Democrat senator sees Obamacare “train wreck” looming
I am very concerned that not enough is being done so far—very concerned. When I’m home, small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect, they don’t know what affordability rules are, they don’t know what penalties may apply…
A lot of people have no idea about all of this…. I just see a huge train wreck coming down, and you and I have discussed this many times and I don’t see any results yet.
~ U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D–MT) addressing his concern over the full implementation of Obamacare to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, via The Foundry, April 18. Baucus announced his retirement this week.
[Photo Credit: Club for Growth; HT: Jill]
Apr.24, 2013 6:00 am |
Health care |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Obamatax never was on track and never had a track to begin with. And there’s no economic engine big enough to keep it going for the long haul.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/23/big-news-max-baucus-to-retire/
Max Baucus is actually making the case that the ACA is void for vagueness. If the average person can’t make heads or tails of what the law entails, then it can’t be enforced. The fact Roberts was saying it was a tax and Congress didn’t was a big clue that there is no clear reading.
If SCOTUS wasn’t politically motivated, they would have said that, because it’s rather obvious – even to a primary proponent of the bill.
Where’s ex-RINO? He’s our in-house apologist for this crap.
One of the writers of the blueprints for this train wreck is concerned about it now, after it has been passed and is under implementation?
How about thinking and looking and seeing the obvious coming down the tracks headed right for you? How was this ever not going to be a train wreck?
Now the government is forcing people and groups to go against their religious beliefs and their consciences by providing abortions for their workers and clients.
No, no train wreck coming here.
Stick the American people with this monstrosity of ineptitude, then run away and retire on the taxpayers dime. Yep. That’s how it is.
Hey Courtnay!
It doesn’t help that states can opt in and out of certain aspects, so the state rules will be different based on the whims of a governor.
In general though, I’ll reiterate for about the 20th time. Health Care Reform is a better solution than we’ve had – by far. It all simply delays the inevitable – a single payer system. I see no way around it. I think in a way, reform being rejected would have been an okay thing because we would have gotten single payer more quickly – but this will at least delay it for a while longer.
People don’t prepare for this type of thing though – once the laws are in effect, they’ll figure it out in a hurry.
Max Baucus was responsible for the most dishonest part of Obamacare becoming law. He was the primary DemocRATic architect of the numbers that were submitted to allow the Senate to pass the bill with only a simple majority because he claimed it would SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY.
And he’s not saying here that it won’t save money. What he’s saying is, people don’t understand the aspects of the law yet and how it affects them, which means it is going to be chaos for a lot of people when the law comes into effect.
I don’t know why this surprises anyone – we’re Americans, we don’t prepare for things.
No, ex, that’s not what he’s saying. What he’s saying is:
I just see a huge train wreck coming down
Ninek – let’s break it down:
I am very concerned that not enough is being done so far—very concerned.
**** I’m confused regarding this concern…let’s read more and then make a conclusion.
When I’m home, small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect, they don’t know what affordability rules are, they don’t know what penalties may apply…
****Ahhh, so the concern is regarding people’s confusion. Four statements, specific to small business, about not understanding the aspects of the rules that apply to them.
A lot of people have no idea about all of this…. I just see a huge train wreck coming down, and you and I have discussed this many times and I don’t see any results yet.
****Again, reference to people who don’t have an idea about the law – which, coming right after a statement regarding people who don’t understand the law – I can only deduce, as a college graduate and strong reader, that the train wreck he sees is in regards to people not understanding how the law affects them.
Now, if I have a political agenda, maybe I try to say it is about costs, or that the whole law is a train wreck.
So again, having tools at my disposal, I’ll look to find more context for the quote.
Hey, we have articles from non-crazy web sites, with more quotes from the soon to be former senator:
After the hearing, Baucus explained that the train wreck is “that consumers and businesses will just not have enough information.
Given all that, I think it would be simply foolish to say that the quote isn’t about confusion.
“It all simply delays the inevitable – a single payer system. I see no way around it.”
Yeah, that was the point of this mess. To fail so badly that people are softened to embrace single payer. It may or may not be inevitable now. But it wasn’t inevitable before. Liberals think they’re such progressive visionaries, but the view is pretty limited when your only solution is the almighty government.
CT – you could be right – looking at the numbers over the last ten years, the number of uninsured continued to rise dramatically, and those covered by employer health care plans continued to decline.
Since pre-existing condition discrimination was allowed before health care reform, there was the chance for long term viability in regards to insurance companies continuing to ween down those with medical issues and kick them off of insurance plans – sort of an insurance pool rationing. It allows for insurance companies to continue to complete by kicking out those who aren’t healthy. Those folks that aren’t healthy then can seek free care, care outside the country, or through financial rationing, simply get denied care and die – but you are right, I think that the system could have survived.
With health care reform, and the ability to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions now gone, the for profit model of health insurance is really in danger – the CEO of Aetna Insurance said as much last year.
So yes – I do agree with you that pre-reform, the inevitable of single payer system could have been avoided – but I don’t see any way except through heavy discrimination and health facilities refusing to see people (rationing).
If you have another way you were thinking of, I’d love to hear it.
Thank you CT.
states’ rights are what this country was based on, if the majority of people in a particular state dont want OC, their reps have a duty to follow suit.
We’re waiting to see how this shakes out and moving to one that completely bans OC and follows through.
Jamie –
I do hope you take it to the fullest though and talk to your state about repealilng EMTALA. EMTALA is a mandate on health care facilities to treat people in need regardless of the ability to pay. If you don’t believe in personal responsibility, and that people shouldn’t have to carry insurance – you shouldn’t expect health care facilities to have to cover all people and just get stiffed for the bill.
What you are arguing for – it only really works if you let people die.
I read an interseting article that health care reform is a conservatives dream. What’s odd is, conservatives will help make it as ineffecient as possible, and we’ll end up with single payer as a result – the liberal’s dream!
The other place the poor could get hospitalization was through Christian not-for-profit hospitals. And Obamacare takes away that source by denying them funding because they refuse to break conscience and disperse abortificients. And now a federal judge and HHS have said that abortificients mandatory w/o prescription of any kind and to minors w/o parental notification. They should call it the NAMBLA Pedophile Protection Act.
Truth –
There are good statements that deserve kudos, there are wrong statements the deserve correction, and there are statements so ignorant that they don’t deserve any sort of response.
That one gets no response.
Ex could you pick a name and stick with it please? This poor mama has a hard enough time following your very long posts!
I find you refreshingly unemotional, but so sadly govt-happy. Can’t you think of anything else other than relying on the fed govt?
Ex GOP is the only name I ever use on this board – if you have a post that you think is mine under another name, let me know – maybe we can see if those who run the board can provide an IP address.
I most certainly think that most things shouldn’t rely on the federal government. However, health care doesn’t fit into the free market like other free market goods. Have you, by chance, read the Time Magazine article ‘A Bitter Pill’?
Ex-
I’ll add it to the list…right after we raise our children to help others beyond just paying our taxes and wiping their hands. Its a Jesus thing…
Here’s the different between you and I:
You-worship the govt and think it needs to take care of everyone and has all the answers.
Me: worships Jesus and knows govt is not, never has been, Ans never will be “the answer”.
You:works a white collar desk job that allows for breaks in which to read liberal media to back up your pov ie:govt is awesome, indv need oversight, having no healthcare = bad, etc.
Me: knows what’s right and what’s wrong w/o
having to find an article with govt stats in it, (ie
more govt control = bad b/c we actually have owned businesses and have family that owned businesses, paid off over $25k in Med bills in 3 years while having 3 children & closing said businesses b/c taxes spiked (ie govt control), & have family in 4 different countries with 4 different levels of govt interference in the “system of health”. We also have 6 MDs in the family, all of which are extreme left, all of which are against OC.
There are other ways than giving more control & $ to the feds. If the govt would get out of the way even more options would spring up.
So you aren’t “ex gop voter”? OK good I’ll just ignore those comments *eye roll
I take back ” refreshingly unemotional” btw. Phew boy.
“The other place the poor could get hospitalization was through Christian not-for-profit hospitals. ”
How in the world do you expect not-for-profits to just eat thousands and thousands of dollars monthly? It might have worked way back when, when prices were lower and the medical system was quite a bit different, but I can’t see how people think it’s going to work now.
And people seriously gotta stop with the pedophile hysteria thing on barely or not related issues. It’s freaky.
Jamie –
You are making a bunch of assumptions, and being a bit rude in the process. Quite frankly, if you are going to wear your faith on your sleeve, I’d wish you’d be a bit more Christian about it.
So my bio – Christian, father of three, 10+ years in health care related jobs and work with the military.
I worship Christ more than the government. But I also don’t ignore facts nor shun economics. I’ve heard and read numerous health care CEO’s about the inevitable nature of a single payer health care system. Again, health care doesn’t work like the free market. I’d be stealing from another list, but I could post nearly a dozen ways in which it doesn’t work like the free market.
Your story though is familiar in this country – in an economy that is becoming more and more global by the day, how well do you think the US will do when employers have to build health care costs into the costs of the products they are competing with?
If you just have angry rhetoric, do me a favor and move on. I’ve heard it all at this point. What I haven’t heard is right wing solutions. If you have any, I’d be intersted.
And lastly, if you are going to lead with the name of Christ, put on a humble spirit and stop being so judgmental and rude.
Thanks,
Ex GOP, Ex GOP Voter – that isn’t deceiving – I post from multiple computers and don’t often remember exactly my name!
Ex:
Out of curiosity, are you anti-abortion?
You never comment on anything non-political strictly pro-life-feel-good here that’s why I ask.
I would like to see health benefits not tied to to jobs. After all, our car insurance isn’t tied to where we work.
My premiums have already gone up. Premiums my husband and I already can’t afford since we have to buy our own insurance. Guess thats what their ultimate goal is…we’ll be on the government insurance. Which none of our doctors take. Which is a headache cause I know people on government insurance…we know how well government runs everything it touches. Postal service is da bomb!
Things are just getting harder and harder for the average American family. Politicians on both sides of the aisle just heap on the burden even more.
Jamie
I have posted on some threads, but not often – not on this board as much these days.
Yes, I’m anti-abortion. Many on this board don’t say I’m pro-life because I don’t honestly factor it much into my voting – but there’s no way ever that my wife and I would have considered abortion – not an option, ever. I’d like to see an overall bill that bans abortions, and puts in economic structures to better support families and the choice of life. When you look at things like maternity leave, day care, health care, and education – American is pretty poor in regards to supporting values compared with most other industrialized nations.
And people seriously gotta stop with the pedophile hysteria thing on barely or not related issues. It’s freaky.
Jack, let me connect the dots for you. The government forcing the distribution of abortaficients to minors w/o parental notification is a pedophiles dream come true. They can get the young rape victims to ingest abortificients and keep on abusing them. And protecting young girls from pedophiles is only freaky to freaks.
“The government forcing the distribution of abortaficients to minors w/o parental notification is a pedophiles dream come true. They can get the young rape victims to ingest abortificients and keep on abusing them. And protecting young girls from pedophiles is only freaky to freaks.”
Considering that adults have, since idk the sixties, have been able to get hold of condoms, the pill, and other contraceptives to their hearts content I don’t think it changes much. Shoot I remember getting free condoms when I was fourteen, the girls around my age could get birth control at the county health department, usually free and all without parental consent. Not that I disagree that over the counter MAP is a bad idea, but I am really tired of the pedophilia hysteria. As evidenced by your latest comment, it just seems like a way to accuse people who have a different opinion of wanting to protect pedophiles.
And you have to have known that last little jab would piss me off, so consider me deeply annoyed with you.
Ex-RINO, good to know you don’t approve of the statement. I must have made my point perfectly then.
Jack, that little jab was just a counter-punch to what seemed like your insensitivity to our government ‘mandating’ something that makes it easier for pedophiles to get away with repeat abuse of young girls.
Jack, you are just missing the boat here. It is not freaky to say that Planned Parenthood or anybody else dispenses abortificients to a minor should have to report the pregnancy to the police. If nothing else it is statutory rape; but often much worse then even that. Why are you so insensitive to the plight of these young rape victims when you know how often it goes on?
Not gonna have a conversation with someone who implies I’m against protecting kids from pedophilia.
Just saw your last comment. I’m insensitive to underage rape victims? Screw off.
Don’t get mad Jack. Just respond that you understand how undocumented access to abortificients can make it easier for rape to go undetected. It is not rocket science.
And he’s not saying here that it won’t save money.
What a fairyland you must live in Ex-RINO. Where buying millions of people health plans with no pre-existing condition clauses and no lifetime caps and billions of dollars of bureaucracy to oversee it; and it is not an expenditure; it is actually reducing our spending. Seriously? You can’t be for real.
You should accuse him of supporting puppy murder too, or something, truth. Because accusing people of supporting terrible things they obviously don’t is a great way of debating.
truth -
I believe you have claimed to understand the debates we are having and health care policy in general – I’d reference back to the CBO calculations surrounding health care reform.
Since you don’t seem to recall, a bit of education for you - during the Bush years, congress suspended paygo, which says that any tax cuts or spending increases need to be paid for (the loss of revenue or increase in spending needs an offset). When Obama took office, the habit of paying for things got going again. Health Care Reform, as you recall and have railed against, has taxes with it as well. The funding changes, tax increases, new programs, and subsidies all were scored by the CBO (congressional budget office – their agreed upon scoring group), and the plan actually decreases the deficit. If the GOP would have won enough seats in the senate, and if they had won the Presidency, repealing health care reform would have required either a tax increase, or other cuts, because the deficit would have actually increased in the future based on repeal.
There’s plenty of material to read on it – and I’m not going to do your research for you – if you’d like to find holes in the CBO report, I’m sure you could – it’s public domain and out there.
Ex-RINO,
Paul Ryan drove a truck through those holes during the Obamacare debate; you must have had your blinders on. And that was then…today’s cost projections make the idea that Obamacare will save money a farce.
Ex-GOP says:
“so the state rules will be different based on the whims of a governor.”
Exactly. Same as for education: reserved powers. Until the marxists find clever ways to take over education as well.
truth – I love Paul Ryan – I think he’s the Democratic MVP over the past couple of years, and if I could say what the number one thing for future election success for the Democrats, it would be Paul Ryan releasing his vision for the future every year.
If you want to point me to a CBO report, feel free.
If you want to point me to Ryan numbers, just remember that he’s the guy that railed against the medicare cuts (as did you), and then kept them in his latest vision for the future. He hates them so much, that less than six months after the big defeat, he’s now rushed to claim them as his own!
Thoughts?
TLD -
I should have been more clear – the education of health care reform is tough, because different states have different levels and speed of implementation.
It will make for a nice social science experiment though – some states will cover more residents than others – but we all know those folks that are uncovered get care, which drives up insurance rates for those that have coverage – so it will be interesting to see the numbers in a few years.
Ex-RINO,
since CBO analysis is important to you; watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs
Thoughts?
Not even half as bad as double counting them like Max Baucus and the DemocRATs did
truth –
These myths were dispelled a couple of years ago.
Catch up and get in the game here.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/
The 10 year costing based on 10 years of revenue generating offsetting by six years of paying out benefits. You and Max ‘the train wreck’ Baucus are economic witch doctors. Casting spells of incessant whining about the bad economy you were handed and the need for stimulus and fairy tale projections of bureaucratic costs that are sure to be at least triple our projections (like almost every other government cost projection ever made).
The GAO looked at the long term effect just recently – looked at 75 years -http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/285009-gao-health-law-will-increase-deficit-if-cost-cutting-measures-stop
Since I don’t think you read these articles, I’ll summarize. Deficit decreases over the next 75 years (looking at just health care reform) IF the law is fully implemented. If Senators get cold feet and start hacking cost saving measures, then it could lead to a deficit. But written as is, it will decrease the deficit.
I think 75 years is a bit silly to look at – we’ll have single payer much earlier than that – but this should calm your worries a bit – GAO is a nonpartisan group without an axe to grind.
And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…
truth -
If you want to believe right wing scare tactics over researched and published reports, feel free.
The simple fact is, deficit or not, it is a far superior plan than anything you’ve been offering up or supporting. The status quo was a nightmare for people. Will this plan be perfect? Far from it – but it is a huge step up.
It is only a step up to the people who call government control of health care a step up. Even Max Baucus now sees it is a train wreck.
Ex-RINO, Let’s go through areal life scenario together. I’ll give the scenario that occurs pre-Obamacare.
John Doe has no insurance coverage and gets in a serious car wreck pre-Obamacare and goes to a non-profit hospital. They treat him and release him and end up eating the costs.
Now post Obamacare there are no non-profit hospitals left because they could not comply with government regulations and the same person ends up in an Obamcare exchange. What happens to this person when they arrive at the Obamacare Exchange?
I don’t really expect you to be able to answer Ex-RINO. You will have to read through tens of thousands of pages of regulations in order to figure it out. And so will each and every one of the millions of people who end up in this situation. The response will be different for each person based on a collection of data that the IRS is putting together on all US citizens. But if your not a citizen, not in the database, then you are completely covered. Sound like a step up to you?
EGV,
LOL. You’re not serious, right? You actually believe in gov’t run programs that are efficient and cost effective, and over 75 years yet! If the law is implemented? Good grief they’re having trouble even doing that. No surprise since its how many thousand pages? Oh, and by all means, trust our elected representatives to control their urges to spend our money.
EGV, I’ve got some ocean front property near my midwestern home to sell you.
TS is quite correct about the thousands of pages of regulations which I posted for you on an earlier thread. That’s in addition to the law itself. But sleep well, thousands of “navigators” will be hired to guide you through this morass. Of course your friendly IRS is there to offer assistance and comfort as well.
Government efficiency and cost control at work for us.
Ya know something EGV and TS, I appreciate my grandmother’s words of wisdom more and more: “If we didn’t laugh we’d cry”.
Mary, when the tears run dry all that we have left to cling to is our Bibles and our guns. Oh, and our pickup trucks.
Truth – I’ll get to your scenario if you can send me the press release of a single non-payer health care system in the country that is planning on shutting its doors when health care reform is fully law, because of the legislation.
Your joking right Ex-RINO?
I figured you’d pick out a little piece of what I said and try avoiding answering the question. Just to humor you, here is your link. If they lose their tax-exempt status then they will lose their ability to stay in business:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidwhelan/2012/09/17/obamacare-could-cause-nonprofit-hospitals-to-lose-their-tax-exempt-status-heres-how/
Did you even read the article you posted?
The reason he’s saying they could lose their non-profit status is because too many people will have health insurance to give away enough charity care.
Which sort of throws your whole first question into a bit of a tight spot, don’t you think? The article is saying too many of these people will now have insurance.
Anyway, there’s no evidence from that article that a single hospital is going to shut its doors because of the reform.
Here is another link that says Catholic Hospital’s will be gone due to Obamacare; but this one for conscience reasons:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/cardinal-george-catholic-hospitals-will-be-gone-two-lents-under-obamacare-regulation
What puzzles me about you Ex-RINO, is how you claim to follow health care so closely and yet seem oblivious to articles like the ones I linked to??? They were easily found by googling ‘catholic hospitals obamacare’.
Your first article doesn’t support what you’re saying, and the second is from a fringe publication. I read a log of different sites and blogs, but not much on the conspiracy sites.
I mean, with all due respect, a cardinal from Chicago saying hospitals will go out of business isn’t necessarily the type of support I generally look for to support a position.
Just because you found somebody who said something doesn’t mean it is instantly credible or reasonable.
Any Catholic who voted for Obama needs to go to confession before coming back to the church.
Your first article doesn’t support what you’re saying, and the second is from a fringe publication.
So the writing of Cardinal Francis George is considered by you to be a ‘fringe’ publication with regards to how Obamacare will effect the Catholic Church???
Look Ex-RINO,
You asked for links and I gave you them. You can call Catholic Cardinal’s ‘fringe’ sources regarding issues that effect the church but that is really, really reaching even for you. Now how about answering the question I posed to you?
What happens post-Obamacare when an uninsured person in need of critical care shows up at an Obamacare Exchange for treatment?
******chirp…chirp…chirp…..********
Liberals are great at making speeches and prognosticating fairy tales but crickets is what you get when you force a liberal to talk about reality.
Hi TS,
Max “the train wreck” Baucus must have finally sobered up and realized what he had done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmju1KOaw0A
truth – CNS – it is a source that states, quite frankly, that they are biased – that they were formed because they thought the news was too left learning. Regardless, I’ll simply clarify – is the Bishop a CEO of a health care facility?
The church owns the health care facility as an asset. The CEO serves at their bidding.
I am still waiting for your response but like I said above. I don’t really expect one cause I understand you have no answer.
What happens post-Obamacare when an uninsured person in need of critical care shows up at an Obamacare Exchange for treatment?
—Truth, this might be your best question ever.
First of all, there’s no such place as an ‘Obamacare Exchange’. The exchanges are simply internet sites where you buy health care policies. An exchange is essentially a clearinghouse – go and easily compare health plans to choose the best one. There’s no PLACE called an exchange – no physical building – no doctors, no nurses. To ask the question – “when somebody shows up at an exchange”, shows such an extreme level of ignorance regarding the topic, I don’t even know what to say.
I don’t know truth – what would happen if somebody had a heart attack, and went to Amazon.com?
An exchange is not a health care facility. You buy insurance at an exchange.
If a person in critical care goes to an exchange, THEY ARE ON THE INTERNET.
Dear heavens truth – please tell me you typed something wrong – tell me you were drunk – tell me that your six year old typed that sentence – tell me that you meant something completely different.
Please, please, please, don’t tell me that you actually thought that a health care exchange was someplace that people went to for receiving health care.
Please.
I’m really afraid of the answer…as I look back, you asked it twice, slightly different each time, showing that you actually think it is a place.
Wow.
LOL Mary…
He sounds like an Ex-RINO post
Ex-RINO,
What happens when a person shows up at a hospital that is part of the Obamacare Exchange? Does Obamacare guarantee them treatment? Wasn’t that the promise of Obamacare? Manadatory guaranteed treatment.
*****chirp….chirp…..chirp*****
Chirp, chirp, chirp?
I just answered your question that you asked twice with a scolding of how ignorant you are about health care.
Oh my goodness.
Yes – health care reform guarantees them treatment.
Do you know what treatment means, or do I need to spell that out as well?
Do you think that Obamacare repeals EMTALA, truth?
Jack -
Who the he*^ knows what truth thinks – he thought a health care exchange was a physical place people went to for receiving services.
I mean, that’s health care 101 stuff right there.
I’m a little torqued right now, not because of his ignorance, but because he then posted the little ‘chirp, chirp, chirp’, like I’m not answering fast enough.
But seriously, it makes me afraid for this country – afraid that people are allowed to vote when they no so little about these things. I wouldn’t want a high schooler to graduate if they didn’t understand that much…and here, somebody who has been debating health care for a while, and scolding others for their beliefs, doesn’t know what an exchange is?
Come on.
So who the stink knows what truth thinks – he probably thinks that we’ll have one giant hospital in Vegas or something, and people have to sell their soul to get into to it, or they’ll be left to die in the desert.
The future of the GOP – the Republican party will be dead in 10 years if these are the types of folks voting for it…
Chirp, chirp, chirp…
Yes – health care reform guarantees them treatment.
Do you know what treatment means, or do I need to spell that out as well?
Ex-RINO, you can just answer it the context I asked it. Are saying then every hospital that joins an Obamacare Exchange must provide treatment to for every uninsured person who might say get diagnosed with cancer?
truth – oh, for the love of all that is good and holy.
Hospitals don’t join health care exchanges.
Insurance is sold on health care exchanges.
Insurance plans are separate from medical facilities. At times, medical facilities have insurance plans jointed named, but they are run separately.
Do you buy health insurance from your local hospital? No – you buy it from an insurance company, that has negotiated rates with medical facilities, to which you go for services.
truth – on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being an expert, and 1 being completely ignorant.
How well do you feel that you understand health care in this country?
I’m not answering anything more until you answer that.
“Ex-RINO, you can just answer it the context I asked it. Are saying then every hospital that joins an Obamacare Exchange must provide treatment to for every uninsured person who might say get diagnosed with cancer?”
truth… our healthcare system now doesn’t guarantee that anyone gets cancer treatment (it’s not emergency, so it doesn’t fall under laws guaranteeing emergency medical treatment). As it stands now, you might get the treatment and be thousands and thousands in debt, of which the costs get passed on to everyone who is insured/can pay their bills out of pocket/pays taxes. Or, you might get basic treatment because the hospital can afford to let you/you can find enough charity to get basic chemo, but get denied for a bone marrow transplant because you can’t afford it, and die. I don’t understand what exactly your issue is here or what you’re asking at all. I think you’re misunderstanding what the exchange is and though there are valid complaints about OC you don’t seem to know what they are.
I’m a little torqued right now, not because of his ignorance, but because he then posted the little ‘chirp, chirp, chirp’, like I’m not answering fast enough.
Ex-RINO, it’s not that you don’t answer fast enough….it’s that you avoid answering at all. You deflected at least five times insisting I answer your questions about non-profit hospitals and who owns them etc… Not even a liberal is allowed to remake the truth even though they keep trying. Look back yourself it is plain to see.
truth… our healthcare system now doesn’t guarantee that anyone gets cancer treatment
Jack, in today’s system these are the ones who get help at non-profit hospitals. Are you saying that Obamacare doesn’t guarantee coverage for these people? I thought under Obamacare everybody was supposed to get no lifetime cap and no pre-existing conditions. Why wouldn’t compliant hospitals be forced to help? Could a person with cancer start a policy when they walk in the door?
” So who the stink knows what truth thinks – he probably thinks that we’ll have one giant hospital in Vegas or something, and people have to sell their soul to get into to it, or they’ll be left to die in the desert.”
Haha.
” Jack, in today’s system these are the ones who get help at non-profit hospitals.”
Except for the ones who die. And like I’ve said before, I don’t think it’s even possible for non-profits to continue to eat these costs (and much of those eaten costs are paid by the tax payers, not the hospital itself). We’re simply providing care to these people in the most expensive, least efficient way possible, and doing a bad job of it based on healthcare markers. We don’t stack up next to the rest of the western world.
”Are you saying that Obamacare doesn’t guarantee coverage for these people? I thought everybody was supposed to get no lifetime cap and no pre-existing conditions? Why wouldn’t compliant hospitals be forced to help? Could they start a policy when they walk in the door?”
You’re conflating the changes made to insurance laws and the way we treat uninsured people. I honestly think Obamacare doesn’t help uninsured people, what it does do is insure more people (which is what you are talking about when you talk about the lack of lifetime caps and pre-existing clauses).
I don’t understand how you think that the lack of lifetime caps and pre-existing clauses has anything directly to do with uninsured people receiving care or not.
What about the uninsured people who get hurt in accidents? Does Obamacare guarantee them coverage? Could they start a policy when they get to the hospital or would they be sent away? I mean, if Obamacare doesn’t even fix this issue (one of the biggest problems with our health care system) then it is thousands of pages of government regulation and bureaucracy for nothing. And even more worrisome is that Obamacare is regulating away much of the current Catholic non-profit health care safety net.
“What about the uninsured people who get hurt in accidents? Does Obamacare guarantee them coverage? Could they start a policy when they get to the hospital or would they be sent away? I mean, if Obamacare doesn’t even fix this issue (one of the biggest problems with our health care system) then it is thousands of pages of government regulation and bureaucracy for nothing. And even more worrisome is that Obamacare is regulating away much of the current Catholic non-profit health care safety net.”
You’re just rambling and changing the subject when I answer what you ask. People who get hurt in accidents are guaranteed emergency treatment by the EMTALA, but you’re right in that they won’t be automatically covered or helped with their expenses. Another reason I think OC is just a stopgap measure and doesn’t actually fix the real problem. Doesn’t mean that OC isn’t a positive for the people it extended health insurance to, though.
“I don’t understand how you think that the lack of lifetime caps and pre-existing clauses has anything directly to do with uninsured people receiving care or not.”
That is why I mentioned people needing critical care being able to walk into the hospital and start a policy for a pre-existing condition like cancer or maybe even an accident or something. Wouldn’t those injuries be pre-existing conditions? I thought Obamacare policies had to be available to people regardless of pre-existing conditions.
I know I’m breaking my rule by answering a question here.
But EMTALA is fully in effect still.
People will have greater guarantees at the individual level than they did before health care reform.
If this is your greatest concern, you should LOVE reform.
Status quo (pre-reform) – somebody with cancer could be kicked out of an insurance plan for little to no reason. And then that person could be discriminated against by other companies not wanting to provide them with services. Medical facilities would gladly take care of that person as they neared death, and it was an emergency situation – but the care until then was not guaranteed and often times, not obtained.
Under reform, somebody with cancer can’t be denied coverage under insurance.
I’m even fine with paying more for coverage it it means that people won’t die because of lack of coverage.
So based on your questions, you should love reform – biggest fan ever.
Ex-RINO,
If I am uninsured and get really sick and need extended treatment with no lifetime caps can I walk into any Obamacare Exchange hospital and start a policy?
truth -
Please define what you mean by ‘walk into any obamacare exchange hospital’?
What do you believe an obamacare exchange hospital is – I don’t really fully understand what you are asking.
An Obamacare Exchange hospital would be one that serves patients who purchase policies on the Obamacare Exchanges.
First off – you need to understand that things like pre-existing condition discrimination is now banned on ALL plans – not just plans purchased on the exchange.
Health care exchanges are just an old conservative idea that if you get insurance companies to compete in a transparent marketplace, that competition will help get people the right prices. The big difference is that this plan regulates minimum coverage more so than the right would like (just a bit of eduction for you).
So the answer to your question is essentially yes – if you have cancer, you can still buy a plan and get coverage for your treatment.
Will that be more expensive for society? Probably. Should we let people just die (only treating them once they are in an ’emergency’ situation) – I don’t believe so – but that is within your own morality to decide your own answer.
“So the answer to your question is essentially yes – if you have cancer, you can still buy a plan and get coverage for your treatment.”
Good to know. Does Obamacare also mandate that all hospitals are required to treat Obamacare patients?
truth – it works no different than today – you’ll have in network facilities and out of network facilities. Emergency care, yes. If you (I believe you live in Wisconsin) want to get cancer coverage in California, you have to have that arranged.
truth – it works no different than today – you’ll have in network facilities and out of network facilities.
Hospitals today are able to turn away the uninsured. Will they also be able to turn away the Obamacare insured if they so wish?
Who sets the reimbursement rate for services on the Obamacare Exchanges; the HHS or the insurers?
There isn’t enough lipstick in JC Penney’s to cover up the Obamacare pig. Even people like Max ‘the train-wreck’ Baucus are seeing what Obamacare looks like now as the Obamacare rubber starts hitting the road.
When the rubber hits the road the Obamacare no lifetime caps and the no pre-existing conditions are just figments of your imagination cause it creates an economically unsustainable pool of insured…. what you really get is price-ceilings of reimbursement rates and rationing of care based upon the value you place any individual person’s health.
Truth -
All four of your last statements in one:
– Things will work just as they have. If somebody shows up an has an emergency, facilities will treat them (as dictated under EMTALA). If somebody calls and demands plastic surgery, it will be handled as it is now.
– Reimbursement rates, as in deductible amounts and percentage covered? Or do you mean actual reimbursement for services, as in – “when I shop for a health care plan, I want to see how much they have negotiated to pay for a broken leg”? Your question doesn’t make much sense.
– Baucus was clearly, undeniably, and stated himself, saying that the train wreck was confused people not understanding the law. Not the law itself. To read the other quote of his I posted, and then to argue otherwise, is simply lying. Go back and read my other post. Also, quite frankly, you’ve eliminated the right to have an opinion on this until you understand more. If you don’t understand what an exchange is, you get no other opinion (at least not credible). None. You don’t understand enough yet. I’m trying to be as nice about it as possible. You simply don’t understand health care.
4) Your statement is self-defeating – you are basically saying that the only way things are economically sustainable now is that insurance companies can ration care and place values on people’s lives and say that they won’t care for poor people. To say that covering people will lead to economic disaster is to say that you prefer a plan in which poor people or otherwise uninsured people will be denied care for the good of the healthy.
To say that covering people will lead to economic disaster is to say that you prefer a plan in which poor people or otherwise uninsured people will be denied care for the good of the healthy.
The way our current health insurance system survived is by offering varying degrees of coverage to different people according to their needs and their ability to pay. If someone wanted no lifetime caps they paid substantially more then somebody with a million dollar lifetime cap. Obamacare does not allow that. You may not have liked it the way it was before but it was sustainable. The government promising lifetime coverage whenever you decide you need it and with no cap on costs is not sustainable. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand it but it does take a rock to not understand something so basic. Why do you find it so hard to grasp?
Our system was not sustainable, truth. It wasn’t remotely sustainable.
I clearly grasp it – I explained the system to you. How can the student mock a teacher for not grasping something?
It wasn’t sustainable – as more people become uninsured, the line of who is privledged and not keeps rising. Before long, you and I might be the ones under the line.
I’m glad you’ll at least admit you were fine with economic rationing – while I think it’s a poor way of doing things, being able to admit that you support it…well, all I typically see you do is cut things down – nice to see you support something (even if it is an awful thing to support).
This coming from the guy who still won’t call Obamacare’s penalties for not complying with coverage mandates a tax….the IRS oversees collecting the penalties…The Supreme Court has ruled the penalties to be a tax…and one of is out of touch….hmmm….I guess everybody but you must be crazy then…..
I’m glad you’ll at least admit you were fine with economic rationing – while I think it’s a poor way of doing things,
No Ex-RINO, I do not support economic rationing. But government run health care requires it. For someone who claims to understand health care you sure are wrong about a lot of things. And here the rest of us thought it was the role of the government Independent Payment Advisory Board to decide wether or not they would pay for grandma’s heart bypass (sure sounds like a form of rationing).
Our system was not sustainable, truth. It wasn’t remotely sustainable.
Jack, insurance companies sold policies they could afford to sell. That is sustainable. Now the government forces employers to offer policies that many cannot afford to pay for. Get that…many cannot afford to ‘sustain’ coverage for their employees. And it would be ignorant; especially now that only about 50% of the work force is private business; to think that government will be able to collect enough taxes from these people to afford it.
The tax statement has nothing to do with this whole argument. The Supremes simply used it to justify reform, which they didn’t want the activist label over (since it would have been an activist ruling overturning congress).
If you believe that when you get a speeding ticket that it is a tax, then health care reform is a tax. Fine by me.
truth -
But you do support rationing. You state that the system was sustainable when insurance companies could cap services (lifetime caps) and use pre-existing conditions. In both those cases, people are denied services, or can’t afford services.
THAT IS RATIONING
Also, if you don’t understand what an exchange is, I don’t think I even want to get into IPAB…
“I don’t think I even want to get into IPAB…”
Oh, what a shock!!
“If you believe that when you get a speeding ticket that it is a tax”
No Ex-RINO, the government does not mandate that I drive (Obamacare is mandated) and the IRS doesn’t collect fines for speeding tickets; you really must know how foolish you look saying this stuff.
truth –
You thought exchanges were something you could walk into and get service from.
Even after getting explained what they were, you thought that hospitals sold services through there.
You’ve shown that you barely have a grasp of how health care works now.
You don’t seem to understand what health care rationing even is.
So don’t pretend like you know more than me about anything in health care, and lecture me if I don’t give you a quick answer to one of your poorly written scenarios or questions.
LOL Ex-RINO….. I explained to you that hospitals that elect to service people with insurance policies that were purchased on Obamacare Exchanges are what I call Obamacare Exchange hospitals. But seriously; you don’t know how foolish you look when you argue Obamacare is not a tax and your reasoning is that speeding tickets are not taxes….do you really compare Obamacare mandates to speeding tickets as your proof?
truth –
You asked “What happens post-Obamacare when an uninsured person in need of critical care shows up at an Obamacare Exchange for treatment?”
You can’t lie your way out of this one.
You do realize that not all hospitals will have to service Obamacare Exchange patients don’t you? Well when they are refused they will have to go to an Obamacare Exchange hospital. I brought up this real-world scenario asking you where people who need emergency treatment and want an Obamacare policy to cover it would be able to get treatment from a hospital that takes Obamacare Exchange patients. But nobody really knows the answers to these questions do they? So instead you would like to bury any real discussion cause that is just how you roll.
You might be the thickest person I’ve ever met.
Go read up on EMTALA, and then find a good guide to explain health care reform, and then come back.
My 10:52 comment had three likes – none of them were me. It’s clear that you don’t understand health care, and other people agree. Do the world a favor – go learn a bit more, and then come back.
This real-world, rubber hits the road stuff is what caused Max ‘the train wreck’ Baucus to finally speak up about what a disaster the implementation of Obamacare is going to be.
“Go read up on EMTALA, and then find a good guide to explain health care reform, and then come back.”
I wasn’t speaking about EMTALA. I was speaking about people who don’t want to use EMTALA and want to get their care as an Obamacare patient. You have dodged and deflected once again…like a true liberal.
“I wasn’t speaking about EMTALA. I was speaking about people who don’t want to use EMTALA and want to get their care as an Obamacare patient. Dodged and deflected like a true liberal though.”
Like, 90% of what I’ve seen you do on this thread is accuse people of motivations they don’t have when they disagree with you, change the subject when someone answers a question of yours, and a severe misunderstanding of what the law, including the new laws put in place by Obamacare is. I don’t think Ex is the one deflecting here.
I would much rather argue about Obamacare with Mary, at least she’s rational and keeps the discussion away from personally attacking her detractors for the most part.
Truth – people don’t choose to use EMTALA – EMTALA means that hospitals treat people in emergencies first, and figure out billing later – and those who don’t have insurance and can’t afford it still get treatment. You don’t “reject” EMTALA – you don’t simply opt out.
You have insurance through your work, or your purchase it through an exchange. There’s no such thing as an “obamacare patient’. To even string the two together is foolish.
Look – you want to ration health care and let people who have pre-existing conditions die so that those that are healthy can maintain their coverage without the inconvenience of the possibility of higher taxes. That is your position. I didn’t force your into that position – you essentially explained with your own free will.
So don’t get all concerned about the fringes of health care reform and the assurance people will get emergency care - Jack explained it to you – I explained it to you.
Jack,
I never even brought EMTALA into the discussion. You did in response to my posts when I was trying to ask what a patient is supposed to do to get critical care (accident or severe illness) covered by Obamacare and you respond they can use EMTALA. Great but that is NOT what I asked. If you don’t understand my question then fine. But if you do then either answer it or say that you don’t know the answer; cause I am not asking about EMTALA. Get it?
Truth –
but EMTALA is the answer to your question.
It really is.
EMTALA was brought into the conversation because that’s the right answer.
How is somebody assured of critical care?
EMTALA
ding, ding, ding
You are confused as to why it is in the conversation?
Because it is the right answer.
“What’s 2 +2”
“4!”
“What, why are you bringing the number 4 into this discussion?”
“Because it is the right answer”
EMTALA is the answer to your question.
Ding, ding, ding
Next question please
Truth – people don’t choose to use EMTALA – EMTALA means that hospitals treat people in emergencies first, and figure out billing later
Ex-RINO, thanks for at least trying to address the question. Forget EMTALA for a minute. If I find out I have cancer and go to the ER and I want to get treatment under Obamacare how quickly could I get a policy to cover these pre-existing conditions? I am trying to figure out the ‘billing’ ahead of time as part of this discussion.
” I never even brought EMTALA into the discussion. You did in response to my posts when I was trying to ask what a patient is supposed to do to get critical care (accident or severe illness) covered by Obamacare and you respond they can use EMTALA. Great but that is NOT what I asked. If you don’t understand my question then fine. But if you do then either answer it or say that you don’t know the answer; cause I am not asking about EMTALA. Get it?”
Ugh, that’s NOT how you stated the original question.
Obamacare isn’t universal coverage. Obamacare isn’t universal coverage. It extended insurance to some underprivileged people, and made it somewhat more accessible to those who have trouble affording it, but there is no single payer system in place through it.
Uninsured people before Obamacare were guaranteed critical and emergency care through EMTALA. This hasn’t change. What Obamacare did was extend insurance coverage to some millions of people, whether it did that effectively is another debate, but it wasn’t intended as universal coverage.
It’s weird because you are acting like it’s a flaw in OC to not cover uninsured people who have an accident (these people still obtain care though), but I know for a fact you are against universal healthcare insurance. Your objections aren’t making any sense.
I feel like I’m trying to answer a riddle that actually has no answer, that’s how nonsensical your questions seem to me truthseeker.
Jack,
I know Obamacare isn’t universal coverage. But Obamacare is supposed to be insurance that is available universally to anybody regardless of their current health status. If I am uninsured, and I decide I want to get insured, Obamacare is a guarantee that I can get coverage. All I am asking is how the logistics will work for people who wait until they need coverage and want to purchase it. I think is reasonable to expect an answer to my question. The fact that you are struggling so hard to answer such a basic question is exactly the topic of this thread and is part of the ‘train-wreck’ known as Obamacare implementation.
Jack – Agreed. It’s like a bad riddle.
I think, his last question is saying that somebody has cancer, and they go the hospital and want to buy health insurance, how long does it take to process the paperwork. But you don’t buy insurance at a hospital?
Or, the person actually has an emergency, is near death, but is concerned that they’d rather have insurance purchased really quick (yes, I know I’m bleeding out, but can I borrow your internet) – and wondering how fast a person can buy a plan on the internet?
I’m sure if I don’t answer the ambigous question directly, I’ll be called nasty names and say that I”m dodging the question.
Why can’t we just get universal coverage so that all the questions are easier?
Since I know you like health care – great article in the KC Star – the governor pushed for medicaid expansion – the GOP lawmakers rejected it. Had a story of a diabetic, makes $10 an hour, so he makes too much for medicaid – so he can’t afford medication to manage his diabetes. But because it isn’t managed, he ends up havign to go to the ER every once in a while…and since he’s not insured…guess who pays?
Seems cheaper to have him manage his diabetes then wait until he has to go to the ER.
What a great system we have!
” I know Obamacare isn’t universal coverage. But Obamacare is supposed to be insurance that is available universally to anybody regardless of their current health status. If I am uninsured, and I decide I want to get insured, Obamacare is a guarantee that I can get coverage. All I am asking is how the logistics will work for people who wait until they need coverage and want to purchase it. I think is reasonable to expect an answer to my question.”
But…. Obamacare isn’t an insurance policy. I’m sorry. I don’t see how I can discuss this rationally with you if you don’t understand that.
And plus you’re complaining about your hypothetical person who doesn’t have insurance, when like a month ago you were complaining about the mandate that everyone purchase insurance.
” Since I know you like health care – great article in the KC Star – the governor pushed for medicaid expansion – the GOP lawmakers rejected it. Had a story of a diabetic, makes $10 an hour, so he makes too much for medicaid – so he can’t afford medication to manage his diabetes. But because it isn’t managed, he ends up havign to go to the ER every once in a while…and since he’s not insured…guess who pays?
Seems cheaper to have him manage his diabetes then wait until he has to go to the ER.
What a great system we have!”
See, I don’t see how conservatives who hate, hate hate the “leeches” on the system can be okay with a healthcare system that effectively forces people to rely on the taxpayers for basic medical care, in the most expensive and inefficient way possible.
If I understand them correctly, it’s better for that hospital to eat the high emergency costs than allow this man to pay slightly higher taxes and be able to see a doctor regularly and manage his diabetes correctly. Just to make sure we stay ‘Murican and free!
But…. Obamacare isn’t an insurance policy. I’m sorry. I don’t see how I can discuss this rationally with you if you don’t understand that.
No Jack, but Obamacare is a guarantee that nobody can be denied an insurance policy because of re-existing conditions. You are acting like you don’t understand this but forcing insurance companies to offer policies to people with pre-existing conditions was a major part of Obamacare discussion on both sides of the issue.
And plus you’re complaining about your hypothetical person who doesn’t have insurance, when like a month ago you were complaining about the mandate that everyone purchase insurance.
Jack, it is obvious to me that many people will either be unable to comply with the mandate or willfully ignore the mandate for various reasons so the hypothetical stands.
truth
Let’s get this over with. You seem to be asking, how fast can an insurance company process paperwork?
I don’t honestly know. Probalby a couple of days.
” No Jack, but Obamacare is a guarantee that nobody can be denied an insurance policy because of re-existing conditions. You are acting like you don’t understand this but forcing insurance companies to offer policies to people with pre-existing conditions was a major part of Obamacare discussion on both sides of the issue.”
Wtf truth? Of course a big part of Obamacare is not getting denied for preexisting conditions. That’s why I said the goal was to extend insurance to more people, hopefully everyone has the opportunity/motivation to buy a policy and criminalizing. greedy, artificial barriers like denying insurance to people with “pre-existing conditions”.
What this has to do with your hypothetical, or more relevantly, what point you think you are proving, remains to be seen.
Ex-RINO, Thanks again for your willing to finally have an honest discussion on the issue. Like you, I don’t think anybody honestly knows the answer to that question. This is not just going to be a matter of how quickly they can do the paperwork like you stated above. It will end up being very complex and HHS or some government oversight body will likely have to find some sort of system where these high risk patients are distributed equally among the insurance companies participating in the Obamacare Exchanges. None of the insurance companies are going to ‘want’ to do the paperwork quickly to sell a policy to this person because they are for-profit businesses and they would likely to have to pay out tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims for the first year alone.
Nobody knows how this will get implemented because it is being made up by bureaucrats as we go and they haven’t even gotten to that phase yet. That Obamacare is supposed to be fully implemented this year and nobody knows the answers to these questions is what Max ‘the train wreck’ Baucus was talking about.
truth
That has nothing to do with health care reform.
If you went to get health insurance right now, how long would it take? You have no idea.
Again, remember that your alternative is not to provide coverage for these people at ALL. If the decision is having to go through a couple of hoops to get insurance, or to get none at all and quickly die off for lack of care – we know what the majority of people would opt for.
There’s only one trainwreck now in this argument – your morality.
truth, That has nothing to do with health care reform.
If you went to get health insurance right now, how long would it take? You have no idea.
Ex-RINO, it has a lot to do with health reform. Obamacare mandated that insurance companies must offer these ‘high-risk’ people health insurance and no insurance company could make a profit selling these kinds of people health insurance policies.
Truth -
And these people can get insurance. This is not the question. You are asking how long paperwork takes. You don’t know the answer to how long it currently takes, and I don’t know how long it will take in the future.
That’s a pretty mundane point overall.
Again, you shouldn’t have much of a concern either way, if a person has an extra day or two before they get insurance. Under your control, they wouldn’t get insurance at all – something you no longer even deny.
Yeah, truthseeker, and you would like these “high risk” people to overburden non-profits and taxpayers when they get seriously ill, rather than be paying into their eventual treatment by being able to buy insurance and not get turned down. Pure hypocrisy.
“There’s only one trainwreck now in this argument – your morality”
I understand the difficulty you have have discussing the logistics of Obamacare implementation so I also understand why you would feel the urge to strike out instead.
This kind of apprehension is what Max ‘the train wreck’ Baucus was talking about.
” Again, you shouldn’t have much of a concern either way, if a person has an extra day or two before they get insurance. Under your control, they wouldn’t get insurance at all – something you no longer even deny.”
Yeah, I’m just going to start claiming that truth wants children with leukemia to die for lack of affordable treatment. I mean, if he can stretch me disagreeing with him about birth control into supporting pedophilia, I’m sure this is a reasonable summary of his position.
Rather than address the logistical challenges that Max ‘the train wreck’ Baucus was talking about; the two of you prefer to deflect, deny and ignore them by pointing to faults in other systems or attacking other people’s motives. That is not going to help anybody.
You deserve a medal for projection, truth.
Jack, I never accused you of supporting pedophilia. I merely stated that giving pedophiles undocumented access to abortificients would ‘enable’ them. You did the rest.
truth – way back on the 24th, at 8:55, I pulled other comments by Baucus and showed that what he said, and what he confirmed later, is that he was saying that the lack of information people have – the train wreck isn’t the law itself – it is that small businesses haven’t been given enough information on the law and don’t understand it. That is what he said the train wreck is.
To ignore that, and to suggest otherwise, is dishonest.
Ex-RINO, I submit that there is not enough information because much of it does not even exist yet. Like Max said, the law is due to be implemented and we have yet to build the Exchanges; heck, we still have no idea who is going to even be participating in these Exchanges let alone how they will deal with IPAB and/or the hospitals or even what level of government involvement/oversight there will be.
And I submit that even if the information was right in front of you, you wouldn’t read it. Even it it was known to be readily available, you’d ignore it. Even if it was presented to you in sentences with small words, you wouldn’t understand it. And if by chance you started to figure it out, you’d lie and deceive others about it.
Draw your own conclusions folks,
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/7079-obamacare-regulations-run-5931-pages
Good grief, imagine poor Max’s shock when he finally sobered up.
I say that a part of the reason the information about Obamacare is not known or available to people yet is that there are many aspects of Obamacare, Exchanges for one, that aren’t even in place yet. Your response is to say that people wouldn’t read it or understand it even if it was available and then you follow it up with another personal attack. I’ll let that speak for itself.
Mary, you gotta have some kind of admiration for a guy who is so dedicated that he doesn’t let a little thing like being stoned keep him away from his job.
Main reason truth is that it differs by state – for instance, Wisconsin has an exchange being setup by the feds – Minnesota took grant money and is doing it themselves. So education at the federal level won’t do much.
Another thing is, it’s the fourth month in 2013, and the exchanges don’t kick in until another year. As it draws closer, more info will be out – here is an article today on some of the state plans:
http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/14961/20130428/dont-understand-health-insurance-exchanges-youre-alone.htm
Its going to take until freaking 2014 just to read all the 5931 pages of new regulations. Anyone that wants a head start can download them by clicking my link. Maybe somewhere in there one can find time to figure out the exchanges. The feds must set up exchanges in states that refused to set up their own. I loved that video of Texax Gov. Rick Perry adamantly refusing to do so, the only thing missing was his middle finger.
Implementing this disaster has been left in the ever capable hands of HHS Secretary Sebelius:
http://heritageaction.com/2013/04/obamacare-classic-central-planning-and-a-third-world-experience/
How many pages of regulations are you comfortable with? Do you have some sort of limit or something?
Texas has the highest rate of uninsured in the country (or in the top few – haven’t looked lately) – and those in the state favored the expansion of medicaid (the spread was about 20 points).
Texas won’t turn Democratic in 2016, but eyes are already on it for 2020 – and decisions like this by Perry will help.
And once Texas turns Democrat – it’s lights out.
EGV,
By all means go download from my link and start reading. Then tell me how you feel about regulations when you’re dpme reading them in 2014.
Maybe by then Kathleen Sebelius will have figured out a way to implement this trainwreck.
As for Perry and Walker’s decisions, it only means the feds have to implement the exchange in their states, and catch the flak for all the problems. Smart move by the governors, IMO. Kathleen’s going to be one busy lady.
Ya think she’s PO’d at Baucus for bailing on this monstrosity?
My Bible is long as well, and I don’t discount it simply because of that.
Baucus has far from bailed:
“If we had not adopted the ACA, health care costs would be going up at a greater rate,” Baucus said. “My basic view is you gotta do what’s right.”
He added that he still believes that if you do what’s right, the public will eventually support you, even if it takes a long time. “That’s my view of health care reform,” he said.
The retirement announcement comes less than a week after Baucus got blowback from fellow Democrats after he said the health reform law risks becoming a “huge train wreck” if the Obama administration doesn’t set it up and administer it properly.
Baucus told POLITICO that he “probably misspoke.”
“That was interpreted as meaning I thought the bill was a train wreck. It’s not a train wreck. I was not referring to the bill. I was referring to if we don’t implement this thing correctly, then it’s going to be a train wreck.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/baucus-will-continue-to-be-acas-driving-force-90536.html#ixzz2RogwHBhj
As for Walker – he’s been a train wreck of a governor. We’re lagging the entire nation in job growth. He promised jobs, and we’re towards the bottom of the nation month after month. The state most like Wisconsin – Minnesota, brought in a Democratic governor, and their growth rate is killing ours. It’s an embarrassment.
“I submit that even if the information was right in front of you, you wouldn’t read it. Even it it was known to be readily available, you’d ignore it. Even if it was presented to you in sentences with small words, you wouldn’t understand it.”
Ex-RINO, the people in Wisconsin just don’t understand like you do because according to you they do not know how to read and wouldn’t understand Obamacare even if they could. Maybe you should move to Minnesota.
EGV,
Baucus is exiting in 2014, he’ll retire and leave this bureaucratic mess to poor Kathleen. Right now he’s biding his time. That’s called bailing. Baucus backtracked because, like poor Mayor Corey Booker who dared to stray from the Democrat Party line, he got taken to the woodshed.
Say what you will about Walker, he was smart to throw the fed’s mess right back in their laps.
You can rationalize, analyze, reanalyze, and quote all you want, the fact remains Obamacare is turning into what any gov’t run program ultimately turns into, an out of control, corrupt, inept, and mismanaged bureaucratic monstrosity. And its not even fully implemented yet.
BTW EGV, I’d get started on those regulations. Those were as of 2012, good heavens I’m sure a few hundred thousand more have been added since.
Mary -
I don’t think senators have a whole lot of paperwork under this bill – they’ll have IPAB type work though.
Walker is having the feds do the exchange, but he’s put together a weird, bad play for Medicaid and trying to handle an expansion himself.
I simply think you are being intellectually dishonest here – you have an issue with all third party type plans – Health Care Reform, Ryan’s plan, status quo. So get tied up on the regulations is a bit odd. Just say you don’t like any plan with a third party aspect and leave it at that, and we’ll all save a bunch of time.
Great article directly answering the question asked.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113049/obamacare-implementation-2013-busting-myths
Ex-RINO,
Al Franken is waiting for your vote. Don’t disappoint him..or me..
Franken > R Johnson
Did you read the article I posted truth? It has a lot of very direct answers to your questions.
“I don’t think senators have a whole lot of paperwork under this bill – they’ll have IPAB type work though.”
LOL. So you did decide to talk about IPAB after all…
How long till they ban Obamacare patients from smoking…and drinking soda
Truth, I am seriously gonna scream. There’s no such thing as an “Obamacare” patient. You can already get dropped from insurance/pay higher premiums/get fired if they catch you smoking. Can you please say something that makes sense?
IPAB can’t ban soda or smoking – it is outside of their scope.
Jack, insurers who sell insurance on the Obamacare Exchanges will be governed the Obamacare IPAB panel guidelines and a person who gets buys their insurance on an Obamacare Exchange is an Obamacare patient.
Buzzzz
Incorrect on IPAB.
Try again.
Now you’re just having fun, Ex.
“IPAB can’t ban soda or smoking – it is outside of their scope.”
If the HHS Secretary grants them the authority and says they can or should ban it then they can and will ban it; by saying people lose coverage of health care costs if they do it.
Buzzz
Incorrect again.
Your last two statements have now been factually incorrect.
IPAB determines the schedule of fees paid to cover services. If they have the backing of the HHS what is to stop them from declaring that they will pay $0 for cancer surgery of smokers. Or $0 for diabetes medicine for soda pop drinkers. Mayor Bloomberg has shown the willingness and desire to regulate soda; and most liberals support him in doing it.
Buzzzzzz!!!
Three incorrect statements in row. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Three times.
When faced with the truth, quit answering and keep buzzing. I guess I shouldn’t complain though…it is better than you spewing a bunch of bs.
Ex-RINO, don’t feel bad. Jack is here to ‘like’ you. And joan and Merit may get here to help you out too.
Well truth I would “like” you if you didn’t post demonstrably incorrect information and make offensive insinuations about people.
truth – Your last three statements have not been truth – they’ve all been factually incorrect – lies – misunderstandings – whatever you want to call them.
All wrong.
In Jeopardy, you’d be $300 in the hole right now (all were $100 level questions – very easy – basic stuff).
Have you figured out yet where you were wrong? I’d love if you found your own errors.
Your game is to try and find one narrow thing that you can pounce on in some AHA moment. Grow a pair and spit out a factual correction when you disagree.
truth
Tick, tick, tick, tick.
Why were those three statements incorrect?
Inquiring minds want to know (well, they already know, but are wondering if you can do enough research to figure it out)
truth
Buzzzzz!
Not a narrow thing – you made a couple of mistakes, but the biggest one is a HUGE one. Not narrow at all.
Tick, tick, tick
What is it…hmmm… you must not think I will really be disappointed if you don’t move to Minnesota
What else could it be…hmmmm…..you must not think the unelected board of bureaucrats who set payments schedules for medical procedures is named IPAB.
Oh wait, I got it!!! Oh you were right and I guess you got me. They don’t set payment schedules they set reimbursement rates….
Later than the Wisconsin/Minnesota statements.
Look – I have a fourth grader. When I check her homework, and she’s simply misunderstood something, we walk through it.
If she misses 2 + 2 at this point, I don’t give her guidance.
You can get these answers with less than a minute of research.
So you have three factually incorrect statements in a row. Redeem yourself. I’m not going to give you all the answers to the test.
Truth – you have a HUGE error – keep looking. Massively obvious.
This is where you have your first major error – start with this one:
Jack, insurers who sell insurance on the Obamacare Exchanges will be governed the Obamacare IPAB panel guidelines and a person who gets buys their insurance on an Obamacare Exchange is an Obamacare patient.
If all this is cause you think this falls outside the ‘scope’ of IPAB then give it a rest. Bureaucrats do whatever they want until they are reigned in and if the president and HHS are on their side then IPAB can do whatever the heck they want.
Buzzz.
Wrong again.
Tough night truth. At least you have seeker in your name…it implies that you’ll seek out the answer. Where are you researching?
Ex-RINO, I already answered your test and I got it right but I am not going to tell you exactly where cause that would be like giving a second-grader the answers to a test and deprive you of finding it on your own. Go ahead and look over my answers again. You can find it ;)
You have not corrected any of your answers. Very disappointing. Do you know how to use google? This isn’t that hard – but you missed it BIG. Embarassingly big. At this point, you’re farther off than somebody saying PP does mamograms. Do you want to be more wrong than THAT?
Ex-RINO, do you really need me to step you through this in baby steps?
I’ll say something about IPAB and you say wether or not you agree.
IPAB is and unelected board of federal bureaucrats who sets payment schedules/medical reimbursement rates for medical procedures.
I am trying to make this as easy as possible for you so you can just answer true or false and I’ll give you a hint. The answer rhymes with blue.
Come on Ex-RINO….is that one too hard? The statement again for your studying:
“IPAB is an unelected board of federal bureaucrats who sets payment schedules/medical reimbursement rates for medical procedures.”
AND I’ll give you another hint. Remember this is a true false question and your second hint is that the answer rhymes with glue
truth – you officially fail.
“Jack, insurers who sell insurance on the Obamacare Exchanges will be governed the Obamacare IPAB panel guidelines and a person who gets buys their insurance on an Obamacare Exchange is an Obamacare patient.”
While Jack is his correct name, everything else is a mess here. First off, insurers aren’t governed by IPAB. IPAB has to do with medicare spending. Medicare insurance plans aren’t sold out on exchanges – the two have NOTHING to do with each other.
IPAB governs MEDICARE – essentially, every year, there will be a report that says what future medicare growth is. If that growth is too high, the board puts together guidelines for bringing MEDICARE back in line to curb growth. They can’t just do anything though – rationing, for instance, is now allowed.
Those guidelines do NOT automatically go into effect – congress can come up with their own cuts to pass instead.
They can NOT do things like ban pop – that has NOTHING to do with spending. Furthermore, everything recommended is specific to medicare – not to public policy in the whole country.
Now, as for being lazy. This information could have been found by you within 30 seconds by looking up IPAB. Wiki’s page states, right at the get go, that it governs medicare. You think it governs private insurance companies.
And again, I don’t care that you get it wrong (even though it is 101 type of stuff) – it is that you are a mix of such pride and sloth that you couldn’t even go out and find the info, and now you are too prideful to admit that you were massively wrong.
First off, insurers aren’t governed by IPAB
If insurers who sell insurance on the Obamacare Exchange don’t have to accept the reimbursement rates that IPAB decides are proper. Then no hospitals will will have to accept Obamacare patients for treatments. And that would mean the government is forcing people to pay the government (Obamacare tax) for health insurance that doesn’t even guarantee them treatment. I knew it was a ripoff but the deeper you dig into this Obamacare implementation the worse it gets. The phrase I used to use to describe it was ‘train wreck’. Now I am beginning to think thievery should also be part of the description.
“They can NOT do things like ban pop – that has NOTHING to do with spending.”
They can say that they will not reimburse the cost of medical surgery’s for people who smoke…or for that matter…people who consume too much soda. It is already proven that the liberal nanny state would regulate soda consumption and place limits on the amount a person is allowed to drink.
truth
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Do you understand what Medicare is, and what private insurance is? Medicare is for old people – it’s a government run program. Private insurance is what people who aren’t old buy.
IPAB governs medicare, not private insurance. And exchanges deal with private insurance, not medicare.
If you ever use IPAB and exchanges in the same sentence, like you did in your 11:39 post,you are automatically wrong.
So your first sentence there (and thus the rest of your argument) is all hogwash because IPAB does NOTHING in relation to private insurance and the plans that are sold on the exchanges.
How does that not make sense yet?
Truth – unless you are on medicare, IPAB has absolutely nothing to do with your specific plan – zero, nada, zilch. If I remember right, you get your insurance through your employer. Even if, in a year, you quit, and buy insurance through an exchange, IPAB has absolutely nothing to do with the plans you might buy.
Medicare
Medicare
Medicare
So your two last statements are again, foolishly wrong.
Completely nonsense – they barely make sense to read
You are like a ford owner asking how a toyota recall affects your car. Yes, both vehicles – two different ballgames.
Please acknowledge that you understand this – you know what old people are, and what medicare is, right?
10-4 Ex-RINO, but the government can force you to buy an insurance policy and that they can make up rules as to what can or cannot be covered…eg.. after Obamacare was passed the HHS still had the authority to mandate everybody give away free family reduction services. They may not currently use IPAB as the way to implement these decrees to private insurance companies who participate in Obamacare Exchanges…but somebody is making these rules by decree and they could just as easily decree no smoking or you lose your coverage; or no more than 12 ounces of soda or you void your insurance policy. I understand you are saying they don’t currently use IPAB for this (they could just as easily write a rule where IPAB is in charge of this); but the government does currently dictate what can or cannot be pqrt of insurane policies that are sold on Obamacare Exchanges. In fact, they can try and force insurers outside of Obamacare Exchanges to follow similar rules but just like individuals; these other private insurers will have to make up their minds to make a stand or have the IRS come after them. The original 2700 pages was just an outline. They are literally writing hundreds and thousands of pages of new Obamacare law/regulation by decree almost weekly.
Did you know know that starting in October the IRS can take money directly out of your bank account if they deem you are not complying with Obamacare?
Obamacare created this IPAB board to Lord over seniors; if we let them get away with treating our seniors like this then they will expand the concept and make similar mandates of all insurance. The elderly infirm and the unborn were just the easy first targets of IPAB’s and HHS ‘cost-saving measures’.
On the first of your statements – there sure are a lot of ‘if’s’ involved. Look – anything is really possible in this world – maybe Canada will attack tomorrow, maybe the NRA willl declare war on the government – I don’t really know. What I do know is that IPAB doesn’t have the power that you think (hopefully thought) it had. It can’t just wave a wand and change anything it wants.
And nor can departments of Homeland Security after the Patriot Act, or members of any other organization. Yes, there are things we should be concerned about – but that’s the truth with any part of life.
truth –
Research IPAB. Conservatives should LOVE it. Finally, we have something in place to keep control over the growth of Medicare. Congress can step in if they do something stupid – but the changes don’t have to be approved by congress, and if congress has an issue, THEY have to do something about it.
Look – anything that cuts spending ends up being undone by legislators scared of what might happen. Here we go, finally, with a way to control growth in the program.
Lastly – you have absolutely NO leg to stand on, because you don’t endorse simply allowing Medicare to continue with no cuts. So you are talking like you don’t think any cuts should happen to the program, yet I don’t believe you mean that.
If you do, just say it – say that I believe we shouldn’t cut any funding from Medicare, and we should either run a deficit on it, or raise taxes to pay for it.
Yeah, that clock can keep ticking forever, because you’re never going to say that. You believe in controlling spending of it – do you have a better idea for controlling spending on Medicare?