President Obama announces health law fix

[Publicus]

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.

Yes, and that some like to say it's an explainable phenomenon does not make it any better or acceptable.

Number one the employee may or may not have options to the employer plan or may only have an array of lousy plans to choose among.

Then there's the vital factor it gives the employer greater leverage and control over you in the workplace and in a life and death matter, i.e., medical insurance.

I always had satisfactory medical insurance but I know of people who were afraid to advance professionally by changing jobs (often location) because the medical insurance at a given new job availability was inferior.

Being connected to the employer-provided medical insurance plan also limited personal choice and individual freedom.

Even though Prez Obama chickened out of the public option aspect of ObamaCare, the ACA is a better approach.

It's just that big change such as this takes time to work out and through. And few new laws have had the subversion and obstructionism from the opposing political party that this one keeps getting without letup.

I don't think any new law has had this kind of fanatical and unrelenting opposition, such absolutist extremism against it.

[NeverSure]

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.

Yes, and that some like to say it's an explainable phenomenon does not make it any better or acceptable.

Number one the employee may or may not have options to the employer plan or may only have an array of lousy plans to choose among.

Then there's the vital factor it gives the employer greater leverage and control over you in the workplace and in a life and death matter, i.e., medical insurance.

I always had satisfactory medical insurance but I know of people who were afraid to advance professionally by changing jobs (often location) because the medical insurance at a given new job availability was inferior.

Being connected to the employer-provided medical insurance plan also limited personal choice and individual freedom.

Even though Prez Obama chickened out of the public option aspect of ObamaCare, the ACA is a better approach.

It's just that big change such as this takes time to work out and through. And few new laws have had the subversion and obstructionism from the opposing political party that this one keeps getting without letup.

I don't think any new law has had this kind of fanatical and unrelenting opposition, such absolutist extremism against it.

Employer provided health care is not part of the American "system." It was never planned. It began to become popular with employers so that they could attract and keep good employees. It wasn't government mandated.

In the next year, 100 million Americans are going to lose their health insurance. That is because the existing, good plans are now illegal. By 100 million, I'm including dependents of everyone who has the insurance whether employer provided or self-purchased.

Then it will be up the the individuals and the employers as to whether they chose to replace it with far more expensive ACA approved insurance, drop it and pay a smaller fine, or if employer provided, require the employees to contribute much more as a payroll deduction for their insurance.

Already most employers only pay part of the premiums, and the employees pay part of it as a payroll deduction. Usually the employee's part is small. Now it could get huge. Employers have to make a profit and this comes right off their bottom line.

You are going to see millions of new jobs that provide only part time work - 29 hours per week or less, to meet the letter of the law so that the employer doesn't have to provide health insurance.

You are going to see the number of employees cut to save costs, and more work placed on each employee.

You are going to see small businesses refuse to grow and provide more jobs. It is only employers who have 50 or more employees who must provide Obamacare to employees. You will see a ton of businesses with 49 employees even if that means layoffs, and you will see business stagnate.

You are going to see a lot of businesses refuse to buy Obamacare and instead choose to pay the fine. That will put the mandate on the individual who must then buy his own very expensive Obamacare or pay his own fine. Another fine. If he doesn't buy insurance, he will be without.

You are going to see more companies moving off shore and taking jobs with them to avoid this horrible mandate called Obamacare. You are going to see more companies outsourcing much work to other countries to lower the number of employees they have in the US.

Obamacare is going to reach deep into the entire American economy and set it on its heels.

And you are cheering it on?

[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

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.

Man, there are some extreme people who eat that right wing stuff right up, eh?

She rants on repeatedly about Benghazi, continually babbles things about the IRS, something yet about bin Laden and bleats out so many things I had trouble keeping up with her scatterbrained ramblings.

Judge Jeanne did mention ObamaCare but only as a part of her general multi-topic rant against Prez Obama himself.

And scatterbrained Judge Jeanne is, what with her show's audience share at 0.6 which is pretty much in minus viewer territory. Who watches Judge Jeanne on Fox except for the tiny band of the most extreme head-nodders?!

Respond to her?!

I've given the dingbat much too much time already.

One shouldn't too much test the benefit of the doubt, which is the only reason I clicked on the video.

Benghazi irs bin laden

[Publicus]

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.

Yes, and that some like to say it's an explainable phenomenon does not make it any better or acceptable.

Number one the employee may or may not have options to the employer plan or may only have an array of lousy plans to choose among.

Then there's the vital factor it gives the employer greater leverage and control over you in the workplace and in a life and death matter, i.e., medical insurance.

I always had satisfactory medical insurance but I know of people who were afraid to advance professionally by changing jobs (often location) because the medical insurance at a given new job availability was inferior.

Being connected to the employer-provided medical insurance plan also limited personal choice and individual freedom.

Even though Prez Obama chickened out of the public option aspect of ObamaCare, the ACA is a better approach.

It's just that big change such as this takes time to work out and through. And few new laws have had the subversion and obstructionism from the opposing political party that this one keeps getting without letup.

I don't think any new law has had this kind of fanatical and unrelenting opposition, such absolutist extremism against it.

Employer provided health care is not part of the American "system." It was never planned. It began to become popular with employers so that they could attract and keep good employees. It wasn't government mandated.

In the next year, 100 million Americans are going to lose their health insurance. That is because the existing, good plans are now illegal. By 100 million, I'm including dependents of everyone who has the insurance whether employer provided or self-purchased.

Then it will be up the the individuals and the employers as to whether they chose to replace it with far more expensive ACA approved insurance, drop it and pay a smaller fine, or if employer provided, require the employees to contribute much more as a payroll deduction for their insurance.

Already most employers only pay part of the premiums, and the employees pay part of it as a payroll deduction. Usually the employee's part is small. Now it could get huge. Employers have to make a profit and this comes right off their bottom line.

You are going to see millions of new jobs that provide only part time work - 29 hours per week or less, to meet the letter of the law so that the employer doesn't have to provide health insurance.

You are going to see the number of employees cut to save costs, and more work placed on each employee.

You are going to see small businesses refuse to grow and provide more jobs. It is only employers who have 50 or more employees who must provide Obamacare to employees. You will see a ton of businesses with 49 employees even if that means layoffs, and you will see business stagnate.

You are going to see a lot of businesses refuse to buy Obamacare and instead choose to pay the fine. That will put the mandate on the individual who must then buy his own very expensive Obamacare or pay his own fine. Another fine. If he doesn't buy insurance, he will be without.

You are going to see more companies moving off shore and taking jobs with them to avoid this horrible mandate called Obamacare. You are going to see more companies outsourcing much work to other countries to lower the number of employees they have in the US.

Obamacare is going to reach deep into the entire American economy and set it on its heels.

And you are cheering it on?

Neither I nor anyone I know would cheer all or even any parts of that which you have written.

I think the problem with the post is that it could make Nostradamus or The Great Kreskin seem tentative and uncertain - timid - in respect to such a broad and voluminous breadth of definitive data and in the face of so much comprehensive, specific and exact detail.

Such a thorough and expansive prescience is impressive through and through.

[Publicus]

Izzat the sky I hear falling?

Oh, thank God, it's only the kitchen sink coming in through the window.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t." -----W.C. Fields

Edited November 24, 2013 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

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.

Yes, and that some like to say it's an explainable phenomenon does not make it any better or acceptable.

Number one the employee may or may not have options to the employer plan or may only have an array of lousy plans to choose among.

Then there's the vital factor it gives the employer greater leverage and control over you in the workplace and in a life and death matter, i.e., medical insurance.

I always had satisfactory medical insurance but I know of people who were afraid to advance professionally by changing jobs (often location) because the medical insurance at a given new job availability was inferior.

Being connected to the employer-provided medical insurance plan also limited personal choice and individual freedom.

Even though Prez Obama chickened out of the public option aspect of ObamaCare, the ACA is a better approach.

It's just that big change such as this takes time to work out and through. And few new laws have had the subversion and obstructionism from the opposing political party that this one keeps getting without letup.

I don't think any new law has had this kind of fanatical and unrelenting opposition, such absolutist extremism against it.

Employer provided health care is not part of the American "system." It was never planned. It began to become popular with employers so that they could attract and keep good employees. It wasn't government mandated.

In the next year, 100 million Americans are going to lose their health insurance. That is because the existing, good plans are now illegal. By 100 million, I'm including dependents of everyone who has the insurance whether employer provided or self-purchased.

Then it will be up the the individuals and the employers as to whether they chose to replace it with far more expensive ACA approved insurance, drop it and pay a smaller fine, or if employer provided, require the employees to contribute much more as a payroll deduction for their insurance.

Already most employers only pay part of the premiums, and the employees pay part of it as a payroll deduction. Usually the employee's part is small. Now it could get huge. Employers have to make a profit and this comes right off their bottom line.

You are going to see millions of new jobs that provide only part time work - 29 hours per week or less, to meet the letter of the law so that the employer doesn't have to provide health insurance.

You are going to see the number of employees cut to save costs, and more work placed on each employee.

You are going to see small businesses refuse to grow and provide more jobs. It is only employers who have 50 or more employees who must provide Obamacare to employees. You will see a ton of businesses with 49 employees even if that means layoffs, and you will see business stagnate.

You are going to see a lot of businesses refuse to buy Obamacare and instead choose to pay the fine. That will put the mandate on the individual who must then buy his own very expensive Obamacare or pay his own fine. Another fine. If he doesn't buy insurance, he will be without.

You are going to see more companies moving off shore and taking jobs with them to avoid this horrible mandate called Obamacare. You are going to see more companies outsourcing much work to other countries to lower the number of employees they have in the US.

Obamacare is going to reach deep into the entire American economy and set it on its heels.

And you are cheering it on?

Neither I nor anyone I know would cheer all or even any parts of that which you have written.

I think the problem with the post is that it could make Nostradamus or The Great Kreskin seem tentative and uncertain - timid - in respect to such a broad and voluminous breadth of definitive data and in the face of so much comprehensive, specific and exact detail.

Such a thorough and expansive prescience is impressive through and through.

Can't find a debate for the facts, huh?

[NeverSure]

Izzat the sky I hear falling?

Oh, thank God, it's only the kitchen sink coming in through the window.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t." -----W.C. Fields

You are becoming befuddled. Overwhelmed with facts, you're starting to get silly.

Debate me on the facts of the Obamacare law. Take my statements one at a time and show how it can't/won't happen. Refute them. Let's debate.

[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.

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.

If you want to work for yourself, then take care of yourself and do not expect other tax payers to do so when your choice falls short.

This is truly a problem in America. A lot of lazy people don't want to do well in school. Then with no education or meaningful skill, they don't want to work at jobs available as those are somehow beneath their underachieving self. They then expect Americans that do work to pay for their food (food stamps), pay for their housing (section 8 housing), pay for their bills (unemployment, disability or social security disability), and now want everyone to lay for their health insurance?

The system is not broken. Many people are broken and refuse to do what it takes to be successful is a GOOD system.

Bamacare is not about ore-existing conditions. That is a problem that could have been easily, and rather cheaply, addressed. It was actually addresses somewhat through state and federal xxxxcare or xxxxcaid programs.

Bamacare is about providing insurance to masses that lack education or skill to get a job that provides insurance or they are not willing to budget and allocate resources responsibly.

BCBS policies 6 months ago ran about $280 for individual and $550 per family for an 80/20 max out if pocket $3,000 and a 10 or 25 copay for office visits and prescriptions.

A lot of those bellyaching about not being able to afford insurance probably spend more than that on Internet, cell phone and cable bill each month or have brand new Caddies and Bimmers in the driveway.

Edited November 24, 2013 by F430murci

[NeverSure]

The supporters of Obamacare can't debate the facts because the facts are against them. Why they hold to their notions is a mystery to me when all of the truth is right in front of them.

Even Obama and his Democrats are trying to delay this and run from it.

Resorting to gibberish and the classic attack the messenger tactic is proof that the proponents have lost the debate and even stopped debating.

I am finished with this thread. Anyone interested in the facts has had them presented with links to prove it. Let's revisit this in a year when the employer mandate goes into affect and it really hits the fan.

It's been interesting. See ya'll.

Edited November 24, 2013 by NeverSure

[Ulysses G.]

A lot of lazy people don't want to do well in school.

As a lazy person, I take exception to this. I DO want to do well in school. I just don't want to put any real work into it.

[Credo]

And as a dumb person, I take exception. I worked hard and I still didn't do very well.

[Publicus]

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.

If you want to work for yourself, then take care of yourself and do not expect other tax payers to do so when your choice falls short.

This is truly a problem in America. A lot of lazy people don't want to do well in school. Then with no education or meaningful skill, they don't want to work at jobs available as those are somehow beneath their underachieving self. They then expect Americans that do work to pay for their food (food stamps), pay for their housing (section 8 housing), pay for their bills (unemployment, disability or social security disability), and now want everyone to lay for their health insurance?

The system is not broken. Many people are broken and refuse to do what it takes to be successful is a GOOD system.

Bamacare is not about ore-existing conditions. That is a problem that could have been easily, and rather cheaply, addressed. It was actually addresses somewhat through state and federal xxxxcare or xxxxcaid programs.

Bamacare is about providing insurance to masses that lack education or skill to get a job that provides insurance or they are not willing to budget and allocate resources responsibly.

BCBS policies 6 months ago ran about $280 for individual and $550 per family for an 80/20 max out if pocket $3,000 and a 10 or 25 copay for office visits and prescriptions.

A lot of those bellyaching about not being able to afford insurance probably spend more than that on Internet, cell phone and cable bill each month or have brand new Caddies and Bimmers in the driveway.

Certain categories of people have been opposed to "Poor Laws" for the past 300 years.

ObamaCare is yet another occasion for them to oppose going forward, instead to construct prejudiced socioeconomic theories that attempt to reframe the old complaints in contemporary terms.

Acting against this tide Prez Clinton and Speaker Gingrich worked out a pretty good welfare reform bill in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which didn't solve everything but was a major step in the process of resolving socioeconomic inequities that directly impact all of us.

So I'm confident it would be beneficial to try a similar predicate in respect to the ACA, i.e., a cooperative and constructive attitude that takes a positive and responsible approach to the immediate issue of medical insurance as a matter that impacts us all.

Denunciation constitutes defeatism.

It was Romney who got 47% of the vote - a self-fulfilling prophecy perhaps..

Welfare Reform and Its Long-Term Consequences for America's Poor

http://www.cambridge.org/ar/academic/subjects/economics/public-economics-and-public-policy/welfare-reform-and-its-long-term-consequences-americas-poor

[Publicus]

During the fierce arguments leading up to the successful enactment in 1935 of the Social Security Act its adamant opponents made bogus 'say anything' claims that it would destroy economic recovery, catastrophically increase taxes on business, kill jobs and businesses, in addition to creating a socialist state that would crush rugged individualism and its spirit.

It took two years to implement Social Security. Implementation occurred only after rounds and rounds of consultations with public and private sector leaders, public interest groups, citizen groups, academics and the like to make the Act more feasible and efficacious. It took 40 more years to include all workers under the act, which when it went online in 1937 covered only half of the presently eligible working population.

The same patterns were repeated when and after Medicare and then Medicaid, respectively, became law in 1965.

I recall somewhat the debates about Medicare and Medicaid and the chaos that attended their eventual and painful, successful, implementation. I do see the same patterns presently in respect to Prez Obama and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and I see the parallels that apply to each of the aforementioned and the Social Security Act of 1935.

In fact my first job out of college was at a newspaper where one time, in a remote closet off the beaten paths I happened to find some boxes of files full of letters between the a former editor of the paper with editors of other papers around the country. The boxes of files were dated 1934 and 1935 and included editorials and numerous yellowed news clips from the newspaper where I came to work and from other newspapers around the country.

The letters among the newspaper editors and publishers focused on their opposition to social security before it had become law. The many private letters discussed frankly and openly how the editors and publishers, Republicans all, needed to coordinate to concoct and invent data and statistics that would show social security will kill jobs, destroy businesses, wreak havoc on the economy, create a socialist state, increase unemployment, create a lazy and dependent body politic, harm the very people it was purported to benefit; that it was unworkable, would be implemented and run by government incompetents, shatter the tradition that families cared for their elders, tie everyone up in red tape and so much else rooted in the cynical attitude of say anything because the end justified the lies against the program.

Republicans tried to blame the 1936-37 recession on the Social Security Act (which resulted in Prez Roosevent and the Congress substantially increasing benefits to offset the bogus claims).

The lies and the malicious falsehoods against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and now the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are contemptible per se, so they are therefore undeserving of serious attention. The 'say anything' attitude of the present can be pursued by its practitioners because its perps won't have to defend their present claims once the program is online and everyone has forgotten about the all the bogus claims.

Engagement only encourages the wizards of invention to concoct all the more.

What about Social Security’s rollout?

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/10/28/what-about-social-securitys-rollout/

The Wrong Side of History

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/opinion/19kristof.html?_r=0

Edited November 25, 2013 by Publicus

[CPT]

There is a fallacy that people want choice with their healthcare. But people don't choose when to get sick, nor do they get to select the variety of their ailment and how long they'll have it for.

As such having 'choice' in your level of insurance cover is in the main a dodgy practice. While I undertand the politics of the decision, allowing substandard insurance coverage to continue is a mistake.

I don't think you quite understand. Last night on TV I was watching a very smart and articulate man being interviewed about his canceled insurance.

He was obviously well-off and self-employed, and bought insurance for himself and his wife. He had opted for much the same thing I used to have - a high deductible policy. He said he and his wife had a $6,000 per year deductible, meaning that they had to pay for the first $6,000 of their health care every year. But after they paid $6,000 (which they had never needed) the full-blown insurance kicked in and covered everything with no lifetime limit.

So he was insuring against the catastrophic, and willing to pay up to $6,000 out of his own pocket if necessary.

By doing this, it cut his premium by 1/2 and he said he was paying about $400 a month, or $200 per person. His policy was canceled because that's not legal any more. That high deductible doesn't meet the Obamacare standards so he lost his freedom of choice.

His new policy's premium was going to double and he had no choice and he wasn't happy. If you do the math, his added premiums for his Obamacare policy will be an enforced additional $4,800 per year, or not far from the "maybe" $6,000 deductible he had, but never paid.

The only people I know who are "for" Obamacare don't understand it. They don't/won't grasp the fact that so many doctors and hospitals have said they won't accept it. They don't see how much it costs by mandating things that people don't need such as maternity care for a couple who are 60 years old and beyond the ability to have children. The list goes on.

I don't see how the Democrats weasel out of this one. I think they screwed the pooch.

And lets not forget the big plus to these highdeductible accounts that many of us benefited from... they qualify for HSAs. The problem is few people care to actually educate themselves on the laws and our healthcare system... and that applies equally to both sides of the debate, doubly so when it comes to those who are most vocal in supporting/opposing the law.

[midas]

See Everything This Mom's Cutting to Pay for Obamacare

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/23/see-everything-familys-cutting-pay-obamacare/

Edited November 27, 2013 by midas

[thaibeachlovers]

I'm still waiting to hear why menopausal women have to have maternity benefits in their health insurance.

[thaibeachlovers]

See Everything This Mom's Cutting to Pay for Obamacare

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/23/see-everything-familys-cutting-pay-obamacare/

See Everything This Mom's Cutting to Pay for Obamacare

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/23/see-everything-familys-cutting-pay-obamacare/

I was interested to read her priorities, and I compared her cuts to my own normal lifestyle.

• Stop eating out: $150/month - I rarely eat out because of cost. Only on special occasions.

• Don’t go to the movies: $36/month- I rarely go to cinemas and then only on cheap days.

• Switch to getting a haircut every other month: $15/month- my wife cuts my hair

• Stop getting manicures: $40/month- my wife does that.

• No Christmas gifts to extended family: $40/month- Extended family, really? I just send them a card.

• Quit buying beef at the grocery store: $100/month- I can't afford beef ever, and we all mostly eat far too much meat anyway.

• Teeth cleaning only once per year: $30/month- I've never thought it necessary to have teeth cleaned more than annually anyway.

• Cancel all magazine/newspaper subscriptions: at least $30/month- I haven't had a newspaper or magazine subscription since starting to use the internet.

It's all a bit like a person on welfare complaining that they can't afford caviar, when they have a cupboard full of tinned food.

[meechai]

I was interested to read her priorities, and I compared her cuts to my own normal lifestyle.

It's all a bit like a person on welfare complaining that they can't afford caviar, when they have a cupboard full of tinned food.

I am not sure she needs to compare her life to yours?

Also perhaps you like to do things she does not.

That she has personal pleasures that are not aligned with yours is meaningless

The main point as far as I can tell from this article is

This woman went from paying $389 USD / 12,500 baht per month

To now having to pay $1252 USD / 40,300 baht per month

To say she is like a welfare recipient is also unfair IMHO

because after all she is paying this not the State. That 221% increase is hard

for any working or retired couple to accept. Regardless of what they have to now do without.

But most of all what do they get in exchange for this higher cost?

Edited November 28, 2013 by meechai

[Jingthing]

Let's get real, OK?

There are winners and losers on Obamacare. How could it be any different and still start to meet some of the goals?

You tell us, republicans. Wait, you already have and you've got NOTHING.

That's a long tour but it helps explain why we're in such a mess on health policy. Both parties implicitly realize that the American public is completely nuts on this issue. It is the official position of most politicians in both parties that the pre-Obamacare status quo needed sweeping reform, whether in a conservative direction or a liberal direction, while most voters just didn't want their cheese moved.

Both parties favor big reform because America's health care system sucks: We have astronomically high costs, outcomes no better than countries that spend half as much, and tens of millions of people with no insurance coverage. And yet, most Americans seem to inexplicably like the coverage they have today, and want any reform to the health care system to proceed with minimal disruption to them personally so they can keep the high-cost, middling-quality products they currently enjoy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_insider/2013/11/27/democrats_and_republicans_both_lie_about_obamacare.html

Edited November 28, 2013 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Troll post removed.

[Ulysses G.]

ObamaCare is yet another occasion for them to oppose going forward, instead to construct prejudiced socioeconomic theories that attempt to reframe the old complaints in contemporary terms.

An entertaining article on ACA spin.

The Affordable Care Act’s Hindenburg-like debut has been characterized a series of spectacular failures, the latest being an attempt by President Barack Obama’s political arm, Organizing for America, to furnish their followers with effective pro-ACA talking points. This army of true believers was instructed to bombard their unsuspecting kin with counterpoints to deflect the unceasing stream of bad ACA news screaming at them from the television set.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rothman-the-spectacular-collapse-of-obamacares-holiday-propaganda-blitz/

[sustento]

I'm glad I live in commie socialist pinko faggot land where, when I'm ill, I go to the doctor

[Jingthing]

I'm glad I live in commie socialist pinko faggot land where, when I'm ill, I go to the doctor

That's something maybe if we're lucky babies born in the USA can look forward to by the time they go grey ...

Oh well!

...

It's really a crying shame. One of the stupidest most infuriatingly wrong things about my home country.

[Publicus]

ObamaCare is yet another occasion for them to oppose going forward, instead to construct prejudiced socioeconomic theories that attempt to reframe the old complaints in contemporary terms.

An entertaining article on ACA spin.

The Affordable Care Act’s Hindenburg-like debut has been characterized a series of spectacular failures, the latest being an attempt by President Barack Obama’s political arm, Organizing for America, to furnish their followers with effective pro-ACA talking points. This army of true believers was instructed to bombard their unsuspecting kin with counterpoints to deflect the unceasing stream of bad ACA news screaming at them from the television set.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rothman-the-spectacular-collapse-of-obamacares-holiday-propaganda-blitz/

While the great majority of others act independently, so what's your point?

My statement quoted above is snipped from my full response to a poster and his particular post, at the Thai Visa Forum here in Thailand. The post I responded to is conveniently omitted above, as is 99% of my full response to it.

So it's clear some alleged minds are working overtime.

Shamelessly.

[Ulysses G.]

My point is spin. the White House and their acolytes desperately trying to claim that this turkey is not a turkey.

News of the grant has been revealed in the same week that the White House announced two more delays related to the president's landmark health care reform law. On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced that it would delay the launch of an online portal to the health insurance marketplace for small businesses until November 2015.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/28/groups-gets-11-million-grant-to-collect-obamacare-success-stories/?intcmp=HPBucket

Edited November 28, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[thaibeachlovers]

I was interested to read her priorities, and I compared her cuts to my own normal lifestyle.

It's all a bit like a person on welfare complaining that they can't afford caviar, when they have a cupboard full of tinned food.

I am not sure she needs to compare her life to yours?

Also perhaps you like to do things she does not.

That she has personal pleasures that are not aligned with yours is meaningless

The main point as far as I can tell from this article is

This woman went from paying $389 USD / 12,500 baht per month

To now having to pay $1252 USD / 40,300 baht per month

To say she is like a welfare recipient is also unfair IMHO

because after all she is paying this not the State. That 221% increase is hard

for any working or retired couple to accept. Regardless of what they have to now do without.

But most of all what do they get in exchange for this higher cost?

I think you missed my point, but there's no reason to get into a back and forth now.

Health care costs, and if, as Obamacare does, the government wants to force people that earn money to subsidise those that do not, without getting rid of private insurance companies and going to a single payer system, it is going to increase costs for those that do have to pay. That is the bottom line, period.

Given that Obama was elected for a second term, after he had passed Obamacare, it is rather pointless for the population to now start complaining when the real costs come out. Anyone that believes a politician when they say such garbage as "you have to pass the law to see what's in it" and claims that it will cover everyone, at LESS cost, is, frankly, a bit dim. As someone in a movie I just saw said, "you can always tell when a politician is lying, they are speaking".

Democracy only works if people do their own research and know whom they are electing, and with Obama, they got what they deserved, for being lazy.Romney had a clear message, that Obamacare, should be repealed, but the population voted for Obama and his healthcare.

If now, people have to make do with less money, it's their own fault, and if they don't want to keep paying too much, they can vote in a Republican president in 2016.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[Dimpys Dad]

Obamacare...a true modern frankenstein.

Whatever the health care system in the US might have been, it was absolutely wrong for the government to take over the system and force everyone to buy a product---insurance. What the socialist geniuses have done is create a monster, a frankenstein which will consume far more of the economy than is being projected and the result will be sub-standard health care, and worse.

All the original projections for the previous socialist inventions, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, have exploded and are now projected to be broke in the not too distant future. And now the geniuses are piling this monstrosity on top of it all while assuring everyone everything is ok. Remember HAL, in 2001? That's what this feels like.

This is not freedom. Before, I had the choice to buy insurance...or not. My choice. But now my freedom has been taken away in this area. Once the government is able to remove one freedom, it will certainly begin taking away others. I prefer freedom but have been handed tyranny. Just wait until it is full grown.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis

[Dimpys Dad]

I was interested to read her priorities, and I compared her cuts to my own normal lifestyle.

It's all a bit like a person on welfare complaining that they can't afford caviar, when they have a cupboard full of tinned food.

I am not sure she needs to compare her life to yours?

Also perhaps you like to do things she does not.

That she has personal pleasures that are not aligned with yours is meaningless

The main point as far as I can tell from this article is

This woman went from paying $389 USD / 12,500 baht per month

To now having to pay $1252 USD / 40,300 baht per month

To say she is like a welfare recipient is also unfair IMHO

because after all she is paying this not the State. That 221% increase is hard

for any working or retired couple to accept. Regardless of what they have to now do without.

But most of all what do they get in exchange for this higher cost?

I think you missed my point, but there's no reason to get into a back and forth now.

Health care costs, and if, as Obamacare does, the government wants to force people that earn money to subsidise those that do not, without getting rid of private insurance companies and going to a single payer system, it is going to increase costs for those that do have to pay. That is the bottom line, period.

Given that Obama was elected for a second term, after he had passed Obamacare, it is rather pointless for the population to now start complaining when the real costs come out. Anyone that believes a politician when they say such garbage as "you have to pass the law to see what's in it" and claims that it will cover everyone, at LESS cost, is, frankly, a bit dim. As someone in a movie I just saw said, "you can always tell when a politician is lying, they are speaking".

Democracy only works if people do their own research and know whom they are electing, and with Obama, they got what they deserved, for being lazy.Romney had a clear message, that Obamacare, should be repealed, but the population voted for Obama and his healthcare.

If now, people have to make do with less money, it's their own fault, and if they don't want to keep paying too much, they can vote in a Republican president in 2016.

More importantly, they also need to control the Senate.

[Jingthing]

...

All the original projections for the previous socialist inventions, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, have exploded and are now projected to be broke in the not too distant future.

...

That is incorrect. Especially regarding Social Security. Most certainly NOT going broke.