thick in every respect.

[Publicus]

Perhaps we all do need a time out.

I don't like the idea because any "time out" now would occur amid a lot of uncertainty about the ACA which would be left in suspension for a year.

But, then again, a lot can be resolved during a time out over the course of a year. This would be true despite electoral politics during which the country can expect Republicans to try any means possible to kill the ACA in the belief the end justifies the means.

The Republican Party is generally being quite menacing towards the predicates of the Founders and their founding philosophy that the republic can succeed only if people are rational actors.

Where did the theory go that a successful democratic society is predicated on the "reasonable person"?

The teapublican party has become entirely unreasonable, anti-rational, consistently and proudly so.

Change and improvement is the constant of US society, culture, civilization. Yet the more and the faster things change, the crazier the lunatics become.

With all due respect, if you want a time out, take it.

You won't get it by continuing to argue your points, and calling people names like "teapublicans", implying that you are the "reasonable person" and therefore others must not be.

I think what you really want is the "last word."

Hey, that's not it but it's equally pretty simple.

It's as previously suggested by another poster a short while back.

I just don't haven't any work to do .

Presently I have eleven Notices in my box.

And your reason for being married to the TVF website?

Would you mind a do-over here and actually address the comments I made that you quoted please?

Actually I thought you'd stepped out to Walmart or something and that I'd had more time to respond.

As you make clear you are neither a Republican nor a tea party member, you're not a directly aggrieved party to the term "teapublican." However, given that you are a concerned citizen, I'll respond to your concerns.

"Teapublican" is a shorthand association of the two obstructionist forces in US politics that have become joined at the hip. You're an intelligent and perceptive guy who follows current events very closely, so I'd think my thinking in this respect would need no further exposition to you. An increasingly large number of Americans have this view, some of which do use the term in print.

And I like reasonable persons, in particular, the "reasonable person" theory of society. I think it's the prerequisite of a democratic society, culture, government, under the constitutional system of the United States especially.

As a reasonable person yourself who makes clear he is neither a Republican nor a tea party member, you might agree with me.

Then again it would also be reasonable if you did not.

[NeverSure]

With all due respect, if you want a time out, take it.

You won't get it by continuing to argue your points, and calling people names like "teapublicans", implying that you are the "reasonable person" and therefore others must not be.

I think what you really want is the "last word."

Hey, that's not it but it's equally pretty simple.

It's as previously suggested by another poster a short while back.

I just don't haven't any work to do .

Presently I have eleven Notices in my box.

And your reason for being married to the TVF website?

Would you mind a do-over here and actually address the comments I made that you quoted please?

Actually I thought you'd stepped out to Walmart or something and that I'd had more time to respond.

As you make clear you are neither a Republican nor a tea party member, you're not a directly aggrieved party to the term "teapublican." However, given that you are a concerned citizen, I'll respond to your concerns.

"Teapublican" is a shorthand association of the two obstructionist forces in US politics that have become joined at the hip. You're an intelligent and perceptive guy who follows current events very closely, so I'd think my thinking in this respect would need no further exposition to you. An increasingly large number of Americans have this view, some of which do use the term in print.

And I like reasonable persons, in particular, the "reasonable person" theory of society. I think it's the prerequisite of a democratic society, culture, government, under the constitutional system of the United States especially.

As a reasonable person yourself who makes clear he is neither a Republican nor a tea party member, you might agree with me.

Then again it would also be reasonable if you did not.

I have never heard the term teapublican - ever. The so-called tea party is not a political party at all and I doubt their numbers are large.

It's entirely possible to be an adherent to the tea party beliefs without being a Republican, or Republican without...

I always associated the tea party as much with independents or libertarians than I did republicans, but since they are not a party, even if I wanted to I don't even know if one can actually "join" the tea party and if so, where. I thought it was an ad hoc and unofficial group.

I have never personally know anyone who "belonged" to the tea party, but I know a lot of Republicans. There are about as many Republicans as Democrats in the US.

"publican" isn't the name of a party, so teapublican to me is just calling someone names, much as if I called you an Obamacrat. It's not the correct name.

"Obstructionist" is in the eye of the beholder and depends on your viewpoint. I think the current Democrats are the biggest obstructionists we've had in decades. For sure they are the biggest obstructionists to getting our financial house - debts and deficits - in order.

Edited November 23, 2013 by NeverSure

[Jingthing]

Some objective data about the actual level of support for the tea party and its linkage to the republican party:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164648/tea-party-support-dwindles-near-record-low.aspx

Keep in mind republican / tea party leader Ted Cruz is clearly running for president ...

[F430murci]

I just heard that the exchange or Bama care are not providing coverage at the top notch, specialty and children's hospitals because the anticipated costs of covering those with ore existing conditions. This means even those now being cancelled under their private plans will no longer have access to the best hospitals, cancer centers or children's hospitals.

This is just the first in a long lists of rude awakenings to come.

RE: pre-existing conditions and foster care stuff

Even a crappy bank teller job provide good coverage group policies where pre-existing conditions are not excluded. If you have a pre-existing condition that prohibits any coverage, why not get a real full time job that provides benefits? Even slinging boxes at Fed Ex provides excellent insurance with it group policy and will not decline you for pre-existing?

If the foster family had decents job, they should be able to put children on group plan. If not, their are state plans and federal plans that provide free coverage with no deductibles or co-pays. This is soon to vanish though.

[F430murci]

I get that some out there are in bad situations, but there were solutions before. I hate to say this, but the direction we are now heading makes it appear as if those solutions will be taken away and the situation will be made vastly worse for the great majority of Americans. Bama lost sight of the bigger picture to address needs of a small percentage, most of which are entitlement mentality cases.

I don't consider those healthy lazy free loaders capable of working, but electing not to work, or those healthy people that screwed up in school and cannot get a real job as part of the system needing to be addressed.

If pre-existing conditions was the issue, Bama could have easily passed some limited government care package to provide benefits to those that lost their policies through no fault of their own and those being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. This could have easily been an extension if Medicaid and Medicare.

Edited November 23, 2013 by F430murci

[MaxYakov]

NeverSure, on 23 Nov 2013 - 14:54, said:

With all due respect, if you want a time out, take it.

You won't get it by continuing to argue your points, and calling people names like "teapublicans", implying that you are the "reasonable person" and therefore others must not be.

I think what you really want is the "last word."

----------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, that's not it but it's equally pretty simple.

It's as previously suggested by another poster a short while back.

I just don't haven't any work to do .

Presently I have eleven Notices in my box.

And your reason for being married to the TVF website?

Would you mind a do-over here and actually address the comments I made that you quoted please?

Actually I thought you'd stepped out to Walmart or something and that I'd had more time to respond.

As you make clear you are neither a Republican nor a tea party member, you're not a directly aggrieved party to the term "teapublican." However, given that you are a concerned citizen, I'll respond to your concerns.

"Teapublican" is a shorthand association of the two obstructionist forces in US politics that have become joined at the hip. You're an intelligent and perceptive guy who follows current events very closely, so I'd think my thinking in this respect would need no further exposition to you. An increasingly large number of Americans have this view, some of which do use the term in print.

And I like reasonable persons, in particular, the "reasonable person" theory of society. I think it's the prerequisite of a democratic society, culture, government, under the constitutional system of the United States especially.

As a reasonable person yourself who makes clear he is neither a Republican nor a tea party member, you might agree with me.

Then again it would also be reasonable if you did not.

I have never heard the term teapublican - ever. The so-called tea party is not a political party at all and I doubt their numbers are large.

It's entirely possible to be an adherent to the tea party beliefs without being a Republican, or Republican without...

I always associated the tea party as much with independents or libertarians than I did republicans, but since they are not a party, even if I wanted to I don't even know if one can actually "join" the tea party and if so, where. I thought it was an ad hoc and unofficial group.

I have never personally know anyone who "belonged" to the tea party, but I know a lot of Republicans. There are about as many Republicans as Democrats in the US.

"publican" isn't the name of a party, so teapublican to me is just calling someone names, much as if I called you an Obamacrat. It's not the correct name.

"Obstructionist" is in the eye of the beholder and depends on your viewpoint. I think the current Democrats are the biggest obstructionists we've had in decades. For sure they are the biggest obstructionists to getting our financial house - debts and deficits - in order.

Thanks. What I find strange on this thread and others is that the term "conservative" is rarely used although it's a quite common term in certain venues in US politics:

Conservative/Conservatism, US - Wiki .

Note that the "tea party" is termed the "Tea Party movement" in the Wiki Conservatism link, above.

In general, I agree with your view of the use of "obstructionist". However, I find it's use very interesting on this thread, but don't want to go into it right now due to its complexity.

Edited November 23, 2013 by MaxYakov

[NeverSure]

Some objective data about the actual level of support for the tea party and its linkage to the republican party:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164648/tea-party-support-dwindles-near-record-low.aspx

Keep in mind republican / tea party leader Ted Cruz is clearly running for president ...

Who cares who's running for president? That election is 3 years away and much can change by then.

Yes, support for the tea party is rapidly dwindling. This topic isn't about the tea party and I didn't bring it up.

I am neither Republican nor tea party, and I resent being lumped into something renamed as "teapublican" when it's not a word, couldn't describe me if it was, but I detest Obamacare.

[Jingthing]

The topic relates directly to the tea party. Ted Cruz, strongly associated with the tea party and a REPUBLICAN, is the person responsible for the cynical repeal and replace Obamacare with "Cruz Care" proposal. Anyone who supports this horribly absurd plan of nihilism, TINY drop in the bucket approach to health care reform, is supporting a core TEA PARTY agenda. So which is it?

Edited November 23, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Further posts about general politics will be deleted. The thread is about health care.

[NeverSure]

The topic relates directly to the tea party. Ted Cruz, strongly associated with the tea party and a REPUBLICAN, is the person responsible for the cynical repeal and replace Obamacare with "Cruz Care" proposal. Anyone who supports this horribly absurd plan of nihilism, TINY drop in the bucket approach to health care reform, is supporting a core TEA PARTY agenda. So which is it?

lhMp90_n5EUISLZ1CIdblTl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBXEejxNn4ZJNZ2ss5Ku7Cxt.jpg

Apparently you don't understand the American system.

Ted Cruz has zero to do with what happens in his home state of Texas. He is a Senator in the US Congress.

Apparently he "gets it" about federal health care as he was born in Canada!!!

It isn't surprising that Texas has a lot of uninsureds. It ranks about even with the 5 states which have the most illegal aliens per capita as it has about 1,000 miles of Mexican border. Link

Make fun of Texas if you'd like. It is swamped with illegals, many scamming the system, and yet it is one of the few states with a balanced budget.

Next?

Edited November 24, 2013 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

Further posts about general politics will be deleted. The thread is about health care.

Sorry Scott, I was typing my answer while you posted.

[Scott]

Thanks for letting me know.

Now, back to health care......

[NeverSure]

Thanks for the prod but I don't really need it .

The principal point of the post is to point out how little anti-ObamaCare posters here know of the provisions of the ACA law.

Here's someone who knows what it, and its liar Obama are. She'll be happy to tell you. Meet Jeanine Ferris Pirro, a former prosecutor, judge, and elected official from the state of New York.

"Americans Now See Right Through Your Lies!" - Judge Jeanine Opening - 11-23-13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8detZUBZO8

[thaibeachlovers]

That's not exactly correct, but it is pretty close. You can still purchase insurance, but if you are not working it is pretty expensive.

Not exactly. Before Obamacare, it was commonly impossible for those with certain common preexisting conditions to purchase ANY private health insurance policy. Obamacare fixes that and yes that is a BIG deal. Obamacare also in non-obstructionist states deals with the cost issue for the less wealthy, with expanded Medicaid or DIRECT SUBSIDIES for private insurance premiums (in all states).

So, does forcing the taxpayer to subsidise the insurance companies so they can continue to get fabulously wealthy, reduce or increase the multi trillion $ debt? Someone has to pay the debt, eventually, or will the Fed just keep printing money? The Weimar government found out how that works, right?

[thaibeachlovers]

I don't understand. How do you say I'm ignoring it when I address it back to you each time, and say that I agree with you on that issue?

I'm saying I agree with you on that issue, but completely see the rest of the multi-thousand page bill as a train wreck.

I would have been very happy with a single new law that protected people with pre-existing conditions because they do need insurance.

Peace.

I'm almost with you there, except:

If you guaranty people they will be covered for any pre-existing conditions, why would they buy insurance before they have a condition that needs the coverage? The only people paying for coverage would be people who already have health issues needing care that exceeds the price of the insurance.

That's pretty much a non-starter- kind of like buying auto insurance after the accident..

I know that's a problem and I don't know the answer. We need an answer. There are children born with birth defects that can never get help with payment for health care unless they are poor enough to get Medicaid.

Medicaid covers pre-existing conditions. In fact your point is valid in that Medicaid very often takes on someone with pre-existing conditions because the patient has hit bottom. Medicaid for instance pays for many people who are elderly, poor, and in need of a nursing home. It will even start paying after they are in that nursing home if they meet the financial requirements.

One thing that can be done that many wouldn't approve of is to require the patient to hit financial bottom before covering them. Medicaid does that. A person over the age of 65 could have paid about $105 per month for Medicare B and been covered, but if they didn't, Medicaid won't pick them up until they are broke. For instance, you might have a retirement income of, say, $1,500 pm, but the nursing home costs $6,000 pm. Medicaid will take that $1,500 and pay the difference. They will leave you with a small stipend of $200 ?? pm but you are in a nursing home, disabled, and not needing much cash. You can't have more than a small amount of money to your name, either. It is for the truly poor.

I don't know. Obamacare doesn't solve that problem. People can buy insurance with pre-existing conditions even after the condition already appeared. In fact, they can pay a small fine to not have any insurance, and then run in and buy insurance when they need expensive medical treatment so the problem is already there.

I just did it with Medicare (not Obamacare) as it is open enrollment time for Medicare. I bumped my Medicare from Medicare C (Advantage) at about $150 pm to Medicare F (Medigap) at $290 pm because I had already discovered an expensive issue and it was all over my medical records. What the F does is cover the same things, but with no deductibles or co-pays. But I'm not the bad guy who doesn't buy insurance. I have had private insurance plus Medicare all along, and Medicare is the secondary payer.

I don't know the answer. I will say this. I have never known of anyone in the US who really needed health care and couldn't get it, one way or another through some program. I've never seen anyone left to just suffer in the street.

I figured that was why the penalties for not buying insurance ratcheted up every year. Sooner or later, the cost of not having a policy would exceed the cost of having a policy. Even folks who still chose not to pay for insurance would be paying enough into the system.

There will be a few years when people who have been irresponsible and chosen not to take out insurance will be able to skate in with those who have been locked out of the system in spite of trying to buy coverage. Bothers me, too- but not as much as the way things are today.

But that's another 5-10 pages of the law. Then there's another 10 pages to tell the insurance companies what they can and cannot deny coverage for. And another few pages to define open enrollment periods when people can jump in, or change their coverage options, or... Before you know it, you're at 1000 pages, including the inevitable pork for both sides of the aisle.

We all know it's flawed. But it's a start. The Repubs haven't put out any alternative. I wish they would. And if they're not going to have the courage put their political careers at risk by changing something as emotional, and as politically entrenched as health care, I'd prefer they just get out of the way and let something happen. The bugs can be worked out after the rollout.

Right, wrong, or indifferent- nothing will change until something changes.

<The bugs can be worked out after the rollout.>

Hmmmmmmm. That sounds an awful lot like "you have pass the bill to find out what is in the bill" .

One quoted reply deleted to allow posting.

Edited November 24, 2013 by thaibeachlovers

[thaibeachlovers]

Sorry, Scott. I hadn't read your message before posting. No way I'm trawling through 12 pages.

[samran]

I just heard that the exchange or Bama care are not providing coverage at the top notch, specialty and children's hospitals because the anticipated costs of covering those with ore existing conditions. This means even those now being cancelled under their private plans will no longer have access to the best hospitals, cancer centers or children's hospitals.

This is just the first in a long lists of rude awakenings to come.

RE: pre-existing conditions and foster care stuff

Even a crappy bank teller job provide good coverage group policies where pre-existing conditions are not excluded. If you have a pre-existing condition that prohibits any coverage, why not get a real full time job that provides benefits? Even slinging boxes at Fed Ex provides excellent insurance with it group policy and will not decline you for pre-existing?

If the foster family had decents job, they should be able to put children on group plan. If not, their are state plans and federal plans that provide free coverage with no deductibles or co-pays. This is soon to vanish though.

I find it bizzare that one needs to rely on an employer to provide you with health care. It strikes me as an unnecceasry costs on business.

Additionally, not all of us want to work for a company.

[Publicus]

Thanks for the prod but I don't really need it .

The principal point of the post is to point out how little anti-ObamaCare posters here know of the provisions of the ACA law.

Here's someone who knows what it, and its liar Obama are. She'll be happy to tell you. Meet Jeanine Ferris Pirro, a former prosecutor, judge, and elected official from the state of New York.

"Americans Now See Right Through Your Lies!" - Judge Jeanine Opening - 11-23-13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8detZUBZO8

My god, the video is nothing more than an Obama rant on a whole range of subjects intertwined with ObamaCare.

The Fox TV "judge" whose "courtroom" is in a tv studio draws all the attention to herself in the above video in her not so clever and wide ranging rant.

This report from Thailand says it succinctly:

Expat Views from Thailand

Judge Jeanine Pirro Hate Monger: Fox News Ranting Talking Head Shill for the Far Right

Judge jeanine continues her insane rant and extreme bias regarding Obama....

http://retirethai.blogspot.com/2012/10/judge-jeanine-pirro-hate-monger-fox.html

Edited November 24, 2013 by Publicus

[MaxYakov]

I just heard that the exchange or Bama care are not providing coverage at the top notch, specialty and children's hospitals because the anticipated costs of covering those with ore existing conditions. This means even those now being cancelled under their private plans will no longer have access to the best hospitals, cancer centers or children's hospitals.

This is just the first in a long lists of rude awakenings to come.

RE: pre-existing conditions and foster care stuff

Even a crappy bank teller job provide good coverage group policies where pre-existing conditions are not excluded. If you have a pre-existing condition that prohibits any coverage, why not get a real full time job that provides benefits? Even slinging boxes at Fed Ex provides excellent insurance with it group policy and will not decline you for pre-existing?

If the foster family had decents job, they should be able to put children on group plan. If not, their are state plans and federal plans that provide free coverage with no deductibles or co-pays. This is soon to vanish though.

I find it bizzare that one needs to rely on an employer to provide you with health care. It strikes me as an unnecceasry costs on business.

Additionally, not all of us want to work for a company.

Not so bizarre if you research how it came about. Besides, doesn't it provide the opportunity for better coverage and group plans/discounts? If you happen to be your own employer (self-employed), then guess what? That's right, you still must provide your only employee (you) with health insurance (now, as mandated by the ACA) or be penalized (oops) taxed. So, if it were bizarre before, it still is.

Edited November 24, 2013 by MaxYakov

[NeverSure]

Thanks for the prod but I don't really need it .

The principal point of the post is to point out how little anti-ObamaCare posters here know of the provisions of the ACA law.

Here's someone who knows what it, and its liar Obama are. She'll be happy to tell you. Meet Jeanine Ferris Pirro, a former prosecutor, judge, and elected official from the state of New York.

"Americans Now See Right Through Your Lies!" - Judge Jeanine Opening - 11-23-13

My god, the video is nothing more than an Obama rant on a whole range of subjects intertwined with ObamaCare.

The Fox TV "judge" whose "courtroom" is in a tv studio draws all the attention to herself in the above video in her not so clever and wide ranging rant.

This report from Thailand says it succinctly:

Expat Views from Thailand

Judge Jeanine Pirro Hate Monger: Fox News Ranting Talking Head Shill for the Far Right

Judge jeanine continues her insane rant and extreme bias regarding Obama....

http://retirethai.blogspot.com/2012/10/judge-jeanine-pirro-hate-monger-fox.html

Instead of a personal attack and rant, Why don't you take her on, line by line, and prove her wrong?

Line by line, she is telling the truth.

Line by line, she's trying to show you how you have been duped.

Go ahead, tell us what she said that isn't true.