ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Neoteny]

Who are the mooks that are just now seeing what's in it? It's been online for, like, three years.

[PLAYER57832]

This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?

The information HAS been out there, but if , lik eyou, they only pay attention to the right wing rhetoric then, no, you won't find anything... THOSE folks, aka the folks you seem to listen to , don't want anyone to know what is in the healthcare reform act, because if people really paid attention, they might not be so opposed.

THAT is the real truth, not the garbage you keep putting forward without bothering to verify.

Things they don't want you to pay attention to:
Insurance companies can no longer exclude children with pre-existing conditions. In the past, parents with disabled kids had to buy BOTH family coverage for the rest of the family AND either a very expensive policy for the disabled child, have that child go without insurance OR have that child be supported by tax payers.

Parents can ALREADY keep their adult children, up to age 26, on their family policies.

Similarly, in 2014, adults will not be excluded based on pre-existing conditions or because a "lifetime limit" for coverage was reached.

ALL of that is being paid for right now, but being paid for with tax dollars, often in the most expensive ways -- emergency rooms and so forth.

People will be encouraged to get diagnostic tests early. That will ultimately lower costs.

Most of those costs above are not true increases, rather they are transfers of payment from public tax dollars to private insurance -- a move you have touted as desirable in the past. (but note, I am among those who have wanted a fully nationalized system all along).


Other stuff you got wrong:
The claim that "Obama said everyone can keep their insurance" -- what he actually said was that there is nothing in the law preventing anyone who has insurance that meets basic criteria from keeping it.

The claim that "it won't cost more" -- he actually said that the overwhelming majority of people making less than 25O thousand will see no change. A few people, those getting what are now being called "cadillac policies" (those with NO copayments, few or no penalties for thingsl ike no show appointments, covering a lot of things most people might consider optional like elective plastic surgery-- NOT reconstructive surgery to correct abnormalities or injury, but things like "nose jobs", etc.). There was also a small group of tohers that were always identified as likely to wind up paying more, but getting into those details is apparently "too complicated" -- and too truthful.

I could go on, but you tend to ignore real criticisms of what you put forward as it is.

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, yeah... and along with all your criticisms, how about telling us how you would actually do things better? Because so far, nothing you have put forward really will work.

Moving policies across state lines, for example, just means employers get to choose even poorer coverage. it is cutting costs today so everyone else can pay more later when the insurance coverage fails to really pay for needed services.

[Night Strike]

This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?

What did I distort in that post? Obama made the claim about the percentage of people having problems with the law. I pointed out that the law was passed because the same percentage of people did not have health insurance. Where is the inaccuracy or distortion?

The information HAS been out there, but if , lik eyou, they only pay attention to the right wing rhetoric then, no, you won't find anything... THOSE folks, aka the folks you seem to listen to , don't want anyone to know what is in the healthcare reform act, because if people really paid attention, they might not be so opposed.

Why wouldn't we want people to know about the massive amounts of taxes and control the federal government has enacted and is forcing upon the American people? It's the Democrats who refused to share what was in it before passing it.

Other stuff you got wrong:
The claim that "Obama said everyone can keep their insurance" -- what he actually said was that there is nothing in the law preventing anyone who has insurance that meets basic criteria from keeping it.

The claim that "it won't cost more" -- he actually said that the overwhelming majority of people making less than 25O thousand will see no change. A few people, those getting what are now being called "cadillac policies" (those with NO copayments, few or no penalties for thingsl ike no show appointments, covering a lot of things most people might consider optional like elective plastic surgery-- NOT reconstructive surgery to correct abnormalities or injury, but things like "nose jobs", etc.). There was also a small group of tohers that were always identified as likely to wind up paying more, but getting into those details is apparently "too complicated" -- and too truthful.

I could go on, but you tend to ignore real criticisms of what you put forward as it is.

What part of "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it under this law" do you not understand? It's plain language that Obama repeated profusely. Yet it has been a lie. Why can't you acknowledge that instead of worshipping big government?

By the way, why do you want to punish those people who have great insurance plans? I thought you wanted to lower costs and provide great health care. I guess all you truly want is for everyone to have the exact same mediocre government provided plan?

Oh, yeah... and along with all your criticisms, how about telling us how you would actually do things better? Because so far, nothing you have put forward really will work.

I would make it harder to sue for medical malpractice so that dozens of unnecessary tests aren't performed. I would require that the prices for procedures all be publicly listed and available both online and in service providers. I would remove the employer-based system we have in favor of individuals making their own decisions. And then I would allow individuals to choose their plans based on any plan offered in the country instead of the artificial limits of "minimum" coverage imposed by each state.

[Woodruff]

This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?

What did I distort in that post?

Just for starters? The claim that Obama intimated that a particular group of people was irrelevant.

I would make it harder to sue for medical malpractice so that dozens of unnecessary tests aren't performed.

That is an excellent idea. That way, doctor's won't have to worry about being competent or fucking up people's lives.

Does lawsuit reform need to happen? Certainly, though largely that problem lies in the area of judgements, NOT in the area of "can I sue".

[Night Strike]

This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?

What did I distort in that post?

Just for starters? The claim that Obama intimated that a particular group of people was irrelevant.

Well he implied that the problems were small and inconsequential to the overall law.

I would make it harder to sue for medical malpractice so that dozens of unnecessary tests aren't performed.

That is an excellent idea. That way, doctor's won't have to worry about being competent or fucking up people's lives.

Does lawsuit reform need to happen? Certainly, though largely that problem lies in the area of judgements, NOT in the area of "can I sue".

Harder =/= impossible. Please learn the difference. Doctors that perform incorrect procedures or on the wrong side of the body should definitely be sued. Doctors who perform the 3 most useful tests instead of all 12 tests available should not be sued.

[Phatscotty]

Who are the mooks that are just now seeing what's in it? It's been online for, like, three years.

Oh, IT'S ONLINE!!!! GREAT!!! No excuses for not knowing what's in it now!!!

[AndyDufresne]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

[AndyDufresne]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

PS, I am not sure what you are getting at. You're missing my point, silly.

Edit: Here, let me explain it with the use of the following video:




--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Fine, point accepted, with one caveat.

The bill being online for people to read (usually without a team of lawyers) does not really "help" to know what is in Obamacare.

This online thread, to discuss Obamacare as it trickles out bit by bit over the years and shows how it specifically will/won't affect, is far more "helpful"

I think Nancy Pelosi made this overall point better than I or anyone else can

[Woodruff]

This morning during his press conference, Obama claimed the number of Americans that are having problems with the implementation of Obamacare is very small.....approximately 10-15% of the country. Yet, the entire Obamacare law was passed specifically because of 10-15% of the country not having health insurance. So if the first group is irrelevant due to their size, why isn't the latter group?

Do you ever think beyond the distorted sources you apparently consider as the only "truth"?

What did I distort in that post?

Just for starters? The claim that Obama intimated that a particular group of people was irrelevant.

Well he implied that the problems were small and inconsequential to the overall law.

So you fully admit that you distorted it, then. Well done, maybe you've grown up. That was what you were saying, right? That you did distort it?

I would make it harder to sue for medical malpractice so that dozens of unnecessary tests aren't performed.

That is an excellent idea. That way, doctor's won't have to worry about being competent or fucking up people's lives.

Does lawsuit reform need to happen? Certainly, though largely that problem lies in the area of judgements, NOT in the area of "can I sue".

Harder =/= impossible. Please learn the difference.

Making it "harder to sue" is irresponsible. That's what judges and juries are for...to determine if a lawsuit is frivolous or not. It is NOT a responsible thing to make it harder to sue.

Doctors that perform incorrect procedures or on the wrong side of the body should definitely be sued. Doctors who perform the 3 most useful tests instead of all 12 tests available should not be sued.

Again, it's not necessary to make it more difficult to sue a doctor in order for this to happen. You want to build a wall instead of solve the actual problem.

[Woodruff]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.

[Phatscotty]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.

What does it say? Do you have a good grasp of the new rules?

[Metsfanmax]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.

What does it say?

Did you expect that a massive health insurance overhaul, affecting basically all three hundred million people in this country, would be short enough for you to read while on the toilet?

[Phatscotty]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.

What does it say?

Did you expect that a massive health insurance overhaul, affecting basically all three hundred million people in this country, would be short enough for you to read while on the toilet?

No

[Woodruff]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.

What does it say? Do you have a good grasp of the new rules?

You ignored it then, so I can't imagine you're actually seriously interested in my answer now. Perhaps when you start showing a little interest in discussion and conversation rather than simply getting your way, you'll find that people will stop treating you like a pariah.

[Phatscotty]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.

What does it say? Do you have a good grasp of the new rules?

You ignored it then, so I can't imagine you're actually seriously interested in my answer now. Perhaps when you start showing a little interest in discussion and conversation rather than simply getting your way, you'll find that people will stop treating you like a pariah.

Thank you for your answer, and for entering this discussion, and now exiting.

[Woodruff]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.

What does it say? Do you have a good grasp of the new rules?

You ignored it then, so I can't imagine you're actually seriously interested in my answer now. Perhaps when you start showing a little interest in discussion and conversation rather than simply getting your way, you'll find that people will stop treating you like a pariah.

Thank you for your answer, and for entering this discussion, and now exiting.

So when you looked at the information I provided back then, what was your response, Phatscotty? You see, there WAS NO DISCUSSION FOR ME TO ENTER. It's just more of the same from you...ducking and dodging.

[Phatscotty]

How long did it take you to read the Obamacare bill, Woodruff?

[Woodruff]

How long did it take you to read the Obamacare bill, Woodruff?

A long god-damned time, certainly.

[Neoteny]

Took me, like, a few hours.

[BigBallinStalin]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.

What does it say?

Did you expect that a massive health insurance overhaul, affecting basically all three hundred million people in this country, would be short enough for you to read while on the toilet?

Coincidentally, that's probably also the amount of time politicians spent on deliberating the bill before approving it.

[kentington]

Phattscotty, I liked what your post said before you edited it:

"Right, like as if being online helps."

I think this topic is excellent example of such a notion!


--Andy

...Then start reading Obamacare on page 1, let us know what you find out. It's online...so.....piece of cake!

I already have...actually, quite some time ago. You ignored it then too.

What does it say?

Did you expect that a massive health insurance overhaul, affecting basically all three hundred million people in this country, would be short enough for you to read while on the toilet?

Maybe not in one sitting.

[Phatscotty]

And now that the mainstream media is reporting the reality, everyone else can finally "see" what's in it

Jan Crawford touted how ObamaCare going into full effect in early 2014 is "causing all kinds of concern and anxiety, especially with...small business owners" on Friday's CBS This Morning. Crawford also pointed out Senator Max Baucus' April 17, 2013 "train wreck" label of the upcoming implementation of the health care law. This was the first time that a Big Three morning or evening newscast mentioned Baucus' blunt remark.

The correspondent zeroed in on a California bakery whose owner asserted that he "can't make any decisions, because the federal government is giving no guidance" with regard to ObamaCare.

Jan Crawford, CBS News Correspondent; Screen Cap From 3 May 2013 Edition of CBS This Morning, Norah O'Donnell previewed the journalist's report by underling how "President Obama's landmark health care law goes into full effect next year, but some small business owners are getting pretty nervous. Even some who backed the law are starting to ask questions." Crawford led the segment by spotlighting how "this new health care law, really, is just barreling down the tracks", and continued with her "concern and anxiety" line.

The CBS correspondent featured Hans Rockenwagner, whose bakery is "known throughout Los Angeles for its artisan breads". She outlined that the "looming provisions in the President's health care reform law have the small business owner worried about his company's future....Rockenwagner and other small business owners worry the cost to provide coverage could consume their profits. Rockenwagner says his annual cost would total around $300,000."

Later, Crawford noted how "President Obama downplayed the concerns this week" at his Tuesday news conference, and played a clip of the liberal politician acknowledging the "people who are nervous and anxious" about the health care law. But she quickly followed this with the Baucus "train wreck" sound bite, and continued with a third clip from a Democrat – Senator Harry Reid – who actually seconded Baucus.

It should be pointed out that NBC had an opportunity to report on the Montana senator's remark, due to correspondent Chuck Todd asking President Obama about it at the Tuesday news conference. But as the MRC's Kyle Drennen documented, the network chose instead to hit the chief executive from the left on the issue of the Guantanamo Bay detainee camp.

Towards the end of her report, the CBS journalist highlighted a recent poll from the left-leaning Kaiser Family Foundation that found that "42 percent of Americans don't even realize the President's health care law is on the books, and nearly six in ten of the uninsured don't understand how it will impact them."