ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Neoteny]

And none of you heartless bastards want to talk about how the medicaid expansion helped poor people in Oregon? You can backpedal and talk about how poor people don't matter, or leeches, or how the economy is more important than people's well-being, because it magics their well-being back, but come on, someone throw me a bone here.

[WILLIAMS5232]

And none of you heartless bastards want to talk about how the medicaid expansion helped poor people in Oregon? You can backpedal and talk about how poor people don't matter, or leeches, or how the economy is more important than people's well-being, because it magics their well-being back, but come on, someone throw me a bone here.

it's easy for you to say that i want poor people to die of preventable disease. because i guess it makes you feel better about how you choose to disagree with me. it's kind of a worn out argument if you ask me. because i don't want poor people to die. i want them to not expect as much help so they will depend more on their own self and in turn be able to put more in the kitty. and by supporting every aspect of their life allows them to squander their resources and time in what i would call an irresponsible manner. if our country had a surplus i'd be fine with doling out enough money to everyone who wanted to buy their kid an xbox but couldn't afford to. but we don't have a surplus. 28 percent of my 2013 check went towards a form of tax. i'm sure this year will be even more? i'm curious to see 10 years down the road what the ACA will have added or taken away from our debt. til then, since i don't believe in predictions, i'll just have to be a pessimist i guess. i doubt the poor will fare much better health wise the larger our nations debt climbs.

[mrswdk]

Who says poor people can't afford to pay for healthcare on account of squandering their money?

[Neoteny]

And none of you heartless bastards want to talk about how the medicaid expansion helped poor people in Oregon? You can backpedal and talk about how poor people don't matter, or leeches, or how the economy is more important than people's well-being, because it magics their well-being back, but come on, someone throw me a bone here.

it's easy for you to say that i want poor people to die of preventable disease. because i guess it makes you feel better about how you choose to disagree with me. it's kind of a worn out argument if you ask me. because i don't want poor people to die. i want them to not expect as much help so they will depend more on their own self and in turn be able to put more in the kitty. and by supporting every aspect of their life allows them to squander their resources and time in what i would call an irresponsible manner. if our country had a surplus i'd be fine with doling out enough money to everyone who wanted to buy their kid an xbox but couldn't afford to. but we don't have a surplus. 28 percent of my 2013 check went towards a form of tax. i'm sure this year will be even more? i'm curious to see 10 years down the road what the ACA will have added or taken away from our debt. til then, since i don't believe in predictions, i'll just have to be a pessimist i guess. i doubt the poor will fare much better health wise the larger our nations debt climbs.

You can make sad faces all you want, but you've validated my statements later on in your post. I feel really bad that you have to pay taxes though. For real. This is my serious face.

[thegreekdog]

I, like many millenials, and apparently Michael Moore of all people, think the ACA is a bad bill because we had to play politics with you turds to get anything done. It should be so much more. But, there's a reason many insurance companies are down with the premise of the act, if not the execution. A bad ACA is better than nothing.

This idea that the Republicans shoulder some, much, or all of the blame of the Affordable Care Act is absurd on its face. As far as I can tell, not a single Republican in the House or Senate voted for the bill. There were no deals made that affected the ACA at all. The Democrats, including the actual Democrats like you, should take some responsibility for the law instead of trying to pass the buck.

[Neoteny]

Not a Democrat. Did not like the bill (though I did spend a lot of time explaining to conservatives on this site what was actually in it, since they couldn't be fucked to read it). Especially after the concessions were made to make it more palatable to conservatives, regardless of whether those concessions garnered any Republican support or not. The Republicans shoulder the blame of spreading misinformation and just being overall turds to begin with, and the Democrats shoulder the blame of being cowards and faux liberals, as well as subsidizing the insurance industry.

[Metsfanmax]

if our country had a surplus i'd be fine with doling out enough money to everyone who wanted to buy their kid an xbox but couldn't afford to.

Really? You wouldn't demand lower taxes?

[thegreekdog]

Not a Democrat. Did not like the bill (though I did spend a lot of time explaining to conservatives on this site what was actually in it, since they couldn't be fucked to read it). Especially after the concessions were made to make it more palatable to conservatives, regardless of whether those concessions garnered any Republican support or not. The Republicans shoulder the blame of spreading misinformation and just being overall turds to begin with, and the Democrats shoulder the blame of being cowards and faux liberals, as well as subsidizing the insurance industry.

The Republicans who are not limited government people (i.e. most of them) deserve blame for not doing something under GW Bush.

The Democrats get the blame for being faux Democrats (as you stated, and as I've stated for years now) and creating a subsidy for the insurance industry at the expense of everyone else.

To be honest I was excited when the president wanted to do a great healthcare debate. Then I watched the debate and realized he wasn't going to listen to anything the Republicans had to say (nor did he need to). The Republicans didn't have a valid plan (although I think they didn't need one, other than to strip away any and all laws concerning health insurance, but I'm a limited government person), so they get dinged for that.

But there was nothing in the law that was a concession to Republicans simply because there were no concessions necessary to pass the law. The only "conservative" concession was related to that anti-abortion dude in the Democratic party and his allies.

[WILLIAMS5232]

And none of you heartless bastards want to talk about how the medicaid expansion helped poor people in Oregon? You can backpedal and talk about how poor people don't matter, or leeches, or how the economy is more important than people's well-being, because it magics their well-being back, but come on, someone throw me a bone here.

it's easy for you to say that i want poor people to die of preventable disease. because i guess it makes you feel better about how you choose to disagree with me. it's kind of a worn out argument if you ask me. because i don't want poor people to die. i want them to not expect as much help so they will depend more on their own self and in turn be able to put more in the kitty. and by supporting every aspect of their life allows them to squander their resources and time in what i would call an irresponsible manner. if our country had a surplus i'd be fine with doling out enough money to everyone who wanted to buy their kid an xbox but couldn't afford to. but we don't have a surplus. 28 percent of my 2013 check went towards a form of tax. i'm sure this year will be even more? i'm curious to see 10 years down the road what the ACA will have added or taken away from our debt. til then, since i don't believe in predictions, i'll just have to be a pessimist i guess. i doubt the poor will fare much better health wise the larger our nations debt climbs.

You can make sad faces all you want, but you've validated my statements later on in your post. I feel really bad that you have to pay taxes though. For real. This is my serious face.

paying taxes is not my issue. but i understand why you focus on that.

if our country had a surplus i'd be fine with doling out enough money to everyone who wanted to buy their kid an xbox but couldn't afford to.

Really? You wouldn't demand lower taxes?

i mean, i guess they could be lowered, but i'm not against spending within a balanced budget. i read somewhere the revenue estimates for 2014 will be around 3 trillion dollars i also read somewhere else that we will be paying 17% of that in interest towards our national debt alone. that's ridiculous to me. it's a shame we're in debt. this could have done so much good for the country at large. i mean, would you agree that if we were not spiraling out of control in terms of debt, that the morale of our nation would be much greater with a positive income such as that? healthcare wouldn't even be an issue in that instance.

[Neoteny]

Not a Democrat. Did not like the bill (though I did spend a lot of time explaining to conservatives on this site what was actually in it, since they couldn't be fucked to read it). Especially after the concessions were made to make it more palatable to conservatives, regardless of whether those concessions garnered any Republican support or not. The Republicans shoulder the blame of spreading misinformation and just being overall turds to begin with, and the Democrats shoulder the blame of being cowards and faux liberals, as well as subsidizing the insurance industry.

The Republicans who are not limited government people (i.e. most of them) deserve blame for not doing something under GW Bush.

The Democrats get the blame for being faux Democrats (as you stated, and as I've stated for years now) and creating a subsidy for the insurance industry at the expense of everyone else.

To be honest I was excited when the president wanted to do a great healthcare debate. Then I watched the debate and realized he wasn't going to listen to anything the Republicans had to say (nor did he need to). The Republicans didn't have a valid plan (although I think they didn't need one, other than to strip away any and all laws concerning health insurance, but I'm a limited government person), so they get dinged for that.

But there was nothing in the law that was a concession to Republicans simply because there were no concessions necessary to pass the law. The only "conservative" concession was related to that anti-abortion dude in the Democratic party and his allies.

I checked my facts. Liebermann. Liebermann is a turd wrapped in a turd. And it's not really about the public option, which is sort of whatever. He has a history of being a turd. Sorry for trying to give him to you guys. Unless you want him. Then you can have him.

"Concessions" was wrong of me to use. The bill was still drafted as an attempt at bipartisan reform, which is probably where I got that idea in my head. It failed at that, and just ended up as this awesome mud puddle.

[Neoteny]

And none of you heartless bastards want to talk about how the medicaid expansion helped poor people in Oregon? You can backpedal and talk about how poor people don't matter, or leeches, or how the economy is more important than people's well-being, because it magics their well-being back, but come on, someone throw me a bone here.

it's easy for you to say that i want poor people to die of preventable disease. because i guess it makes you feel better about how you choose to disagree with me. it's kind of a worn out argument if you ask me. because i don't want poor people to die. i want them to not expect as much help so they will depend more on their own self and in turn be able to put more in the kitty. and by supporting every aspect of their life allows them to squander their resources and time in what i would call an irresponsible manner. if our country had a surplus i'd be fine with doling out enough money to everyone who wanted to buy their kid an xbox but couldn't afford to. but we don't have a surplus. 28 percent of my 2013 check went towards a form of tax. i'm sure this year will be even more? i'm curious to see 10 years down the road what the ACA will have added or taken away from our debt. til then, since i don't believe in predictions, i'll just have to be a pessimist i guess. i doubt the poor will fare much better health wise the larger our nations debt climbs.

You can make sad faces all you want, but you've validated my statements later on in your post. I feel really bad that you have to pay taxes though. For real. This is my serious face.

paying taxes is not my issue. but i understand why you focus on that.

My focus was actually on how many people against Obamacare refuse to even acknowledge that it has worked to help a lot of people with their insurance problems, even in passing, or a footnote, and will bring up taxes or insurance horror stories (like those didn't exist before ACA) or the budget to avoid doing so. It definitely comes across as uncaring, and you did it immediately after quoting me, which is great.

[Metsfanmax]

if our country had a surplus i'd be fine with doling out enough money to everyone who wanted to buy their kid an xbox but couldn't afford to.

Really? You wouldn't demand lower taxes?

i mean, i guess they could be lowered, but i'm not against spending within a balanced budget.

By definition, if you have a surplus, then the budget is unbalanced, so I would expect that someone who is consistently for a balanced budget would call either for higher spending or lower taxes if there's a surplus. Someone who is also in favor of small government would probably err toward lower taxes instead of higher government spending.

i read somewhere the revenue estimates for 2014 will be around 3 trillion dollars i also read somewhere else that we will be paying 17% of that in interest towards our national debt alone. that's ridiculous to me. it's a shame we're in debt. this could have done so much good for the country at large. i mean, would you agree that if we were not spiraling out of control in terms of debt, that the morale of our nation would be much greater with a positive income such as that?

Yes, but the morale of our nation is self-constructed. Being permanently in debt is not necessarily a problem if the debt is limited and controlled, as long as inflation and GDP growth continue predictably into the future. If everyone recognized that, then our morale problem might go away. However, our current level of debt is perhaps too high to make the claim that we're in a sustainable pattern, and there are many who disagree with the idea anyway.

healthcare wouldn't even be an issue in that instance.

In the Clinton administration we were very much closer to a balanced budget, but health care problems were still very real in the 1990s.

[thegreekdog]

Not a Democrat. Did not like the bill (though I did spend a lot of time explaining to conservatives on this site what was actually in it, since they couldn't be fucked to read it). Especially after the concessions were made to make it more palatable to conservatives, regardless of whether those concessions garnered any Republican support or not. The Republicans shoulder the blame of spreading misinformation and just being overall turds to begin with, and the Democrats shoulder the blame of being cowards and faux liberals, as well as subsidizing the insurance industry.

The Republicans who are not limited government people (i.e. most of them) deserve blame for not doing something under GW Bush.

The Democrats get the blame for being faux Democrats (as you stated, and as I've stated for years now) and creating a subsidy for the insurance industry at the expense of everyone else.

To be honest I was excited when the president wanted to do a great healthcare debate. Then I watched the debate and realized he wasn't going to listen to anything the Republicans had to say (nor did he need to). The Republicans didn't have a valid plan (although I think they didn't need one, other than to strip away any and all laws concerning health insurance, but I'm a limited government person), so they get dinged for that.

But there was nothing in the law that was a concession to Republicans simply because there were no concessions necessary to pass the law. The only "conservative" concession was related to that anti-abortion dude in the Democratic party and his allies.

I checked my facts. Liebermann. Liebermann is a turd wrapped in a turd. And it's not really about the public option, which is sort of whatever. He has a history of being a turd. Sorry for trying to give him to you guys. Unless you want him. Then you can have him.

"Concessions" was wrong of me to use. The bill was still drafted as an attempt at bipartisan reform, which is probably where I got that idea in my head. It failed at that, and just ended up as this awesome mud puddle.

If the Democrats were at all interested in the same things their voting constituents were interested in, they would have enacted a single payor system. They had the votes to do that. Instead, the Democrats in office (Congress and president) are taking money from rent-seekers so they enacted a law that, frankly, kind of sucks.

[WILLIAMS5232]

My focus was actually on how many people against Obamacare refuse to even acknowledge that it has worked to help a lot of people with their insurance problems, even in passing, or a footnote, and will bring up taxes or insurance horror stories (like those didn't exist before ACA) or the budget to avoid doing so. It definitely comes across as uncaring, and you did it immediately after quoting me, which is great

healthcare cost money, so it's definitely a budget issue in my eyes. our debt is real, so that too is hard to ignore. seems to me that welfare, for instance, is not working all that well. we keep putting a major chunk of our revenue into it and people keep getting poorer and more dependent on it. maybe it's time to divert those funds, or at least some of them. ( i'm not sure, but i think that is what i see is happening right now ). my point about my tax contribution was i think i pay my fair share regardless of how uncaring you want to paint me as.

hen the budget is unbalanced

ok, so poor word choice on my part. basically i meant saving money for a rainy day is not a bad thing. it's most likely possible to do a bit of both if we have no debt.

Being permanently in debt is not necessarily a problem if the debt is limited and controlled,

i would say its not much an advantage either. unless your profits were above your interest payments. which i don't see that being possible at our current levels.

In the Clinton administration we were very much closer to a balanced budget, but health care problems were still very real in the 1990s.

i'm sure they'll be very real in 2040 as well. and maybe well into the 2300's. that's just a guess tho'. it's very hard to appease 300 million people all at once.

[Neoteny]

My focus was actually on how many people against Obamacare refuse to even acknowledge that it has worked to help a lot of people with their insurance problems, even in passing, or a footnote, and will bring up taxes or insurance horror stories (like those didn't exist before ACA) or the budget to avoid doing so. It definitely comes across as uncaring, and you did it immediately after quoting me, which is great

healthcare cost money, so it's definitely a budget issue in my eyes. our debt is real, so that too is hard to ignore. seems to me that welfare, for instance, is not working all that well. we keep putting a major chunk of our revenue into it and people keep getting poorer and more dependent on it. maybe it's time to divert those funds, or at least some of them. ( i'm not sure, but i think that is what i see is happening right now ). my point about my tax contribution was i think i pay my fair share regardless of how uncaring you want to paint me as.

I don't want to paint you as anything. I'm just asking: any positives out of Obamacare? Or just another excuse to chastise us about the economy?

[mrswdk]

ObamaDoesn'tCare

[PLAYER57832]

Is Oregon still zero? Portland....Really?

They're still zero because they had already expanded Medicaid in 2008, causing a 40% increase in ER visits, which does NOT lower health care spending:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/04/study-suggests-medicaid-expansion-will-lead-to-more-emergency-room-visits-under/

I have heard these reports too. In some ways, its akin to "innner city schools spend more money for less outcome". In some ways its a reflection of some real issue with healthcare that need fixing, but the "Healthcare reform act", despite its name, does little to truly fix healthcare or healthcare costs, it only moves to improve insurance -- and only a tad of that.

Anyway, first look at who is eligible for medicaid. Poor people, yes, but also a large number of kids who have disabilities. Many poor people live in less than wonderful circumstances, disabled kids often need more care.

Second, why are they going to the emergency room? To the extent its unwarranted, its because other places often are just not open. I have wound up taking my kids there because the doctor is not open or simply cannot see them when I am off work. Note... they have a doctor who trusts me enough to phone in perscriptions based on what I say, but there are times when I cannot give him enough information or, when the kids need some direct treatment -- maybe stitches, maybe a breathing treatment.

I myself go more than I would like (though note,I am NOT covered by Medicaid!), because my doctor won't issue a perscription without seeing me and his office is rarely open in the evenings.

The bottom line is that the CURRENT expansion is not identical to the earlier ones. The key now is that younger, healthy adults are supposed to be enrolling.

Also, as Neoteny said... I don't think people getting healthcare is a bad outcome.

There ARE plenty of things that can be done,that should be done to reduce healthcare costs. The isue I have, that a lot of people have with all those criticizing Obamacare is that the naysayers are solely concerned with picking holes in the law we already have and not actually improving anything.

[PLAYER57832]

My focus was actually on how many people against Obamacare refuse to even acknowledge that it has worked to help a lot of people with their insurance problems, even in passing, or a footnote, and will bring up taxes or insurance horror stories (like those didn't exist before ACA) or the budget to avoid doing so. It definitely comes across as uncaring, and you did it immediately after quoting me, which is great

healthcare cost money, so it's definitely a budget issue in my eyes. our debt is real, so that too is hard to ignore. seems to me that welfare, for instance, is not working all that well. we keep putting a major chunk of our revenue into it and people keep getting poorer and more dependent on it. maybe it's time to divert those funds, or at least some of them. ( i'm not sure, but i think that is what i see is happening right now ). my point about my tax contribution was i think i pay my fair share regardless of how uncaring you want to paint me as.

Actually, the real problem is that welfare DOES work, but we are caught in a negative system that says employers get to take whatever profits they want, and only pay people what's left...even if its too little to live upon.

People working 40 hours and more and STILL qualifying for subsidies is a tragedy, but not a welfare tragedy, its and employment tragedy... particularly when the wealthiest individuals keep getting more and more.

Of course, its not necessarily those wealthy people who are themselves directly paying the low wage fast food workers, store clerks and care providers. However, by not letting money trickly down, by insisting that their stock profits and bonuses are to come FIRST, because they "deserve" whatever they make, doesn't leave enough to pay everyone else decent wages.

[mrswdk]

Well, according to you those impossibly low wages are being topped up by government subsidies, so what's the fuss?

[Phatscotty]

Not a Democrat. Did not like the bill (though I did spend a lot of time explaining to conservatives on this site what was actually in it, since they couldn't be fucked to read it). Especially after the concessions were made to make it more palatable to conservatives, regardless of whether those concessions garnered any Republican support or not. The Republicans shoulder the blame of spreading misinformation and just being overall turds to begin with, and the Democrats shoulder the blame of being cowards and faux liberals, as well as subsidizing the insurance industry.

The Republicans who are not limited government people (i.e. most of them) deserve blame for not doing something under GW Bush.

The Democrats get the blame for being faux Democrats (as you stated, and as I've stated for years now) and creating a subsidy for the insurance industry at the expense of everyone else.

To be honest I was excited when the president wanted to do a great healthcare debate. Then I watched the debate and realized he wasn't going to listen to anything the Republicans had to say (nor did he need to). The Republicans didn't have a valid plan (although I think they didn't need one, other than to strip away any and all laws concerning health insurance, but I'm a limited government person), so they get dinged for that.

But there was nothing in the law that was a concession to Republicans simply because there were no concessions necessary to pass the law. The only "conservative" concession was related to that anti-abortion dude in the Democratic party and his allies.

This

[Night Strike]

My focus was actually on how many people against Obamacare refuse to even acknowledge that it has worked to help a lot of people with their insurance problems, even in passing, or a footnote, and will bring up taxes or insurance horror stories (like those didn't exist before ACA) or the budget to avoid doing so. It definitely comes across as uncaring, and you did it immediately after quoting me, which is great.

And it's caused insurance problems for more people than it has helped. And most of those who have been helped have only been done so because they're not paying the real price of their insurance due to the rest of us subsidizing them. THAT is why we focus on the "horror" stories.

Actually, the real problem is that welfare DOES work, but we are caught in a negative system that says employers get to take whatever profits they want, and only pay people what's left...even if its too little to live upon.

Because businesses HAVE to make a profit to stay in business. Businesses are NOT charities, so if they're not allowed to make money by being open, then they'll just close. Government puts thousands of regulations on every business, so if they keep making new regulations that make it harder to make money, businesses will either cut expenses (like jobs) or just close altogether. And no, profits still come AFTER all expenses in a business, including paying employees. Furthermore, that "profit" word that you hate on in many cases is the actual income of the person who owns the business. But they're still too evil for trying to make a profit (income) off their business in your world.

[WILLIAMS5232]

any positives out of Obamacare?

if you work for the ACA website engineers you can enjoy your share of a bill upwards of $1 billion dollars.

i think blue cross blue sheid will fare pretty well.

joe bidens probably got some from his wife that night.

6 million people will have been expected to be enrolled last Wednesday.

on the downside when i quit my job in a year or two to start my own thing it's probably going to sting.
i may just prefer to pay the penalty cuz i'm still a young buck. maybe i won't make enough and ya'll can pay it for me.

[Phatscotty]

[Neoteny]

I appreciate the effort guys. Good going.

[PLAYER57832]

My focus was actually on how many people against Obamacare refuse to even acknowledge that it has worked to help a lot of people with their insurance problems, even in passing, or a footnote, and will bring up taxes or insurance horror stories (like those didn't exist before ACA) or the budget to avoid doing so. It definitely comes across as uncaring, and you did it immediately after quoting me, which is great.

And it's caused insurance problems for more people than it has helped. And most of those who have been helped have only been done so because they're not paying the real price of their insurance due to the rest of us subsidizing them. THAT is why we focus on the "horror" stories.

Case in MY point.

This bit about "paying other people'sbills" -- as if it were new. NEwSFLASH -- if you get employer=-based insurance, then by your standards, you already ARE "paying for other people's insurance".

Furthermore, you have repeatedly ignored the real cost we HAVE all born for the uninsured. You actually tried to claim earlier that these charges were not added to our directhospital bills AND added to our tax bills!

Ditto the "unreasonable standards" -- ALL of those are current requriements for employer based insurance... the part that actually works.

Actually, the real problem is that welfare DOES work, but we are caught in a negative system that says employers get to take whatever profits they want, and only pay people what's left...even if its too little to live upon.

Because businesses HAVE to make a profit to stay in business. Businesses are NOT charities, so if they're not allowed to make money by being open, then they'll just close. [/quote] Even slaves had to be provided with a house, food and ,in most cases, basic medical care. you are declaring that free individuals have fewere rights than slaves!

Further, your bit about "businesses folding" mostly applies to smaller businesses,which I specifically noted are as much victims of the corporate greed mentality as employees.

THe FACT is that times of prospeerity in our country have always cooincided with better wages for WORKING people, not more money to the top.

Government puts thousands of regulations on every business, so if they keep making new regulations that make it harder to make money, businesses will either cut expenses (like jobs) or just close altogether.

Be specific. Some rules are stupid. A good many others protect kids, workers, society. Your failure to differentiate takes any credibility for your statements away. You don't even believe your own words, because there are plenty of rules you have shown over and over you like.

[And no, profits still come AFTER all expenses in a business, including paying employees. Furthermore, that "profit" word that you hate on in many cases is the actual income of the person who owns the business. But they're still too evil for trying to make a profit (income) off their business in your world.

Nice try at taking my words asnd pretending they are your own.

Teh problem is that if people are not making enough to live upon, then they are NOT being put first. Anything above that minimum is extra, is certainly optional. However, to say that employees don't deserve enough to live upon as a basic wage IS to declare the slaves should be treated better than workers.