ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[jj3044]

this is bunk. your telling me i must go to the doctor to recieve a 30 percent cut to go to the doctor. i've not been to the doctor but once in the past 17 years. and he did nothing for me then but tell me i don't need a doctor.

You may have been healthy then, but there are many "silent" diseases out there that you SHOULD be checked out periodically, even if you feel fine. These silent killers typically are treated easily if caught early, but are very expensive and destroy your quality of life if caught late. 17 years is way too long to go without a checkup, any doctor would tell you that. You are either exaggerating, or the doctor you went to got his license inside of a cereal box.

i have insurance with my company. if it were not for that, i wouldn't have insurance ( until the ACA ). i'm not interested in living in a society that feels they know whats best for me. in order for you to get what you want, you are expecting me to get what i don't want. and i don't like that.

medical care will never be free. as much as everyone wishes it would be. for everyone who doesn't pay for it there is another person that is. a 30 percent cut in cost is no better than paying 70 percent of something i don't want/need.

tell me, what's going to happen if i quit my job, pull out my 401k, by some property, build a house with a sawmill and work 3 months out of the year making about 12000 dollars per year? will i need to purchase healthcare, or will i be covered under the ACA for free? ( this is a serious question )

If you are only making 12k a year, your insurance would be subsidized, and possibly free (I don't know enough about the specific thresholds to definitively say).

You are saying that insurance is forced upon you. Well, yes, it is. Should you have a right to refuse? Maybe, and I'm not arguing that. However, there are factors in play here that make a mandate (or socialized healthcare) needed. See, you can say "I don't want to purchase insurance, I don't need no doctor!", and live a happy life... until you come down with a serious ailment that can only be treated with modern medicine. At that point you can say "well I didn't buy insurance, so I guess I'm not getting the service done, and I'm going to die prematurely!". If that was the case, then the free market principle would work. However, this doesn't happen.

What DOES happen, is that you say "well, if I go to the hospital, they WILL treat me, because they have to. Man I love that Hippocratic Oath!". You get the service done, and because you only make 12k a year, they can't collect anything from you. Guess what? Then, everyone pays for YOUR service! Pretty good gig.

Imagine if you went into Sears and said "I can't afford a TV, but because I want one, you are going to give it to me and the taxpayers are going to foot the bill!". I don't think you would get the TV...

[PLAYER57832]

This.......... consequences.

do you think the adversisers of these products have any culpability?

let me look up the word culpability real quick......

ob, ok. so it means "blame". i'm really impressed with your vocabulary. however, your spelling needs work.

to answer your question. no i do not. but that's where our opinions are so different. i tend to put more blame to the consumer than the provider where you would prefer the opposite. it's typical, i think, for a democrat to try to weasel out of any blame that can be placed on a poor decision. surely when you eat sugar alot. and you start to get fat and lose energy you should know that you are practicing unhealthy habits no?

I see, so according to you Democrats are irresponsible... but what about the bill and this debate?

The "problems with the Demoractic party thread is elsewhere"

Funny, isn’t it.. the problem here is a market and yet, the market is supposed to be the ultimate solution?

the only problem here is making my insurance and her insurance cost the same. now of course it's my mother i'm talking about and i would happily pay for her insurance if she needed it, but she doesn't. so i'm not. how many other people with her attitude am i going to be paying for? when is the nation as a whole going to get healthy so i can start getting this supposed "cheaper insurance in the long run"

Apparently you misunderstand the purpose of insurance. See, you buy fire insurance, not because you think you will lose your home to a fire, but because if you did, you would not otherwise have the money to rebuild it or buy another. According to you, the person who keeps their home is somehow a “loser” because they paid into something from which they don’t benefit. Sorry, but I don’t feel sorry for someone who gets to keep their belongings and house.
Similarly, if you “fail to use” all the insurance coverage available, then you can resent paying or you can be intelligent and be grateful for having your health.

People are notoriously bad about estimating their own medical risks. Sure, plenty of people want to believe they don’t need medical insurance or need far less than they have. That is a big part of why our emergency rooms are overrun and so many people cannot pay medical bills.

[PLAYER57832]

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

By the way, people should note how the chart in the link talks about the penalty for not buying insurance. Remember, if this was a penalty, it would have been ruled unconstitutional. It's a TAX, yet the government still refuses to tell that to the public.

Also player, that link itself (from the CBO) says 27 million more people will have health insurance, which is about 9% of the population, meaning my previous statements about barely increasing coverage for a massive price tag is still accurate.

Whil you are charting that, how about charting the numerous advances that mean much more care is available every year.

Also, how about charting the cost of caring for highly disabled children... you can stick with medical care, but really ought to include lost income, increased medical care for the rest of the familiy (due to stress)?

OR... care for terminal individuals, including seriously ill elderly people.

You are fine denying fully healthy people care, but have no problem with paying millions for those groups.

[Night Strike]

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

By the way, people should note how the chart in the link talks about the penalty for not buying insurance. Remember, if this was a penalty, it would have been ruled unconstitutional. It's a TAX, yet the government still refuses to tell that to the public.

Also player, that link itself (from the CBO) says 27 million more people will have health insurance, which is about 9% of the population, meaning my previous statements about barely increasing coverage for a massive price tag is still accurate.

Whil you are charting that, how about charting the numerous advances that mean much more care is available every year.

Also, how about charting the cost of caring for highly disabled children... you can stick with medical care, but really ought to include lost income, increased medical care for the rest of the familiy (due to stress)?

OR... care for terminal individuals, including seriously ill elderly people.

You are fine denying fully healthy people care, but have no problem with paying millions for those groups.

Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in any person's health care.

[BigBallinStalin]

CBO projections now not only imply that the subsidized exchange pool will shrink more precipitously, but the average benefit will be rising 5.7% a year at the end of the 10-year window — faster than seen last August.

This combination of fewer beneficiaries and faster benefit growth implies that low-income and older beneficiaries will make up an increasing share of the insurance pool. ObamaCare subsidies rise with age and decline as incomes rise; falling to zero for households who earn more than 400% of the poverty level.

A faster projected rise in average premiums suggests younger, healthier individuals and families will increasingly decide to go without insurance, with many paying a tax penalty.

While the Supreme Court ruling that states needn't expand Medicaid will likely shift millions of currently uninsured to the exchanges, it doesn't explain the projected enrollment decline.

http://news.investors.com/030713-647240 ... -peak.aspx

[PLAYER57832]

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

By the way, people should note how the chart in the link talks about the penalty for not buying insurance. Remember, if this was a penalty, it would have been ruled unconstitutional. It's a TAX, yet the government still refuses to tell that to the public.

Also player, that link itself (from the CBO) says 27 million more people will have health insurance, which is about 9% of the population, meaning my previous statements about barely increasing coverage for a massive price tag is still accurate.

Whil you are charting that, how about charting the numerous advances that mean much more care is available every year.

Also, how about charting the cost of caring for highly disabled children... you can stick with medical care, but really ought to include lost income, increased medical care for the rest of the familiy (due to stress)?

OR... care for terminal individuals, including seriously ill elderly people.

You are fine denying fully healthy people care, but have no problem with paying millions for those groups.

Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in any person's health care.

UNLESS... it is women's care, because according to you, that's not really health care.

AND forget end of life decisions. Only the Roman Catholic Church and their cronies get to make those decisions!

[PLAYER57832]

A "stand alone" PS.
I did not write this, It came from another mother

On grieving her son's death
"This is such a hard thing to explain to someone who hasn't been through it, but when Ronan got his terminal diagnosis, that was the day for me that he died. That was the day of his death for me was Jan. 10, 2011. Not to say that I didn't enjoy being with him through his life, but I felt — I think — the full weight of that loss on the day that he was diagnosed, and when he did die I was relieved that he was released from his suffering, and so that grief is different than it was. It's just, it's qualitatively different, and not that it's not still devastating. It was devastating to watch somebody deteriorating, too, and to know that you couldn't stop it and to worry that there would be more suffering and wanting so deeply to spare him that. ... For me that first year was really the worst, because watching him change and all the hopes kind of dashed and sprinting to the end at the beginning was how I grieved."

See, this is the thing, Nightstrike, others. When someone decides to terminate a very ill child before birth, it is not that they don't love the child or even don't appreciate the child. It is that they know this child is, essentially already dead. Whether you believe that or not is a matter of faith and biology. MY assertion is just that no other person, particularly no governmental entity or clergy person talking to non-parishoners has the right to make this decision, only the parents. ONLY they love the child, understand the full situation.

AND... proclaiming that you demand people make this choice the way you want AND ALSO proclaiming that you will cut medical care, won't provide payment... or won't provide payment unless they decide the way you think is best, is the worst kind of hypocrisy.

[Metsfanmax]

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

By the way, people should note how the chart in the link talks about the penalty for not buying insurance. Remember, if this was a penalty, it would have been ruled unconstitutional. It's a TAX, yet the government still refuses to tell that to the public.

Also player, that link itself (from the CBO) says 27 million more people will have health insurance, which is about 9% of the population, meaning my previous statements about barely increasing coverage for a massive price tag is still accurate.

Whil you are charting that, how about charting the numerous advances that mean much more care is available every year.

Also, how about charting the cost of caring for highly disabled children... you can stick with medical care, but really ought to include lost income, increased medical care for the rest of the familiy (due to stress)?

OR... care for terminal individuals, including seriously ill elderly people.

You are fine denying fully healthy people care, but have no problem with paying millions for those groups.

Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in any person's health care.

Do you believe we should rescind the rule requiring an emergency room to treat everyone who shows up there while seriously ill?

[PLAYER57832]

http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/05/how-much-obamacare-costs-in-one-chart/

By the way, people should note how the chart in the link talks about the penalty for not buying insurance. Remember, if this was a penalty, it would have been ruled unconstitutional. It's a TAX, yet the government still refuses to tell that to the public.

Also player, that link itself (from the CBO) says 27 million more people will have health insurance, which is about 9% of the population, meaning my previous statements about barely increasing coverage for a massive price tag is still accurate.

Whil you are charting that, how about charting the numerous advances that mean much more care is available every year.

Also, how about charting the cost of caring for highly disabled children... you can stick with medical care, but really ought to include lost income, increased medical care for the rest of the familiy (due to stress)?

OR... care for terminal individuals, including seriously ill elderly people.

You are fine denying fully healthy people care, but have no problem with paying millions for those groups.

Actually, I don't think the government should be involved in any person's health care.

Do you believe we should rescind the rule requiring an emergency room to treat everyone who shows up there ill?

Of course not!

And, the primary reason is because during an emergency there just is not time to fully get into all the details.

Also, note, my point is about choice. Nightstrike wants to declare that he is all about freedom… but has glaring exceptional holes when it comes to women’s health and the elderly.

I know more than most people about this. I have have gone into a LOT of details in other threads at other times, maybe you caught some of it, maybe it predated your appearance, I cannot remember.

Anyway, I believe that both beginning and end of life decisions are as much about faith as biology. I think that the state has an interest in setting the EXTREME bondaries.. I mean, you can’t “knock off” your mother in law (no matter how irritating she is ) or your grandmother just to get their inheritances and I would say aborting a child for gender selection is wrong (but hard to prove). However, when it comes to saying that someone HAS to raise a particular child or even give birth to a particular child…. It goes beyond the bounds of what any outsider should say.

AND, the ultimate truth is that most people don’t really and truly think about end of life issues until they are actually faced with the decisions. When they do, it is under stress, often involves a lot of heartache as various children might have differing ideas, etc. Its much better for all if these things are thought out in advance, preferably if the person themselves makes the decisions. (failing that, the siblings should get together and talk about it).

Part of this very much does involve understanding what happens in various situations. For example, a lot of people just don’t know that dementia is not just a simple problem of “grandma cannot think” any longer. People can sometimes go on for years holding dolls, talking about Santa and the Easter Bunny, etc. However, there comes a point when it also starts to impact the throat muscles and the basic immune system… all those changes tend to happen at the same time. This means that its not just that Grandma thinks she is 5 again, she won’t be able to eat, and her body is far less resistant to many diseases. There is a high incidence of death from pneumonia in dementia patients, partially because when the muscles don’t work, the food can wind up going down the wrong tube, but also because the patient’s body is just far less resistant to illnesses. Understanding that makes a difference in how most people view care and treatment. Unfortunately, what often happens, absent a living will, is that the family that is near to the patient and who see the patient will have talked to the doctors, come to reluctantly understand that, well, their mother is just plain dying and there is really little to be done to lengthen the life, but definitely not to improve their living status. But, then in comes Johnny from across the country and he has not had the time to learn and understand, likely feels guilty for not paying attention earlier, is likely somewhat shocked by the state of his mother (“those damn nursing home people – neglecting my MOM!!!!!!” ). The people who live there know that “mom” is half (or fully) out of her mind, forgets that she ate, forgets that she cannot eat most things, etc… but “Johnny” just comes and hears his mother complain about the staff and the food and when the doctor comes in and says “maybe doing this advanced surgery (or fancy new medicine, etc.) is really not a good idea … HE thinks “oh these idiots just don’t care about mom!”.

Anyway, I see this over and over. There is a guy where I work who can basically eat nothing but hamburgers. They try to offer options, but he needs to eat with his hands, etc…. (not going into the full rundown, of course). There is another who complains that his food is “boring”… well, he is on a cardiac, renal, no sugar diet, AND is a picky eater besides! Both of these people are on “suicide watch”. (there are some other issues, but I don’t want to be too specific). Yet, if family comes in and says “oh grandpa has a tumor… get it treated” and maybe get him some counseling. Is that the “correct” decision? The ideal would be if they had thought this out and made their own decisions before they were too far along to be considered competent.

THOSE are the types of situations I am talking about that need to be discussed. I am not suggesting euthanasia. I can understand why some people might think that is a good option, but it is not one with which I am personally comfortable, BUT… I also don’t think that extraordinary measures should be taken to preserve the life of someone who is in that kind of state, not unless they have very clearly said that is what they want. Legally, though, doctors often have little choice.

[Night Strike]

UNLESS... it is women's care, because according to you, that's not really health care.

AND forget end of life decisions. Only the Roman Catholic Church and their cronies get to make those decisions!

The government shouldn't be involved in any of it, nor should individuals be able to force someone else to pay for their medical costs.

Do you believe we should rescind the rule requiring an emergency room to treat everyone who shows up there while seriously ill?

Yes. Emergency rooms should be there to stabilize individuals who have a true emergency, not nurse someone back to full health. In no other industry is a person allowed to go in and demand services without paying for them.

[PLAYER57832]

UNLESS... it is women's care, because according to you, that's not really health care.

AND forget end of life decisions. Only the Roman Catholic Church and their cronies get to make those decisions!

The government shouldn't be involved in any of it, nor should individuals be able to force someone else to pay for their medical costs.

I am happy to have all insurance removed from employer pay, BUT as long as employers offer insurance then they need to provide the coverage people need , not just the coverage they want.

Also, that bit about "not paying for just your own care" works great.. until you get sick. Since no one can predict that in advance, not even you, requiring insurance is reasonable.

Do you believe we should rescind the rule requiring an emergency room to treat everyone who shows up there while seriously ill?

Yes. Emergency rooms should be there to stabilize individuals who have a true emergency, not nurse someone back to full health. In no other industry is a person allowed to go in and demand services without paying for them.

Uh... try again.

You don't pay directly for police, fire, road services, most education or many other public services.

You also don't pay for most research, even very profitable research, particularly in the field of medicine.

[Night Strike]

You don't pay directly for police, fire, road services, most education or many other public services.

Because those are directly paid for by our taxes as they're a proper role of government. Most emergency rooms are operated by private health care providers, not the government.

I am happy to have all insurance removed from employer pay, BUT as long as employers offer insurance then they need to provide the coverage people need , not just the coverage they want.

Why? If the employer is the one paying for the coverage, then why does the government get to dictate what they buy? Until Obamacare, if people didn't like the employer coverage, they could opt out of it.

[Metsfanmax]

You don't pay directly for police, fire, road services, most education or many other public services.

Because those are directly paid for by our taxes as they're a proper role of government. Most emergency rooms are operated by private health care providers, not the government.

So you agree that emergency rooms should be operated by the government, right? I mean, anything else would be tantamount to saying that you prefer for private providers to be in charge of emergency rooms so that they can turn away sick people.

[PLAYER57832]

You don't pay directly for police, fire, road services, most education or many other public services.

Because those are directly paid for by our taxes as they're a proper role of government. Most emergency rooms are operated by private health care providers, not the government.

No, many are run by nonprofit entities. Some are paid for through taxes. Regardless, they ALL very much are government supported.

Those other things are government provided for reasons similar to why it makes sense to have medical care provided by a true universal system... like in other countries. Everyone benefits from having a functioning system, whether you personally ever interact with them or not.

I am happy to have all insurance removed from employer pay, BUT as long as employers offer insurance then they need to provide the coverage people need , not just the coverage they want.

Why? If the employer is the one paying for the coverage, then why does the government get to dictate what they buy? Until Obamacare, if people didn't like the employer coverage, they could opt out of it.[/quote]

Becuase the owner of insurance is not the employer, it is the employee. Employers just began offering insurance as a way to pay more for less, since they got tax benefits. That the formula has changed doesn't mean employers can suddenly claim they "own" it.


Like I said, I am more than happy to see no employer offer insurance, but as long as they do, they need to do so properly.

[Night Strike]

So much for health information being confidential.

TAMPA (FOX 13) -

What would you say if your employer told you it needed your height, weight, body fat percent and other personal information for health insurance purposes?

That's what CVS is beginning to do. The company is telling workers who use its health insurance to have a wellness review done or pay up.

CVS says the information will go to a third party administrator of CVS's benefits, not CVS itself.

The idea is to incentivize healthy living. CVS says the idea is nothing new.

"The idea of an employee wellness plan is perfectly legal under the ADA. Courts held up these plans," said Joshua Kersey, a Tampa labor attorney. He says with "Obamacare" looming in 2014, practices like this wellness review are likely to become more common, because a lot of employers are expecting to pay more for their workers' health insurance.

"The more money it's going to save the employer, the more incentive the employer has to affect these types of programs," he said.

In CVS's case, workers not comfortable getting the review done will have to pay a $600 annual penalty.

"It is voluntary because you're welcome to get healthcare through someone else," he said.

In a statement, CVS says it's implemented the program to try and keep employees as healthy as possible, and help them manage their costs.

The company also says it will not be receiving or reviewing any of the personal information.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/21752353/2013/03/20/cvs-seeks-to-collect-employees-health-information#ixzz2OCUVFWaP

[PLAYER57832]

I am happy to have all insurance removed from employer pay, BUT as long as employers offer insurance then they need to provide the coverage people need , not just the coverage they want.

Why? If the employer is the one paying for the coverage, then why does the government get to dictate what they buy? Until Obamacare, if people didn't like the employer coverage, they could opt out of it.

Because its a necessity, not just a nice add on, because the REASON the system was set up this way specifically to benefit employers, not employees... and the government mandates are there to say "OK, you want this benefit employers... you need to meet some minimum standards".
It is only in recent years that providing health insurance has become more expensive than paying additional wages and the response is typical... make every excuse in the book to provide less.

There is an option.. don't be an employer. Its no different than those who want to be employers and not pay employees... oops you are happy to support them as well.

[PLAYER57832]

You don't pay directly for police, fire, road services, most education or many other public services.

Because those are directly paid for by our taxes as they're a proper role of government. Most emergency rooms are operated by private health care providers, not the government.

So you agree that emergency rooms should be operated by the government, right? I mean, anything else would be tantamount to saying that you prefer for private providers to be in charge of emergency rooms so that they can turn away sick people.

No, there are other options. A lot of options were discussed back in this thread.

However, I don't have a problem with my fellow citizens running emergency rooms, provided medical care and not politics decide that care. That is at risk, private or public, thanks to folks like Nightstrike.

[PLAYER57832]

So much for health information being confidential.

TAMPA (FOX 13) -

What would you say if your employer told you it needed your height, weight, body fat percent and other personal information for health insurance purposes?

That's what CVS is beginning to do. The company is telling workers who use its health insurance to have a wellness review done or pay up.

CVS says the information will go to a third party administrator of CVS's benefits, not CVS itself.

The idea is to incentivize healthy living. CVS says the idea is nothing new.

"The idea of an employee wellness plan is perfectly legal under the ADA. Courts held up these plans," said Joshua Kersey, a Tampa labor attorney. He says with "Obamacare" looming in 2014, practices like this wellness review are likely to become more common, because a lot of employers are expecting to pay more for their workers' health insurance.

"The more money it's going to save the employer, the more incentive the employer has to affect these types of programs," he said.

In CVS's case, workers not comfortable getting the review done will have to pay a $600 annual penalty.

"It is voluntary because you're welcome to get healthcare through someone else," he said.

In a statement, CVS says it's implemented the program to try and keep employees as healthy as possible, and help them manage their costs.

The company also says it will not be receiving or reviewing any of the personal information.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/21752353/2013/03/20/cvs-seeks-to-collect-employees-health-information#ixzz2OCUVFWaP

Nightstrike... that ship sailed LONG ago and you were among those arguing is perfectly reasonable, particularly so employers could deny women specific procedures or deicde to not hire or let go women who had other procedures.

[jj3044]

So much for health information being confidential.

TAMPA (FOX 13) -

What would you say if your employer told you it needed your height, weight, body fat percent and other personal information for health insurance purposes?

That's what CVS is beginning to do. The company is telling workers who use its health insurance to have a wellness review done or pay up.

CVS says the information will go to a third party administrator of CVS's benefits, not CVS itself.

The idea is to incentivize healthy living. CVS says the idea is nothing new.

"The idea of an employee wellness plan is perfectly legal under the ADA. Courts held up these plans," said Joshua Kersey, a Tampa labor attorney. He says with "Obamacare" looming in 2014, practices like this wellness review are likely to become more common, because a lot of employers are expecting to pay more for their workers' health insurance.

"The more money it's going to save the employer, the more incentive the employer has to affect these types of programs," he said.

In CVS's case, workers not comfortable getting the review done will have to pay a $600 annual penalty.

"It is voluntary because you're welcome to get healthcare through someone else," he said.

In a statement, CVS says it's implemented the program to try and keep employees as healthy as possible, and help them manage their costs.

The company also says it will not be receiving or reviewing any of the personal information.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/21752353/2013/03/20/cvs-seeks-to-collect-employees-health-information#ixzz2OCUVFWaP

This:

The company also says it will not be receiving or reviewing any of the personal information.

The media coverage doesn't explain this story properly. CVS pays a third party to administer the program. CVS doesn't get individual results. They only get group aggregate data, and participation data so that they can pay out the incentive (or disincentive as the case may be).

Their health information is still confidential.

[Night Strike]

The media coverage doesn't explain this story properly. CVS pays a third party to administer the program. CVS doesn't get individual results. They only get group aggregate data, and participation data so that they can pay out the incentive (or disincentive as the case may be).

Their health information is still confidential.

"Third party" still means "not doctor-patient confidentiality".

Nightstrike... that ship sailed LONG ago and you were among those arguing is perfectly reasonable, particularly so employers could deny women specific procedures or deicde to not hire or let go women who had other procedures.

You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.

[Night Strike]

By the way, Congress is finally doing a bit of work to undo part of the damage of Obamacare:

The Senate gave sweeping bipartisan approval Thursday to a proposal by Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., to put senators on record in favor of repealing a tax on medical devices – a key part of President Obama’s controversial health care law.

The Hatch-Klobuchar amendment to the GOP budget plan is the latest effort to roll back the tax that applies to a range of medical products, from surgical tools to heart devices. It’s among several taxes in Obama’s 2010 health care overhaul.

The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 79 to 20.

“Today, bipartisan members of the Senate spoke loudly and clearly that this tax on medical devices simply must go. It is a drain on innovation, on job creation and on our ability to provide ground breaking medical technologies to patients,” Hatch said in a statement.

The Affordable Care Act levies a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices with the goal of raising nearly $30 billion over the next decade.

Manufacturers say the impact of the tax is far greater than meets the eye -- the 2.3 percent tax is on gross sales, meaning it's a much greater percentage of net income.

The Obama administration has defended the medical device tax, saying companies actually stand to benefit from the law. Though the 2.3 percent tax hits the industry, the department argues that the millions of new health care customers insured as a result of the law will increase the demand in hospitals to order more equipment -- in turn boosting medical device companies' profits.

Last year the White House threatened to veto a House bill that would have repealed the tax, citing concerns that the House proposal would offset the lost revenue from the tax by cutting down on subsidies for some families.

This, they said, would effectively "raise taxes on middle-class and low-income families."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/22/bi-partisan-push-to-repeal-medical-device-tax-gaining-traction-in-senate/#ixzz2OFKrYpW5

[PLAYER57832]

You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.

No, you were fine with employers firing women for having abortions.

[Night Strike]

You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.

No, you were fine with employers firing women for having abortions.

Where did I say that?

[PLAYER57832]

You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.

No, you were fine with employers firing women for having abortions.

Where did I say that?

You did, but even just sticking with the above, to claim taht no one is denied a procedure because iNSURANCE won't cover it, because the employer has decided its their personal business to dictate the health care other people get.... that is just a ludicrous assumption on your part. And, to claim that I have to pay extra for coverage because I am a woman is descrimination, and that IS what is mandated.

Claiming this is about money is stupid. We are talking about , literally a few cents, out of any policy... and none of that is going to be refunded women who are denied this particular kind of coverage. They will just have to pay more. So, it really is about folks bullying others into doing as THEY think. Whether I use birth control, get my tubes tied, have episiotomy, or a D& C is just not ANYONE else's business except my husband's. It certainly is not your or anyone else's right to claim that they have some moral obligation to dictate what insurance I can have or not have.

Its just a back door attempt to dictate to women what they can do.

[Night Strike]

You're incorrect, like usual. All I've said is that the government can't dictate what employers should provide, not that they should be allowed to go through a person's medical records and decide what to cover. If a procedure is not covered for all people, then there's no discrimination or violation of confidentiality going on. And if a person wants a procedure that's not covered, then they can pay for it themselves and the employer doesn't have to know. No person is ever denied the ability to take care of themselves just because an employer doesn't want to pay for it.

No, you were fine with employers firing women for having abortions.

Where did I say that?

You did,

Then prove it.

but even just sticking with the above, to claim taht no one is denied a procedure because iNSURANCE won't cover it, because the employer has decided its their personal business to dictate the health care other people get.... that is just a ludicrous assumption on your part.

There are tons of procedures not covered by insurance policies, yet no one is denied getting those procedures...they just have to provide the payments themselves.

And, to claim that I have to pay extra for coverage because I am a woman is descrimination, and that IS what is mandated.

The people who use more health insurance should have to pay more for health insurance. That's basic economics (but you're banning economics from the health industry). Furthermore, if you say it's discrimination to charge more for using more health insurance, isn't it also discrimination to mandate that women now get free coverage for contraceptives? All it does is switch which gender is paying more money; the discrimination hasn't disappeared. But I'm guessing that the removal of discrimination is not your goal.

Claiming this is about money is stupid. We are talking about , literally a few cents, out of any policy... and none of that is going to be refunded women who are denied this particular kind of coverage. They will just have to pay more. So, it really is about folks bullying others into doing as THEY think. Whether I use birth control, get my tubes tied, have episiotomy, or a D& C is just not ANYONE else's business except my husband's. It certainly is not your or anyone else's right to claim that they have some moral obligation to dictate what insurance I can have or not have.

Its just a back door attempt to dictate to women what they can do.

Then f***ing pay for your own damn health care!!!!! If it's none of my business what goes on in your bedroom, then stop making me pay for what goes on in your bedroom!!!!! No one is denying you the ability to get all of those treatments simply because they may or may not be paid for by the insurance an employer provides. If you actually cared about being logical, you would be demanding that every single treatment in existence must be provided by every single insurance policy. Instead, you just want to mandate the things you want for yourself in the name of "choice". You can still choose to pay for procedures on your own dime....no one is denying you that option.