Here are the second five of my top 10 favorite “Obamacare fixed” political cartoons for the week. View the first five here. Vote for your fav at the bottom of the post.
a twofer by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com…
by Dana Summers at GoComics.com…
a twofer by Glenn McCoy at GoComics.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
A hacker’s fantasy come true,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101225308
Mary – you never answered my question the other day – you said people at your employer “lost” their health insurance coverage, and they might not like the new clinic they were being forced to go to. An uninsured person isn’t “forced” to go to another clinic – so I’m confused. Do you want me to copy in your post, or do you know what I’m referring to?
Sorry EGV,
Didn’t see it but I do understand the context of your question.
We were informed our longstanding insurance provider was being terminated, and this was because of the ACA, aka Obamacare.
We are now covered by a new group plan provided by the XYZ clinic that most of our doctors are part of. However, this coverage requires that you see physicians at the XYZ clinic. Also, it only covers non hospital people in certain zip codes. They don’t exactly have an infinite number of doctors.
Luckily this poses no problem for my husband and me, who are both already longstanding patients of XYZ clinic. However many of my co workers, some who actually believed Obama’s lie, were not. If they want this insurance coverage, which BTW for them is more expensive, they will, as well as all others insured by this group, have to see doctors at XYZ clinic. This means changing doctors and transferring records, about which many of my co workers are less than happy, especially since they believed the lie that they could keep their doctors and insurance.
One of my co worker’s “Maggie”, has two children who see a pediatric cardiologist in another city, may be allowed to keep these doctors because XYZ has no pediatric cardiologists. However if XYZ clinic does acquire one, they may refuse to cover her visits to the other cardiologist in another city. I’m sure you would agree it should be Maggie’s decision who her children see and she should not be forced to change their doctor, one she and her children have established a relationship with. She’s already less than happy about her husband and her having to give up their doctors, find new ones, and transfer their records to XYZ clinic. But hey, guess who SHE voted for? Bingo.
As for myself, I have been seeing an opthamologist for several years who diagnosed and finally got my left eyed glaucoma under control. I chose him because I had worked for years with his father, and respected father and sons greatly. XYZ clinic insurance may not cover my care with him as XYZ clinic has an opthamologist. I have no clue who he is, I’m sure he’s very competent, but I want to continue my care with the opthamologist of my choosing, as Obama promised I could, not that I was stupid enough to believe him. Fortunately I can afford to pay out of pocket if forced to.
Since my husband and I have minimal coverage and no dependents, its doesn’t hit us as hard.
I hope that clarifies it, if not I will be happy to explain anything further should you ask.
In the meantime EGV, I hope you’re advising everyone you know not to go near that website and I sincerely hope you have never visited it. I was tempted to just check it out, but since just visiting the site can get you hacked, I’m very relieved I didn’t.
Thanks Mary – was just clarifying if people lost insurance or got new plans. Thanks.
Mary,
If the boRAT were an entry level insurance agent who deliberately mis-represented the cost, benefits, coverage, deductible and participating physicians, clinics hospitals, that agent’s license would be suspended or revoked and he could face being charged with fraud.
But the boRAT, who took an oath to uphold the constitution, not only flauts the very law he promoted, he turns it on its head when it suit his puposes.
The boRAT give the four legged vermin a bad name, but at the same time he makes them seem virtueous by comparison.
Only an imbecile and/or a fellow subversive would continue perpetuate the lie that the boRAT is believable.
Hi Ken,
It was a deliberate lie, but to a sociopath that means nothing. The dire consequences of that lie mean nothing. Unfortunately we have someone who thinks he’s king and forgets he’s only president, issuing decrees as he sees fit.
I have to wonder if XYZ clinic saw the employer mandate coming up and acted. It would be financially to their benefit to do so. Whatever, I am thankful they did. I know and feel so badly for others who have lost insurance or face health and financial crises because of losing it.
I’ve encountered other hospital employees who have been forced to switch to XYZ clinic doctors. Its not a question of competence, its that “I was happy with my OWN doctor, I had been with him/her for years” and I did not want to change doctors!”
Oh and Ken, stay clear of that website and tell everyone you know to do the same.
As I told EGV, I nearly checked it out of curiosity.
Ex-RINO, just to clarify what Mary said..they lost insurance that they wanted to keep and the only replacement plans available were plans they wish that they didn’t have to get.
truth – if you have time to comment, you have some questions left unanswered on the other thread.
Regardless, I’m just clarifying. There were millions that lost insurance from 2000 to 2008 that didn’t have any sort of plan to replace the one they lost – so the outrage of simply a different plan seems a little misplaced.
Mary, I heard an interesting angle about Obamacare today and I wanted to get your take on it because you have worked in the health field for so long. It was a lawyers who claims that part of HIPPA law, that predates Obamacare, makes it illegal for an insurance companies to drop certain people with existing conditions that require care. Do you know anything about that?
“so the outrage of simply a different plan seems a little misplaced.”
Ex-RINO, what about the outrage of simply having to get a different doctor or simply having to pay higher deductibles are those ‘misplaced’ too?
Or what about all that outrage over having to put your personal information into a website that is easily hacked; cry me a river huh?
Or all that fake outrage by Christians about having to offer plans ‘health’ plans that include family developmental reduction services. What a bunch of fakes huh?
“so the outrage of simply a different plan seems a little misplaced.”
Tell me about Ex-RINO. And all just cause the president told them a little lie on 27 different occasions when he said he said that they could their existing plans if they like them. Serves those idiots right for believing him huh?
A christmas gift for you truthseeker :-)
It has a familiar ring to it.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/files/2013/11/jfk-flier.jpg
EGV,
I should have realized it just wouldn’t register. I appreciate Truthseeker pointing out that it hadn’t.
1. People are forced to change doctors when they were promised they wouldn’t have to. They do NOT want to change their doctors and there is no good reason for them to do so. I can give any number of accounts of co workers, including a nurse who’s 9y/o son was diagnosed with diabetes and she’s very concerned as the child is having a very difficult time accepting and managing his disease and this is the worst possible time to remove him from the care of a pediatrician he knows and trusts and switch him to another.
2. My husband and I happen to be one of the luckier ones, except that I may be forced to go to a different opthamologist. My relationship and course of treatment is set with mine and I don’t want to start over with a complete stranger.
3. Luckily I don’t have to go to a website that is a hacker’s fantasy come true and look for insurance. Too many unsuspecting people do. Wait until the employer mandate kicks in EGV then you and I may both be left floundering, like a few million of our fellow citizens who believed this liar. I’m hoping XYZ clinic set this up as a precaution, but they may have only acted because the company that covered a huge pool of people said it would cover us no more. After next year I don’t know.
EGV, this is all because of Obamacare, got it? I’ve had plans switched before, no big deal. I kept my choice of doctors. The only reason this insurance company bowed out was because of Obamacare.
Hi Truthseeker,
I don’t know a thing about. Sorry
Also thank you for pointing out EGV’s mindset. I honestly thought something had registered but experience should teach me otherwise.
Mary -
Let me just clarify something here before we move on.
Do you think it’s harder on a family to lose their insurance completely, or harder to have their insurance plan changed. Okay – let’s just state the obvious – it is harder to lose insurance completely.
In the status quo old system that you supported, the ranks of those without insurance kept rising.
So forgive me for not being super moved by the stories of hardship at your work (since it isn’t verifiable anyway). Yes, it would be great if nothing happened – but again, it was a lot worse.
truth – I think I addressed your key concern in my post to Mary.
Again though – you have a question still out there on another thread – let me know if I should point you to that.
EGV,
Experience should have taught me by now that your devotion to the Dear Leader blinds you to all else.
Why I would ever think anything would get through to you is beyond me.
Mary, we’re talking about decent, common sense. You seem to thrive and fight for a system in which millions more go through life without insurance, and do this so that others simply don’t go through an inconvenience. It’s really sad actually. It has nothing to do with Obama or anything else – you simply seem to support a system in which more go without so that a fewer amount can have greater privilege
“In the status quo old system that you supported, the ranks of those without insurance kept rising.”
Ex-RINO, a year from now, when there are a more uninsured people then pre-Obamacare; will you join the drive to repeal Obamacare?
“So forgive me for not being super moved by the stories of hardship at your work (since it isn’t verifiable anyway). Yes, it would be great if nothing happened – but again, it was a lot worse.”
Ex-RINO, seriously, it wasn’t a lot worse. 90% of the people said they were satisfied with their health care. You rationale (my apologies to the word rationale) that we should be able to destroy the health care system that has worked so well for so many people just to fix the problems of a few is insane.
“truth – I think I addressed your key concern in my post to Mary.”
Ex-RINO, Which key concern did you address? I must have missed it somehow.
Did you address the concer about forcing people to compromise their personal information by entering it into a web site with no security?
Or the concern about the fake Christian complainers?
Or was it the concern about being forced to pay more for insurance?
I didn’t see you address or give suggestions on how to improve any of them.
truth – There you go, talking out both sides of your mouth again.
So have a crazy high amount of people gotten insurance through medicaid, or are the ranks of the uninsured going to be higher? You can’t have it both ways – so explain yourself and I’ll answer.
And on your second post – 90% people who were insured were satisfied – and the vast majority won’t have their plans touched. Ask the millions that don’t have insurance what they thought.
EGV,
The employer mandate will be going into effect. My advise to you is steer clear of the healthcare.gov website.
“and the vast majority won’t have their plans touched.”
I call BS!!! The vast majority of plans became illegal under Obamacare, so I guess it would depend on your definition of having your plans ‘touched’
“So have a crazy high amount of people gotten insurance through medicaid, or are the ranks of the uninsured going to be higher? You can’t have it both ways – so explain yourself and I’ll answer.”
Ex-RINO, don’t bother with the crap about saying you will answer after I do. We both know it is BS. In rough numbers about 1.5 million have been signed up for Medicaid and another couple hundred thousand have been signed up for private plans on the Exchange. Add those up and still about three times as many have had their policies cancelled in the individual market alone. That means to date, even taking into account the huge Medicaid enrollments, we are likely to end up with more uninsured. All the college campuses were told they could no longer offer coverage to their students (Obama trying to force them onto the Exchanges) but only about one-quarter of these college students who had insurance through their college are planning on signing up for Obamacare. I think even with the massive Medicaid enrollment we will still end up with more uninsured. What a clusterf@$& this Obamacare is.
Mary/truth
Please post a credible source to back up your claims concerning employer coverage and that the amount of individuals unemployed will go up under health care reform.
If you don’t believe you are saying that, let me know.
Truth – so you are saying 5.1 million people have LOST insurance since reform came into place.
Please post a link backing up your claims.
truth –
I’ve seen very little actual, truthful information concerning any security breeches or compromised information on the reform site. Furthermore, I haven’t gotten any indication of the time of information entered into the site that could be compromised. If you have any information you’d like to provide, feel free.
On your second point – I don’t feel like those people are ‘fakes’ at all – are you saying they aren’t genuine Christians because they’ve complained? I’ve at no point ever said a thing about those folks being fakes.
On your third point – I’m not sure what you are specifically stating here – please clairfy – “Or was it the concern about being forced to pay more for insurance?”
“Or was it the concern about being forced to pay more for insurance?”
How can I be clearer? You are the one who said you had already addressed the concerns. What do you suppose we should about the people who are losing their private insurance plans due to Obamacare mandates and they are finding that policies on the Obamacare exchange are much more expensive then the plans they had lost?
“I’ve seen very little actual, truthful information concerning any security breeches or compromised information on the reform site. Furthermore, I haven’t gotten any indication of the time of information entered into the site that could be compromised. If you have any information you’d like to provide, feel free.”
Ex-RINO, you probably won’t see reports of the compromised information because, unlike private organizations, the government does not legally have to tell people when their information gets stolen; and I wouldn’t expect and hackers to offer themselves up. But if you were to watch the security experts who testified before congress they all stated that the site lacks security and that they could not recommend people place their personal information on the site.
http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-expert-warn-congress-healthcare-gov-security-bugs-144729835–sector.html
You could be clearer by simply being clearer.
Regardless, I certainly wish that everyond had aquate coverage beforehand. There are multiple camps though – those that had adaquate insurance, and those that didn’t. In these states that allowed bare bones plans – while it stinks that people will have to pay more, in the vast majority of these cases, they’ll have much better coverage.
How do you respond to those who find prices much lower than they had before?
Is there any public policy that you can name in which every single American benefited and nobody was impacted negatively?
EGV, 9:39PM
I posted a link on this thread at 10:15am.
This was on CNBC interviewing an expert who testified before congress. Not Fox News interviewing some high school computer geek in his basement workshop.
What more do you need to convince you the website isn’t safe?
Mary – I read a few interviews by Kennedy – and it’s clear that he’s speculating and talking about what he believes might be true, but doesn’t know to be true.
EGV,
You’re not serious, right?
EGV, you make me think of a cultist resisting deprogramming.
http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/112913-680895-obamacare-website-security-fears-may-depress-enrollment.htm
Mary -
I just read though one of his interviews – he uses “I think” and “I believe” a lot – but doesn’t have access to the code, hasn’t tested the site. I’m not saying whether it is secure or not – I am saying that you haven’t presented enough information to sway me your way.
Regardless, I’m not going to get into a big rumble on website security. That’s quite a sideshow issue to the greater law at hand.
truth -
Did you see that Doug responded to you on the same thread that you won’t respond to my questions on? He said you were being untrue, and he had walked you through that before (when you posted 80 million were going to lose their coverage). Just wanted to make sure you knew in case you had unsubscribed to that thread.
There has been no change in my health care plan, which is very good, but maybe thats because my union negotiates it.
Mine either phillymiss. A small increase, but that’s after two years without an increase.
Hi TS,
We’re trying to deprogram a cultist here.
I’m sure these experts scratch their noses or shift in their chairs in a way that convinces EGV they have no clue what they’re talking about.
Mary – Again, present facts, and I can deal with them. Present hearsay and speculation, and I can’t deal with those things.
You are good at blind paranoia, but haven’t gotten far beyond that.
I’m still disappointed though that you seem to think millions should go without health insurance so that you don’t run into any inconvenience (and I’m not quite sure i believe your stories anyway…). It’s a sad state of many in this world.
3…..2…..1…..
EGV,
I have many times over and I realize I’m only trying to deprogram a cultist.
Mary –
I’m just not quite sure if you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Regardless, I think the summation of this thread is that you’ve presented little information regarding anything substancial concerning health care reform except that the security on the website that affects a small chunk of American overall *might* have security issues.
Furthermore, we’ve learned that you care very little about millions being uninsured, but care very much if you have to go see a different eye doctor. Definition of entitled selfishness? The magic 8 ball says “Signs point to yes”.
Good night EGV
Hi Phillymiss,
You may want to check out if your union got an Obamacare waiver.
Mary –
I had a friend denied insurance because she had a pre-existing condition. Her condition had caused her to max out on insurance coverage in a year, leaving her all sorts of debt.
I have other friends whose crazy medical debt has caused them to put off having children because they can’t afford it.
Think of those people once in a while as well please.
“while it stinks that people will have to pay more, in the vast majority of these cases, they’ll have much better coverage.”
Ex-RINO, here is one of the architects of Obamacare and a staunch Obamacare supporter stating that if you want to keep your doctor you can but you have to pay more. When Obama promised you could keep your doctor period he didn;t mention that you would have to pay more in order to keep your doctor or he probably would not have been re-elected.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/12/08/obamacare-architect-if-you-your-doctor-you-can-pay-more
Ex-RINO, I have no idea what old thread you are talking about. I usually stop posting once it goes off the front page and into the archives. If you would like an answer to a question related to Obamacare then feel free to post it on this thread.
“Hi TS, We’re trying to deprogram a cultist here. I’m sure these experts scratch their noses or shift in their chairs in a way that convinces EGV they have no clue what they’re talking about.”
Mary, since three of the four cyber security experts who testified before congress said they could not recommend people entering their personal information into the Obamacare web site we can only imagine that all must of had that same ‘shift’ in their chairs going on.
“Truth – so you are saying 5.1 million people have LOST insurance since reform came into place.”
Ex-RINO, I said that 5.1 million people have had their policies cancelled, or at least received cancellation notices that they would not be renewed, but that was before Obama had the press conference where he declared that insurers no longer had to follow the law, at least for one more year; and now neither consumers or insurers really have a clue what their options are or even what they are legally supposed to be. Does that clear it up for you?
Ex-RINO, Does that sound like LOST policies to you? And that is 5 million policies, many if not most of which are probably families so we are talking a lot more than 5 million people
The boRAT lies with conviction, certitude, sincerity, gusto…
“You can keep it….PERIOD!!!!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wfl55GgHr5E
Over one million Californians are losing their health insurance due to o’bamascare.
.
Many of them are SO angry!
.
How angry are they?
.
They are SO angry, they are returning to Mexico!!!
boRAT: Comrade, if your neighbor had no truck and you had two, would you give him one?
.
Comrade: Certainly!
.
boRAT: If your sister had no tractor and you had two, would you share one with her?
.
Comrade: Immediately!!
.
boRAT: If you had two chickens and your mother had none, would you give her one of yours?
.
Comrade: Nyet (no).
.
boRAT: Why not?!?!
.
Comrade: Because I have two chickens.
Ex-RINO was convinced she was dead.
Ex-RINO’s partner asked family physician to prove to Ex-RINO that she was not dead.
Physican asks Ex-RINO if the dead bleed.
Ex-RINO states emphatically, ”No, the dead do NOT bleed”.
Doctor pokes Ex-RINO’s hand with a scalpel and blood gushes from wound.
Wide eyed, Ex-RINO gawks at hand and exclaims, ”Well I’ll be!!! The dead DO bleed!”
[A double minded man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.]
truth – in response to your post on keeping your doctor – I’ve said, maybe 5 times on this board already, that:
1) I wouldn’t have said it as Obama said it
2) I don’t believe he individually meant that every single person in the US would be able to keep their health care from when he said it up through the end of their life.
I haven’t contended on this thread that people could keep their doctor – so I’m not going to stick up for that fact.
I will say though it’s a little lame for you to criticize it given the health care plan you support. That would be a MAJOR upheaval.
truth – in your response to the 5.1 million – I can’t find a number, nor do I wish to dispute how many cancellations there were. I simply would point out that over the lifetime of Bush, about 7 million people went from being insured to uninsured, and I didn’t hear the GOP freak out at all about it. So for a freak out about people moving from one plan to another (yet staying insured), while millions more become insured? The outrage seems a little misplaced.
I get it – you hate Obama and thus if he gave you a million dollars, you’d complain that it wasn’t two. I’ll simply say, it isn’t as good of a law as some people say, but it isn’t as bad of a law as you think it is.
One other note truth – cancellations have occurred in the private market, and most of those folks will get better insurance than they had.
According to the Center for Health Research and Transformation, between 15-20% of Medicaid, Medicare, and Employer Covered people say their coverage is fair or poor (16%, 17%, 18% respectively). Non-group covered was 45%. Why?
Consumer reports sums it up well “Individual insurance is a nightmare for consumers: more costly than the equivalent job-based coverage, and for those in less-than-perfect health, unaffordable at best and unavailable at worst. Moreover, the lack of effective consumer protections in most states allows insurers to sell plans with ‘affordable’ premiums whose skimpy coverage can leave people who get very sick with the added burden of ruinous medical debt.”
And yet truth, you continue to push for a race for the bottom – get rid of regulations of what a plan needs to cover. Numbers suggest that people in that world don’t like their insurance. How do you reconcile that?
“The outrage seems a little misplaced. I get it – you hate Obama and thus if he gave you a million dollars, you’d complain that it wasn’t two.”
Ex-RINO, It has nothing to do with liking or hating Obama. It has to do with people losing their health coverage. It is real people losing their health plans and their doctors etc. Your continued insistence that it doesn’t bother you and that people shouldn’t get upset about is not helping. You are callousse and inconsiderate of others. These people were not responsible for the plight of the uninsured.
It has EVERYTHING to do with Obama. Come on truth – be honest.
What was worse for individuals with health care – the Bush years or the Obama years?
“What was worse for individuals with health care – the Bush years or the Obama years?”
Hands down Obama has been worse…are you serious?
Under Bush people were not mandated to register with the government or subjected to IRS fines. Under Bush the government couldn’t make it illegal for health insurance providers to sell you the insurance policies you liked. Need I go on?
I’ll help you truth
Number of uninsured when Clinton left office – 38.4 million
Number of uninsured when Bush left office – 46.3 million
Number of uninsured today – 48 million (two years of decline)
Average annual premium for a family
1999 – $5,791
2008 – $12,680
2013- $16,351
Yea truth – go on.
I want you to show a statistical area in which you believe the Bush years were more positive.
Ex-RINO, according to your statistics we have more uninsured today then we did in 2008 AND we have millions of families that received cancellation notices that become effective January 1st. If we see an increase of millions more uninsured people on Jan 1st 2014 will you join the campaign to repeal Obamacare?
You Dems are so slimy. Obama declared temporary dispensation till after the 2014 elections on the Obamacare employer mandate that would have meant approximately 80 million more families getting their insurance cancelled by Jan1st 2014. The disaster is coming and your fearless leader knew it so he is repealing provisions of the law so that you and him and like-minded Dems can keep spewing your crap about ‘fewer uninsured’ for a little while longer.
truth -
Do the math = 8 million under Bush – less than 2 million during Obama’s years, and that number is FALLING!
The 80 million is BS logic – and Doug noted in the other thread that he walked you through it and showed you that it is BS logic. It’s simply not true.
Again, this for you is all about hatred. There is no way a logical person can look at the numbers under Bush, and then under Obama, and declare that Bush was a better President for health care. Absolutely no way. Again, if you want to present a statistical measure you think was better – that from the start of a term to the end improved – feel free.
OMG – Bush Derangement Syndrome is still alive!!!!! wth lol
“The 80 million is BS logic – and Doug noted in the other thread that he walked you through it and showed you that it is BS logic. It’s simply not true.”
So now Doug is your source for health care statistics….you go boy. Somebody should tell that to DOJ cause they recently (Nov 18th 2013) referred to the government report that used the 80 million number in their brief to the Supreme court.
truth – there were many things Bush did well. Health care wasn’t one of them. I think it is almost humorous that you accuse somebody of disliking somebody when they show numbers, and you clearly have no numbers – just rhetoric. The rage is sad.
The 80 million is a junk number – first off, it has nothing to do with people losing their plans – secondly, it’s too high (look up Kaiser’s numbers if you want).
Regardless, if you think that 80 million people on employer plans are going to get cancelled next year, you’re out of your mind.
“One other note truth – cancellations have occurred in the private market, and most of those folks will get better insurance than they had. ”
OMG. The lies just never stop coming out of your mouth.
“The 80 million is a junk number – first off, it has nothing to do with people losing their plans.”
Ex-RINO, what is the difference between somebody’s health insurance plan being cancelled because it is not Obamacare compliant and somebody losing their health insurance plan?
Sure truth:
– Greater preventative care
– Capped out of pocket expenses - http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2013/12/02/an-end-to-unaffordable-out-of-pocket-costs/
– In many places – lower premiums - http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2013/09/12/excuse-me-could-we-lower-our-premiums/
– Can’t discriminate based on pre-existing conditions or kick people out of plans
Ex-RINO, At 9:52 when you said ” cancellations have occurred in the private market, and most of those folks will get better insurance than they had” didn’t you really mean to say ” cancellations have occurred in the private market, and most of those folks will get better insurance than they had. Period.”
truth – it’s really frustrating that you don’t understand any of this.
The 80 million from the DOJ has nothing to do with people who will have plans cancelled. These are folks that are in grandfathered plans that *could* lose grandfathered status *if* they are changed. They don’t lose that status unless an insurer makes significant changes to reduce benefits or costs – which doesn’t happen often, and doesn’t mean that plans will get cancelled. Employers still have the mandates that apply to them – so though a plan *could* lose its status under the above, it doesn’t mean a person would lose insurance.
– Greater preventative care – for a lot crap you don’t need or want.
– Capped out of pocket expenses – after you pay the higher deductibles and premiums
– In many places – lower premiums - possibly in some cases if you go for the ‘brownze’ plan with higher deductibles and co-pays then you paid on your previous plan.
– Can’t discriminate based on pre-existing conditions or kick people out of plans – but you can kick them out of their existing plans.
Less drug coverage.
Fewer doctors and hospitals available on your plan.
truth -
Let me remind you of what you support by the way.
From the CBO on Ryan’s plan and employer covered healthcare:
“The Ryan proposal would also replace the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance with a refundable tax credit for people to buy health coverage — the equivalent of a voucher. By eliminating the tax exclusion without providing incentives for employers to continue offering health coverage, the plan would likely cause a substantial decline in employer-based coverage.”
Yes – so while you whine and complain about something that might happen to a small amount of people, you support a plan in which a LOT of people would be kicked out of employer coverage into the individual market.
Thoughts?
What I can’t understand is why if the insurance was so bad was the glorious leader promising Americans they could keep it? PERIOD. Why would Americans want to? PERIOD. What’s the use of “reform” if you aren’t really planning to change anything? PERIOD Unless of course the glorious leader was lying PERIOD.
“truth – it’s really frustrating that you don’t understand any of this.
The 80 million from the DOJ has nothing to do with people who will have plans cancelled. These are folks that are in grandfathered plans that *could* lose grandfathered status *if* they are changed.”
What is frustrating is that snake oil salesmen like you unabashedly try to keep spinning lies as long as you think you can get away with it. “They aren’t getting their plans cancelled, they are losing grandfathered status”. You are a sick person Ex-RINO. Do you have no scruples or shame?
Mary – I made the case earlier (not in this thread) that I think Obama was trying to convey that we weren’t eliminating insurance companies for a single payer. Again, I’ve stated numerous times that I wouldn’t have worded it how he did.
We did need to reform the entire system though – with 40+ million uninsured, things needed to change.
truth -
What I have is facts. I understand health care better than you – we could ask any credible person who has viewed these debates and it’s clear. You don’t understand. At times, you try, and that’s great. But you simply don’t understand the basics. You don’t understand what you support. You don’t understand how health care works. Heck, you don’t even get Medicaid vs Medicare.
So you see these headlines from these sites and you just take it at face value, which is sloppy. Do some research. Do you seriously think that the 80 million is a credible number? Wouldn’t even right wingers by yelling from the roof tops? But they aren’t – their are a few fringe sites – but have you seen any credible politician, website, or anybody running with that number? Seriously? If 80 million people were going to have their plans cancelled, do you NOT THINK THAT A FEW RIGHT WINGERS WOULDN’T RUN WITH THAT?
I mean, seriously truth – do you think that all these folks would just sit on that information? Are you kidding me?
Again though – you truly support a plan in which millions would be kicked off employer coverage – so isn’t this lie something you would root for?
Ex-RINO, ‘things needed to change’ is a very lame argument to try and excuse the cluster you know what you brought upon the rest of us in your desperation.
truth -
So you don’t think the numbers warranted any sort of change? Are you saying that the numbers from 2000 to 2008 weren’t bad? Are you then saying you are against plans like Ryan’s because you actually liked the status quo system, and support that?
EGV,
You wouldn’t have lied. Well that’s good to know. Unfortunately your glorious leader did lie to millions of Americans.
I’ve already shown you the video of Obama advocating for single payer. You get it striaght from his mouth. Check it out on Youtube if your memory is short. Apparently he’s been very successful at lying to and convincing you otherwise.
Mary
Thanks for the thoughts.
And you continue to spin and lie. It will not work for you here and now because the truth will be told. According to the link below everything I am saying is true. And I believe that the 80 million number will be a part of a lot of campaign ads this coming fall. What do you find in this article to be untrue and what sources do you use to prove it. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/11/18/Politico-ObamaCare-Analysis-Ignores-employer-market-wipeout
And skip the snake-oil-salesman semantics. When the person ‘loses their grandfathered status and gets a cancellation notice…their plan has been cancelled.
truth -
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Your crazy right wing source makes the illogical jump that a grandfathered plan will be cancelled. How many times do people need to tell you that isn’t the case – only if a plan goes through significant changes will it lose it’s grandfathered status, and still, at that point, it doesn’t mean the plan will change.
Seriously truth. Do some research.
And furthermore, YOU SUPPORT A PLAN IN WHICH MILLIONS WILL ACTUALLY LOSE THEIR EMPLOYER COVERAGE.
“How many times do people need to tell you that isn’t the case – only if a plan goes through significant changes will it lose it’s grandfathered status, and still, at that point, it doesn’t mean the plan will change.”
lollol..only you could say something like that…”only if a plan goes through significant changes….it doesn’t mean the plan will change.” Tell me you mis-typed something please.
EGV, 10:32PM
Anytime.
Ex-RINO, that crazy right wing source got it’s information from the Federal Register. You can find the pdf here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/2010-14488.pdf
I downloaded it and read it (it is a much easier read if you download it as pdf and open it with adobe. But the relevant info starts on about page 14 and the chart is on page 17.
Yes – estimates of plans from years past (since this report is several years old) on employer plans and grandfathered status.
truth – what triggers a plan to lose grandfathered status and what happens if an employer covered plan loses grandfathered status?
“Yes – estimates of plans from years past (since this report is several years old) on employer plans and grandfathered status.”
These numbers were used by the US DOJ in their brief to the Supreme Court just last month. Is your position that HHS and the US Department of Revenue and the US Dept of Labor are right wing sources or just that they are not as reliable for statistics as Doug is? Maybe the US Dept. of Justice should be consulting you and Doug for their numbers.
truth
You made this statement – “approximately 80 million more families getting their insurance cancelled ”
The word ‘cancel’ does not appear in the document you posted.
My question is, how do you make the logical leap from what you posted to 80 million people having their insurance plans cancelled? Any sort other than your right wing crazy sites? Again, this document doesn’t even have the word cancel in it. Doesn’t have ’80 million’ in it either.
You need to read the articles that I already posted to you and quit asking the same questions over and over. The 80 million number came from the percentages of plans as indicated in the document. You could get that from the ‘crazy right wing’ article I posted or from the dozens of articles all over the web about that 80 million number. Do a little research yourself or at least read what is already linked to you.
I could write your responses for you at this point.
So you’ll stick with the crazy right wing article doing bad math. Okay.
Moving on then and sticking with what I’ve read then – feel more comfortable with those numbers. Plus, you never answered the question of what you believe will even happen if a plan loses grandfathered status.
And you still don’t realize you support a bigger upheaval.
Rage causes blindness.
OK, so your claim now is that you do not understand the simple math of where the 80 million number comes from. For instance, if there are 120 million total plans in the employer based grandfathered pool and two thirds of them are estimated to lose their grandfather status then 80 million policy holders will receive cancellation notices. It is remedial math. If you think the math is wrong then please show the mistake in mathematical terms. As a person who loves poll numbers and claims some actuarial background experience you should stop the lies and tell us which variable do you dispute?
Now I will tell you that not all 80 million of the policyholders who lose grandfathered status will end uninsured. Some will be able to afford to pay the additional premiums and deductibles that come with the new Obamacare compliant plans and retain health insurance coverage; especially the ones who are seriously ill and would go bankrupt if they did not comply. Many will find that getting policies to replace the cancelled ones is not affordable on their budget it or will decide against it cause it is too expensive for them and choose to go without coverage. What do you suppose we should about the people who are losing their private insurance plans due to Obamacare mandates and they are finding that policies on the Obamacare exchange are much more expensive then the plans they had lost? If we end up with more uninsured at the end of 2014 then we had at the end of 2013 would you then will you join us in voting out the DemocRATs and repealing Obamacare?
truth – 2/3? Kaiser says 36% are in grandfathered plans. There are 150 million insured by employers – 36% is nowhere near 80 million.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/december/17/grandfathered-plans-faq.aspx
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-population/
You seem to be about 30 million too high.
Just asking,
Are those 150 million individuals or does this number include insured family members? If not, what are the number of insured family members in addition to the 150 million individuals?
I have even bigger issues with your second post. Are you maintaining or thinking that if an employer plan doesn’t mean grandfathered status, then the employer no longer is mandated to provide coverage? That’s really, really bad reasoning.
Here’s what Aetna says on what happens if a plan loses grandfathered status:
https://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/questions-answers/grandfathering.html#4
In short, they’ll alter the plan to make it comply with regulations.
Think of it like a car recall. If they recall a bunch of cars for a faulty part, they simply switch it out and get the car compliant. They don’t burn the car.
So I just posted an article from Aetna that says a plan that loses grandfathered status will be altered to be compliant. Where does your reasoning come from – a misunderstanding of what the employer market is compared to the individual market?
Mary – if you clicked on the link you’d see the the totals is not family – it is total Americans.
So then, one person losing their insurance means several more people, (family members, domestic partners), may lose coverage, is that correct?
150 million total people are insured by employer coverage – not families – so yes, under the American system, one family could contain multiple people.
Truth somehow thinks that 80 million people are going to have cancelled plans, and thus most will be uninsured. This is both wrong, and weird, seeing that truth has previously supported Paul Ryan’s plan, which aims to end the tax incentive for employees to have employer coverage so that more people are pushed into the free market and buy insurance through exchanges.
So truth is so enraged about employer coverage decreasing that he’s advocating for a plan that would attack employer coverage.
I can’t make this stuff up people.
So the Kaiser estimate you are using says only 50 million people on employer plans are going to lose their existing heakth care plans because they are not Obamacare compliant. That is more people then the total uninsured in America prior to Obamacare.
I’ll ask you again…If we end up with more uninsured at the end of 2014 then we had at the end of 2013 would you then will you join us in voting out the DemocRATs and repealing Obamacare? If you don’t think it’s possible then go on the record and answer.
Then we are in agreement that losing employer provided insurance can and often does effect more than just one person. It can mean several people becoming uninsured.
I’ll let you and truthseeker duke it out.
Hi TS,
Just asking. Could the extra 30 million be family members or domestic partners?
MAry,
They got the number by using a percentage of employer insured who would lose grandfathered status. If the 150 million number is correct then a lot more than 50 million will people will lose their current plans…ie more than one third of employer plans are likely to lose their grandfather status. For example, all it takes is for standard stuff like the deductible on the plan to go up $10 and.. it’s gone.
“In short, they’ll alter the plan to make it comply with regulations. Think of it like a car recall.”
In short. They will cancel your old plan and offer you a new one with a lot of coverage you don’t want or need while increasing your deductibles and charging you more and restricting your number of available in-network doctors and hospitals more than your previous plan did. Period.
Ex-RINO,
Is it true that nobody has actually purchased a health care plan on the Obamacare Exchanges yet because their is no ability to confirm pricing and no mechanism in place to take payments?
Thank you TS,
Then that is just the employees themselves. Imagine the number of family members in addition to that.
Also, I understand that people were advised to call the insurance companies to verify that they are insured! Can you imagine being told you have to call Amazon every time you order to verify your order went through?
No Mary – it isn’t the employees themselves. Look at the Kaiser tables. It has ALL Americans, and says 150 million total are covered by employer coverage. That means employees and their families.
The difference between the 80 million and 50 million is that it seems like truth is using old numbers. If you look at the pdf he posted, it is past years. The report itself was published 3 years ago.
“If the 150 million number is correct then a lot more than 50 million will people will lose their current plans…ie more than one third of employer plans are likely to lose their grandfather status. For example, all it takes is for standard stuff like the deductible on the plan to go up $10 and.. it’s gone.”
No,no, no, no no.
Go to the Aetna page.
Your first wrong thing – it takes more than that to lose grandfathered status. For instance, for the deductible, the deductible would have to rise more than medical inflation (a couple of %) plus 15 percentage points. It’s right in the disqualification section.
Here is where you two are simply butchering this debate. Your making the faulty assumption that a plan that is no longer grandfathered is thus cancelled, thus people lose their insurance. That simply isn’t true.
Aetna itself has a full section of this. If a plan loses grandfathered status, they simply ALTER THE PLAN TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT.
For instance, if your plan at work makes you pay for preventative care, it is not in compliance with the new law. Your employer can continue to offer you this substandard plan as long as it meets the grandfathered rules. But if they try to jack the price up on you or change copays or anything, they now need to adjust the plan to become compliant.
THE EMPLOYER MANDATE DOES NOT GO AWAY THOUGH. Truth has demonstrated this well – he posted numbers in 2010. We had more people under grandfathered plans. Since then, it has dropped a lot. Has the number of people covered by employer plans dropped significantly? NO. It did not drop by 30 million – it has stayed fairly consistent, disproving that the simply change in grandfathered status leads to people not having insurance.
Is there any confusion on this now?
I’ll continue to try to help you two though this. I’m not going to answer more questions on anything else though until truth explains how he could be upset about people losing their employer plan while supporting Paul Ryan’s plan, which intentionally looks to have people shifted from the employer to the private market, resulting in a whole heck of a lot of people with canceled plans, thus then shopping on health care exchanges. You’ve ignored this about 6 times now truth. I asked this the first time on December 10th – many days ago. You can’t yell at others and then ignore questions yourself. I’ve done a heck of a job walking you through this with actual numbers and links.
Thanks EGV,
Employees and families. Answers my question.
EGV,
I don’t need you to help me through anything and I didn’t ask you to. As I said I was just asking.
Inb4 Lie of the Year.
“If a plan loses grandfathered status, they simply ALTER THE PLAN TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT.”
Ex-RINO, I guess I am not just as adept at mental gymnastics and word-bending. Explain this to me; when they no longer offer the plan you had and they offer you an ‘altered’ plan how is that different then cancelling the plan you had and offering you a different plan?
Mary, There are approximately 316 million people in the US and about half have insurance coverage through their employer.
Ex-RINO, why are you so engrossed in Paul Ryan’s plan? It is almost as if your have Paul Ryan Derangement Syndrome. There are things about Paul Ryan’s I like and I told you what they are. I like the fact that the citizen is in charge of the funds that get put into the plan and they can spend the funds on whatever type of health care they want. I also like that they can leave the plan as inheritance if they don;t use all the funds in it before they die.
What do you think about Governor Scott Walkers idea to allow citizens to use their government subsidies on plans in the private market?
Ex-RINO,
I stand corrected on the post about deductibles. It should have read:
“They got the number by using a percentage of employer insured who would lose grandfathered status. If the 150 million number is correct then a lot more than 50 million will people will lose their current plans…ie more than one third of employer plans are likely to lose their grandfather status. For example, all it takes is for standard stuff like the copay on the plan to go up $10 and.. it’s gone.
Hi TS, 9PM
Thank you.
Its good to see from Navi’s post that the glorious leader is getting the recognition he truly deserves.
EGV,
Aetna may have altered the plan to make it compliant but the insurer covering myself and other hospital employees didn’t, they ditched us. PERIOD.
Thankfully the XYZ clinic established insurance for us. Thankfully my husband and I don’t have to change doctors and re-establish ourselves with new ones as many of my co workers are forced to do. My concern is that I will not longer be able to see the opthamologist who treats my glaucoma.
Another thing EGV, those accounts I have given you of people I know and work with are true. For obvious reasons I am not at liberty to name them.
so truth – maybe we can end this line of questioning right now. I felt you were implying that 80 million people were going to lose their coverage. Are you saying that all you are saying is that there is the potential for many people to get shifted onto other plans covered by employers?
I mean, if that’s all you are saying, who cares? I’ve been on the private market and employer covered. With employer covered, they just sort of have the plans at the end of the year and you choose the deductible. I couldn’t even tell you if they’ve kept the same plan or if they’ve changed it. Who cares? I mean, as long as the coverage doesn’t get terrible – and there are minimum guarantees. So you are super upset that people might get different, but still very good and many times better coverage? That’s your issue? Seriously? Come on man.
My issue with Ryan is that you’ve supported his plan.
Look, at least I have the decency to stand up and say this is what I support. It takes a man to stand for something and defend it. To just get to do what you are doing – to lob problems and not stand for anything is pretty lame. If you support Ryan’s plan, say it and defend it. If you don’t support it, say it.
I mean, I don’t think health care reform is perfect. There you go. So we have a lot in common. I just think it is better than other offerings. You don’t stand enough for anything to say what you believe. Heck, at times you’ve made arguments that are further progressive than health care reform. At times, you’ve said things that are massively against what are fundamental components of almost every conservative plan I’ve ever seen.
I beg of you – figure out what you support and support it. To simply lob complaints – I mean, anybody can do that.
Protest is good. Alternatives are better.
Mary -
And I will express that it is unfortunate.
It is also unfortunate that millions have gone without insurance for their lives, or been kicked off of plans because of health issues. I had a friend who couldn’t get insurance because she had cancer in college.
If it takes situations likes yours to allow for the market to be reformed so that she can have insurance, I take that trade off any day of the week. Again, I’m not trying to belittle the situation you are in – we’d all like things not to change. I’m just saying, there were no easy tweaks to allow you to keep what you had and allow others to move into the system.
And last thing – if we’re being fair here – you could continue to see who you see – there is no law saying you can’t go there. You’ve long advocated for shopping, discussing payment options – and you have the very option now that you’ve championed for yourself.
EGV,
Oh its unfortunate. So you agree then that people will lose their employer coverage and nothing says insurance companies have to make their policies compliant?
Now if XYZ clinic hadn’t stepped in, what would have happened to me and my co workers, one of whom has children who see a pediatric cardiologist. Why is it just “unfortunate” when some people lose policies but a catastrophe when people you know and others can’t get insurance?
That’s like arguing, “well gee whiz EGV, sorry to cancel your home insurance, and its unfortunate your new policy may not adequately cover your home, but think of all the people who have been victims of theft and fire who couldn’t get adequate coverage and their financial losses. It takes denying you adequate coverage to remedy this. Fair is fair.”
I now have the option I have championed for myself. LOL. So now you argue free market is fine for some people after all? Maybe something registered with you after all.
No Mary – I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that there will be plans that have to be modified. The employer mandate still exists – the governing laws of employers providing coverage are STRONGER than they were before reform. I don’t know if you know the numbers, but the number of employers offering coverage had been on quite the slide.
So it looks like you assumed a lot on your post as you want ranting, but the very first assumption you had was way, way off.
EGV,
Don’t you know the difference between plans being modified and people being ditched by insurance companies? BTW, the insurance co. didn’t concern themselves as to whether or not we would have any other kind of coverage. The new insurance doesn’t cover anything more, if anything it limits choices.
Why is it EGV when people point out facts you don’t like its “ranting”? I’m not assuming anything, I’m telling you what is happening. I’m telling you of people with limited choices and being forced to change doctors, contrary to the promise of the glorious leader.
Mary -
I’ve expressed how I feel bad that you can’t see the same eye doctor.
Yet I’ve never seen you express discontent or rant about the years before reform, when the ranks of the uninsured went up by almost 8 million. Or talk about any of the massive flaws of the old system that cheated people like my friends.
Sorry – I mean, maybe I’m not shedding enough tears here – but do you see the sympathy coming from your direction at all? At least I expressed a bit of “hey, that stinks”. Come on Mary though – look a tiny bit outside your world at what was happening to other people?
Would you switch places with my friend?
EGV,
Yeah, I’m sure it breaks you up.
In case you don’t remember EGV I offered free market solutions time and again. Also, uninsured did not mean untreated. Some people just chose to pay out of pocket. People who had doctors of their own still visited the emergency room, I know because I sent reports to many a personal physician. I pointed out time and again the corruption, ineptness, and waste of gov’t intervention.
Would I switch places with your friend? No. I wouldn’t wish cancer on anyone. But I have already discussed the free market solutions that would better enable your friend to get coverage. Would you switch places with my co worker who may not be able to take her children to the pediatric cardiologist they have been seeing or the nurse who is being forced to change her son’s pediatrician at such a critical time in her son’s diabetic care?
You see EGV, you’re just switching one wrong for another and no wrong is going to correct another.
Look a tiny bit outside my world at what is happening to other people. Don’t even go there EGV.
Mary -
I don’t remember what you suggested before, and have stated that about 10 times, and given you the opportunity to build (or rebuild) your case. You haven’t done such.
EGV,
Given your memory is obviously very poor, it would be a waste of my time and energy to again repeat what I have stated several times already. If it hasn’t registered by now it never will.
All I can remember is you gave some vague thoughts, and when pressed for more info, bailed on the conversation.
EGV.
As I pointed out, your memory is obviously very poor.
“Protest is good. Alternatives are better. ”
Ex-RINO, you say alternatives are better but when I offered a ‘fix’ to some of these problems above (just last night) and asked your opinion you just totally skipped past it. I will post it again for you.
Do you back Governor Walkers idea to allow government subsidies to be used on any plans including those not on the Obamacare exchanges?
truth – I can read up on it more (I know some of the basics but haven’t done much research) – but you need to then qualify this for me – are you saying that you generally support the health care reform framework – you simply think that those above 100% of the poverty line shouldn’t have the option of Medicaid, but should be given generous subsidies on private market exchanges?
Is this what you are saying you support?
I didn’t say anything about it yet. I’ll let you know though, as soon as you respond to what I asked you. Do a little research first if you need to.
The good:
– Because of Obama’s reform, there are avenues for people who make money over the poverty line (which is shockingly low) to get coverage very, very cheap.
The bad:
– The state of Wisconsin will have more uninsured citizens than if they accepted the medicaid expansion, and we’ll pay about a half a billion over the next 6 years to have more uninsured people – so from a fiscal standpoint, it seems very foolish. I mean, from a political standpoint he can say he didn’t accept federal money – though we accept federal money for all sorts of other things (roads, schools, etc…)
You don’t have to get all twisted and word-bendy. It is really a simple question.
And it seemed like I gave you a simple answer.
As a taxpayer of the state of Wisconsin, I think it was a bad move and if I were Walker, I wouldn’t have done that. Costs too much for worse results. Doesn’t make fiscal sense or do good by the citizens of the state.
What do you think about it?
I like the idea. Why should citizens who buy their insurance on the Obamacare exchanges be eligible for subsidies that are not available to people on individual or employer based plans? It doesn’t seem fair. The status quo would mean people are employed or or who buy their plans in the individual market have to subsidize people who buy insurance on the government exchanges. I don’t think that is fair.
What is the rationale for only allowing plans on the Obamacare exchanges to get government subsidies? Isn’t the idea to make health insurance more affordable for everybody? Since it is tax-payer money being used to subsidize the plans then the funds should be distributed equally regardless of where you purchase your plan.
Where in Obamacare did it give the president authority to force insurance companies to reimburse private doctors and hospitals for the care of patients who have signed up for health insurance but they have not even paid for their insurance? Isn’t that what he is asking them to do starting January 1st?
truth -
We were talking about two different things. I was talking about the Wisconsin medicaid change – you were talking about a different proposal. Sorry for the mix-up.
I don’t think Walker’s idea is a bad one – but would need to see what it actually looks like in a plan. Is he saying that there wouldn’t be any minimums? Even you have expressed issues with that – so I’d be interested to know what components a plan would need to adhere to. If it opens other avenues to get insurance without creating a race to the bottom, it would be worth a look. If it creates the race to the bottom scenario, I don’t think it would be worth it.
truth – I will note that it is awesome to see conservatives moving away from talk of repeal and towards how to alter the law as we move forward. That is a win.
As you know, Walker is all about repeal. But he is also very pragmatic and as long as Obamacare is the law of the land, he is about protecting Wisconsin citizens and the Wisconsin private insurance market from the damage of Obamacare’s implementation.
truth -
I’ve got to be honest – I don’t see it in those two rulings. He’s embracing federal subsidies and pushing people to exchanges to buy their insurance – so he’s using the exchanges as a tool to deliver health care.
And in terms of protecting Wisconsin citizens, I think the Medicaid ruling was massively far from that. Costs us too much and doesn’t protect enough people.
Okay – time for a direction question from me – there are a group of lawmakers pushing to allow individual counties in Wisconsin to fully expand Medicaid under federal law. Conservatives typically like to see legislation and governing controlled at the lowest possible level – state control better than federal – local control over state. Do you believe that this legislation should move forward so that individual Wisconsin counties could expand to best manage care in their local areas?
Subsidiarity is an organising principle of decentralisation, stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable. I agree with this concept and I think the counties should have control over the funds they raise. But I don’t believe one county should be able to implement money using other counties monies unless their is mutual agreement. For example, racine county residents should not have to pay a tax to fund a new basketball stadium in Milwaukee.
“You don’t have to get all twisted and word-bendy. It is really a simple question.”
What part of my post was hard for you to understand or semantically gymnastical?
Your non-answer was tough to understand.
Do you believe that this legislation should move forward so that individual Wisconsin counties could expand to best manage care in their local areas?
At this point, I’m assuming your answer is yes because it is federal money, not money coming from one county to another.
If it is all federal money then the monies should be distributed equally among the states or counties within the states based upon population to expand health care however is best for them.
But the current Medicaid system requires states to pay a portion of the cost; so in order for the legislation to be fair the states responsibility would have to be removed and each county, not the state, would have to be held responsible for any Medicaid associated costs for citizens in their county.
So the short answer would be that I could support legislation moving forward as long as the federal monies are distributed equally among the counties and the counties, not the states, were responsible for any costs associated with health care for their indigent citizens.
Ex-RINO, I’d like you to go on the record and answer this question:
“If we end up with more uninsured at the end of 2014 then we had at the end of 2013 would you then will you join us in voting out the DemocRATs and repealing Obamacare?
truth -
Five emails later you still haven’t answered the question. I’ll answer yours when you directly answer the question. There’s specific legislation that’s been presented – the counties have asked for it in Wisconsin – do you think it should move forward?
http://www.wkow.com/story/24183618/2013/12/10/proposed-legislation-would-allow-counties-to-accept-medicaid-funding
Sure, I would support it “moving forward’. But I wouldn’t support voting for it unless the legislation is amended to comply with the principles I stated above.
So you wouldn’t move it forward then – so you, as a conservative, seem to be moving power to higher levels and not lower levels. Do you feel like the state of Wisconsin knows better then the local counties how to manage the health of their citizens? Counties and health care organizations have been in strong support of this – but it seems to be held up because politically, Walker wants to look better for 2016 and running for President. You seem to be against your conservative roots here…maybe they aren’t that deep!
Ex-RINO, Unlike liberals who implement things to find out what is in them. When conservatives have ideas we debate them and amend them prior to voting to pass them in order to avoid train wreck implementations.
“Counties and health care organizations have been in strong support of this – but it seems to be held up because politically, Walker wants to look better for 2016 and running for President.”
Ew, is he really talking about running in 2016? I hope not. And you’re right, he seems to be latching onto the anti-Medicaid sentiment, even if it goes against traditionally conservative beliefs (local government is best) for his own political ends.
Deluded Lib, was voting for Obama part of what makes you feel deluded?
Lol I did not vote for Obama nor have I voted for a pro-choicer.
Anyway I’m a regular commenter here under a new name, it shouldn’t be that hard to figure out who I am truth. I changed my name just for you guys! :)
You decided to get a moniker that describes you closer to reality
truth -
That’s funny about reading the bills – don’t remember the Patriot Act much?
I’m a step behind here – D.L.P.L. – is that Jack?
Second guess..you must be Jack :)
Yes Ex this is Jack lol. +10 points to you
Ten to you too truth. My secret identity has been foiled lol.
The Patriot Act was a knee jerk reaction to a terrible assault on our nation and was supported almost unanimously by libs and conservatives. If you agree that is not the best way to pass legislation then you would understand why I wouldn’t support the changes for Medicare composed in the law you asked about without debate and amendment.
truth –
See – you accuse others of going lock-step with political figures – and when it comes to Walker, you are pretty predictable.
Anyway, to answer your earlier question, I’m on board with a repeal right now and a replace with a much better system (univeral care). I think you and I both would agree though, given the massive losses and numbers I showed you under the old system, a repeal without a replace would be idiotic.
Actually Jack, your new moniker isn’t quite right yet.
It should be “Allegedly-Deluded Lib Pro-Lifer” because as far as I’m concerned, the delusions do not lie with you ;-)
Ex-RINO, the only thing more idiotic then passing Obamacare is not repealing it. I noticed above you said that the Republicans have not offered any alternatives and that is not true. I know the Democrats have no alternatives to offer so let me point you to one so that you can see there are alternatives being presented by the GOP.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/republican-alternative-obamacare-gaining-momentum-bills-sponsor-says
Haha Reality I’m just trying to cut down on name calling. They can just call me “Deluded” if it makes them feel better and it amuses me.
“I know the Democrats have no alternatives to offer so let me point you to one so that you can see there are alternatives being presented by the GOP. ”
Silliness, the ACA was based on conservative principles in the first place, it’s definitely not a “first choice” for most Dems. A lot of them would prefer single payer.
truth -
That’s simply not true. Go back and look at the stats of the status quo. You yourself seemed to offer that the number of insured people was a huge benchmark, and look how many people lost coverage under the old system.
Is that a plan you support? Who knows – you don’t know what you support. Bonus points for you though if you tell me the aspect that hasn’t proven to work (we went through it a while back).
How is the GoP going to pay for that plan? Big taxes raises? Or deficit spending?
“Silliness, the ACA was based on conservative principles in the first place”
Deluded one, the ACA was far from based on conservative principles. You can find one or two interwoven but the fact that not one conservative voted for it should tell you that it has a lot more liberal socialist big government principles than anything else.
Ex-RINO, by replacing a plan that causes health insurance costs and out-of-pocket expenses to skyrocket with one that actually lowers the cost of health insurance. Compared to Obamacare the bar is so low that relative cost savings is easier than a CBO score. And we can get government out of citizens health care which means billions in saving every year by getting rid of the bureaucracy. And we can save the doctor/patient health care relationship while doing it.
Based on what truth? The bullet points of the plan, or do you want to point me to an analysis to read?
Seeing that you are saying that it will lower health insurance costs, it sounds like you have the info to defend the plan – so I can fire questions your way? I have about 10 off the top of my head…
Ex-RINO, You had said there were no alternatives being offered. I pointed you to Governor Walkers ‘fix’ and then I pointed you to Representative Scalise’s alternative to replace Obamacare. I know you full of questions but do you have any fixes or alternative replacement plans to offer…..?
truth – Walker’s plan isn’t an alternative.
Do you know if Scalise’s plan has gone to CBO or anything? Have you looked through the bill to see how they pay for it?
Replacements? Universal care – or figure out a way for all states to expand Medicaid.
Fixes – a ton of them – most bills get continually tweaked. I’d like to see more cost control features like letting the government set prices and caps on prescription drugs. No reason for us to pay 10x what other countries pay.