More on "Affordable Health Care" bill...

[Guest]

you remember the one done in secrecy with nobody reading it until they had it passed and paid folks off with the favors to get their vote and handouts to the insurance companies....

"This morning the Mercatus Center is publishing my study, “The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act,” which evaluates the comprehensive health care reform law (the ACA) enacted in 2010. In this study, I project that the ACA will add over $1.15 trillion to net federal spending and more than $340 billion to federal deficits over the next ten years, and far more thereafter.

That this law on which so many high hopes were placed will significantly worsen federal finances is an unfortunate but unambiguous result. The finding is based upon analyses published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and CMS Medicare Actuary, and it reflects an optimistic fiscal scenario in which all of the law’s cost-saving provisions work as currently envisioned."

The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century (http://economics21.org/commentary/fiscal-consequences-affordable-care-act)

[Guest]

That is not news. Everyone knows when the government says it will save you money, that you need to keep a firm grasp on your wallet.

Ole, "Let's pass this so we can find out whats in it." needs to be replaced along with the other 525 criminals currently in Foggy Bottom.

[Guest]

I continue to be amazed by how many Americans remain silent on the real cost issues when they are presented for the improperly named affordable health care bill.

There has been a red flag waving ever since the days before the bill was rammed through by Obama, Nancy and Harry.

It is absolutely amazing this bill is being allowed to continue in it's passed format.

The affordable health care the USA cannot afford....it isn't funny one bit.

At some point the lemmings will have to take note of the reality of what they are being sucked into....we hope!!

btk

[Guest]

I've mostly been quiet because I believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional and will be struck down.

I might admire the goal, but what we got certainly doesn't fix the problem.

[Guest]

I've mostly been quiet because I believe the individual mandate is unconstitutional and will be struck down.

I might admire the goal, but what we got certainly doesn't fix the problem.

I also admire the goal, BUT NOT THE EFFORT....it became a political legacy and NOTHING ELSE.

[Guest]

I know that the bill isnt really in effect as of yet but it should be labeled as suspended while it is being determined by the courts if it is legal or not. And don't be to sure it wont be found constitutional, if not then all the congressmen that voted for it should be questioned on there understanding of the constitution. Just my opinion.

[Guest]

I know that the bill isnt really in effect as of yet but it should be labeled as suspended while it is being determined by the courts if it is legal or not. And don't be to sure it wont be found constitutional, if not then all the congressmen that voted for it should be questioned on there understanding of the constitution. Just my opinion.

The scary part is that our "leaders" are already "stealing" money from the future to spend today...

"All told, Congress and the president have tapped some $50 billion earmarked to pay for benefits and programs in the health care overhaul in future years to fund more-immediate spending needs."

Money slated for health law gets detoured - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/24/money-slated-for-health-law-gets-detoured/?page=all)

"Both earlier efforts dealt with health care issues, but the bill Mr. Obama signed Monday marks the first time that the massive 2010 law has been tapped to fund something completely unrelated."

I just am amazed that nobody in the MSM covers any of this stuff !!!!

[Guest]

The scary part is that our "leaders" are already "stealing" money from the future to spend today...

"All told, Congress and the president have tapped some $50 billion earmarked to pay for benefits and programs in the health care overhaul in future years to fund more-immediate spending needs."

Money slated for health law gets detoured - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/24/money-slated-for-health-law-gets-detoured/?page=all)

"Both earlier efforts dealt with health care issues, but the bill Mr. Obama signed Monday marks the first time that the massive 2010 law has been tapped to fund something completely unrelated."

I just am amazed that nobody in the MSM covers any of this stuff !!!!

People on both sides have sat back and watched as these clowns in Washington have raided Al Gore's "lock box" holding Social Security funds......why would anyone expect the clowns to honor the allocation of funding for the obamacare law????

When will Democrats and leftists admit that it's these BOOBS and their incompetence and spending addiction we're against, NOT healthcare finance overhaul that would help everyone get insurance coverage that aims for national solvency?!?!?!?

[Guest]

you remember the one done in secrecy with nobody reading it until they had it passed and paid folks off with the favors to get their vote and handouts to the insurance companies....

"This morning the Mercatus Center is publishing my study, “The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act,” which evaluates the comprehensive health care reform law (the ACA) enacted in 2010. In this study, I project that the ACA will add over $1.15 trillion to net federal spending and more than $340 billion to federal deficits over the next ten years, and far more thereafter.

That this law on which so many high hopes were placed will significantly worsen federal finances is an unfortunate but unambiguous result. The finding is based upon analyses published by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and CMS Medicare Actuary, and it reflects an optimistic fiscal scenario in which all of the law’s cost-saving provisions work as currently envisioned."

The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act | e21 - Economic Policies for the 21st Century (http://economics21.org/commentary/fiscal-consequences-affordable-care-act)

I wonder how the prescription drug benefit plan for Medicare affected government spending? Got any figures on that?

[Guest]

Figured since I wondered maybe I should look it up....Here ya go.

Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion (washingtonpost.com) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html)


And a piece from forbes (not a liberal mouthpiece)

Republican Deficit Hypocrisy - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html)

[Guest]

I wonder how the prescription drug benefit plan for Medicare affected government spending? Got any figures on that?

Sorry I didnt look that up for you but was posting a thread on the Affordable Health care act

Your defense is admirable but tell us why you like this bill so much !!

THEN you surely can start a thread to demean the previous administration, as I assume that will be your defense of this Affordable care act, and maybe I will join you in criticizing that particular act, but it surely canot be a defense for this

Bush did it !!

[Guest]

Sorry I didn't look that up for you but was posting a thread on the Affordable Health care act

Your defense is admirable but tell us why you like this bill so much !!

THEN you surely can start a thread to demean the previous administration, as I assume that will be your defense of this Affordable care act, and maybe I will join you in criticizing that particular act, but it surely cannot be a defense for this

Bush did it !!

Bucco.... this was NOT a "Bush did it post" and you are intelligent enough to know that.

I will tell you why I support this bill...

I am 61 years old, have 2 artificial knees and leaky kidney, in layman's terms no insurance company in the free market will insure me. Can't get life insurance either. But the no pre-exisiting conditions clause of the Affordable Healthcare Act will insure I get coverage if I retire before 65 and Medicare.

Pretty simple....

[Guest]

Bucco.... this was NOT a "Bush did it post" and you are intelligent enough to know that.

I will tell you why I support this bill...

I am 61 years old, have 2 artificial knees and leaky kidney, in layman's terms no insurance company in the free market will insure me. Can't get life insurance either. But the no pre-exisiting conditions clause of the Affordable Healthcare Act will insure I get coverage if I retire before 65 and Medicare.

Pretty simple....


I totally and completely sympathize with you and hope you know that is very sincere.

I said when this began....back when...WHY is he not doing what he said he would do, ie. having that open and public debate on health costs, tort reform, etc because this was ONE of the very few things he said during the campaign that I really felt had merit. BUT he did NONE of the things he promised and this is the result.

What bothers me other than folks like you who will suffer if this is overturned and I have hopes that if it is, the court will find folks like you have been "cheated" and come up with a solution...anyway what bothers me is that the anger is mis aimed...it should be directly aimed at this President and all of his lies and totally forgetting people...health costs, tort reform, etc. This problem, if it becomes one is his fault and nobody elses.
He obviously looked at this as a political opportunity which, in my opinion, dictates he every action. The Buffet thing is just another example.

I do sincerely hope that there is something that comes out of this that will allow your coverage...I really do.

[Guest]

I totally and completely sympathize with you and hope you know that is very sincere.

I said when this began....back when...WHY is he not doing what he said he would do, ie. having that open and public debate on health costs, tort reform, etc because this was ONE of the very few things he said during the campaign that I really felt had merit. BUT he did NONE of the things he promised and this is the result.

What bothers me other than folks like you who will suffer if this is overturned and I have hopes that if it is, the court will find folks like you have been "cheated" and come up with a solution...anyway what bothers me is that the anger is mis aimed...it should be directly aimed at this President and all of his lies and totally forgetting people...health costs, tort reform, etc. This problem, if it becomes one is his fault and nobody elses.
He obviously looked at this as a political opportunity which, in my opinion, dictates he every action. The Buffet thing is just another example.

I do sincerely hope that there is something that comes out of this that will allow your coverage...I really do.

Bucco.... I take this post as you intend it and thank you for the response.

[Guest]

Have you heard this before.....

"....said he advised President Obama against taking up health care reform following a special election in 2010 that changed Democrats' fortunes in the Senate, saying that he should have instead turned his focus to financial reform."

"...I would have started with financial reform but certainly not health care,"

Those quotes from ....DA DA.....Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. !!!!!!

Barney Frank: Obama Made 'Mistake' With Health Care Push - Jonathan Miller - NationalJournal.com (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/barney-frank-obama-made-mistake-with-health-care-push-20120416)

How can there be any doubt about the motivation of this President any longer...these things come out weekly !!!

[Guest]

I do believe the "doughnut hole" in Medicare Part D is a reduction in the Affordable Health Care Act. That can save seniors a lot of money.

As Cologal stated, the Affordable Health Care Act does not permit insurance companies the option of not insuring you for pre-existing conditions. That is very important to seniors as well as many, many families of children with diseases or conditions.

The Affordable Health Care Act allows young people to stay on their parent's policy until age 26. This is a big deal for those who have not found a job with health care.

[Guest]

Yes the above are all well and good for those that need it. Like it or not, the insurance companies to remain in business had to draw the line somewhere or else go broke.

Please keep in mind that these same "COSTS" will be born by the taxpayers. And also keep in mind that there has yet to be any presentation by Obama or the congress how these additional costs will be paid. Not to mention they have not yet tallied up what the projected costs will be. Remember Nancy's famous comment...let's pass this bill so we can see what is in it. Even though a very stupid thing to say, let's for a moment accept it (UUUggghhh). There STILL has not been an accounting for what is in the bill.

I am not advocating denying these people what they would like nor am I siding with or in favor of how some insurance companies handle what they cover. What I am advocating is NOT blasting full speed ahead with such programs without know the cost impact on each and every one of us.

For some very strange reason that does not seem to be of importance to those who support Obamacare.....BLINDLY!!!

BTK

[Guest]

Billy,the prescription bill did the same thing. Added 1 trillion and NOTHING was said by anyone. Drug companies and insurance companies own congress. Nothing gets passed that they dont want. They continue to play you against me and we fall for it. If the Affordable act is declared unconstitutional and another attempt is made to get costs under control it will also fail I don't care who the Pres. is.
As for Barney Frank he was NOT against the healthcare bill but once he saw a repub take Kennedys seat he knew the bill would never pass in its original form.It did not have the 60 votes needed. Ithink he was correct. I think Obama misplayed his hand. I dont think he realized how determined the repubs were to stop this at all costs. This is where his inexperience cost him.

[Guest]

The other thing that Obamacare supporters ignore and outright refuse to learn about is that since 1976, individual states--now numbering 35 states--HAVE high-risk health insurance pools for people who cannot get private insurance because of pre-existing conditions, or for having exhausted lifetime limits, etc. etc.!!!!

"Since the first state high-risk health insurance plans were established in Connecticut and Minnesota in 1976, risk pools have grown in number and have evolved in their role in addressing inequities and inadequacies of the health care system.

Today, risk pools are accepted, proven programs that serve special needs, and contribute an element of stability in key individual markets of the insurance system.

Health insurance risk pools serve two primary roles-- they provide a means for guaranteed access to insurance, that enables individuals to protect themselves from catastrophic medical bills; and they are increasingly recognized for the role they play in helping to keep the individual insurance markets viable for companies to continue to compete in.

About Pools

Health insurance risk pools are special programs created by state legislatures to provide a safety net for the "medically uninsurable" population. These are people who have been denied health insurance coverage because of a pre-existing health condition, or who can only access private coverage that is restricted or has extremely high rates.

Each of the state risk pool-type programs is different. Generally, the programs operate as a state-created nonprofit association overseen by a board of directors made up of industry, consumer and state insurance department representatives. The board contracts with an established insurance company to collect premiums and pay claims and administer the program on a day-to-day basis.

Insurance benefits vary, but risk pools typically offer benefits that are comparable to basic private market plans -- 80/20 major medical and outpatient coverage, a choice of deductible and co-payments. Maximum lifetime benefits vary by state from as low as $350,000 to $2 million."
Read more: About Pools (http://naschip.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:about-pools)

See States with High-Risk Pools:
States with Pools (http://naschip.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=1)

See State-by-State Analysis in 2010 in free report sections here:
***Especially see "Claims as a Percent of Premium", and "Sources of Funding" 2010, to see the premium to claims ratio (claims paid out exceed premiums received in almost all states), and how in most states, ASSESSMENTS to insurance companies balance that ratio and pool funding!

Quick Checks (http://naschip.org/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230)

Now....After reading these links and their subsection links, would somebody then explain why we need a new 2,000-page federal law, without known costs and without knowing what the taxpayer will pay for in it......to cover the uninsurable population in the 15 states that do not have a state pool like these listed above??

[Guest]

Billy,the prescription bill did the same thing. Added 1 trillion and NOTHING was said by anyone. Drug companies and insurance companies own congress. Nothing gets passed that they dont want. They continue to play you against me and we fall for it. If the Affordable act is declared unconstitutional and another attempt is made to get costs under control it will also fail I don't care who the Pres. is.
As for Barney Frank he was NOT against the healthcare bill but once he saw a repub take Kennedys seat he knew the bill would never pass in its original form.It did not have the 60 votes needed. Ithink he was correct. I think Obama misplayed his hand. I dont think he realized how determined the repubs were to stop this at all costs. This is where his inexperience cost him.

What you say about Barney Frank is 100% true. I posted a link to that effect earlier and never hinted that he was against the healthcare bill.

My question was/is do these items not bother you, and if you disagree with any of them, please say so...

1. He promised a bill that would reduce health costs. He promised a bill that would address tort reform. He promised a public debate with both sides involved. He promised it would be extremely transparent. He did NONE of these things.

2. Frank was correct; what needed to be addressed was the job situation. He wasted a year NOT working on jobs. I do not mean LITERALLY wasted a year but most of his energies were focused NOT on jobs but on health care bill.

3. The bill was structured on so many if, ands and maybes, it was extremely difficult for the CBO to even project costs. The CBO as already begun increasing those costs. The administration AND congress are already borrowing money that was destined for health care bill.

4. The bill was passed ONLY because of deals made with drug companies, and final votes were actually the result of blackmail. La. and Neb. in particular sweetheart deals in direct deals made for their vote.

5. All polls showed that american citizens opposed the passage of this bill at the time of the passage. I am not big on polls but keep hearing about the evil Republicans not voting for the charade of a bill called BUFFET and having the polls show americans want it. If you want this is a wash !

These facts, and I believe they are facts and hope you can show me where I erred.......these facts alone reflect a total lack of leadership, misrepresentation and even lying. I might add that he had TOTAL control over both house and senate and the "payoffs" were to get his own party to vote on it.


Please lets discuss only this bill.....I happen to feel probably the same way that you do about the drug bill, and it has nothing to do with this bill.

Thanks for responding.

[Guest]

What you say about Barney Frank is 100% true. I posted a link to that effect earlier and never hinted that he was against the healthcare bill.

My question was/is do these items not bother you, and if you disagree with any of them, please say so...

1. He promised a bill that would reduce health costs. He promised a bill that would address tort reform. He promised a public debate with both sides involved. He promised it would be extremely transparent. He did NONE of these things.

2. Frank was correct; what needed to be addressed was the job situation. He wasted a year NOT working on jobs. I do not mean LITERALLY wasted a year but most of his energies were focused NOT on jobs but on health care bill.

3. The bill was structured on so many if, ands and maybes, it was extremely difficult for the CBO to even project costs. The CBO as already begun increasing those costs. The administration AND congress are already borrowing money that was destined for health care bill.

4. The bill was passed ONLY because of deals made with drug companies, and final votes were actually the result of blackmail. La. and Neb. in particular sweetheart deals in direct deals made for their vote.

5. All polls showed that american citizens opposed the passage of this bill at the time of the passage. I am not big on polls but keep hearing about the evil Republicans not voting for the charade of a bill called BUFFET and having the polls show americans want it. If you want this is a wash !

These facts, and I believe they are facts and hope you can show me where I erred.......these facts alone reflect a total lack of leadership, misrepresentation and even lying. I might add that he had TOTAL control over both house and senate and the "payoffs" were to get his own party to vote on it.


Please lets discuss only this bill.....I happen to feel probably the same way that you do about the drug bill, and it has nothing to do with this bill.

Thanks for responding.

I never did this before, but going to bump this just to get some conversation on the health care bill.

I am asking any supporter of the President or this bill to please respond (especially WAYNENET because the response was specifically to his post) and let me know if I have misrepresented the scenario in anyway.

And why you support

[Guest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucco View Post
What you say about Barney Frank is 100% true. I posted a link to that effect earlier and never hinted that he was against the healthcare bill.

My question was/is do these items not bother you, and if you disagree with any of them, please say so...

1. He promised a bill that would reduce health costs. He promised a bill that would address tort reform. He promised a public debate with both sides involved. He promised it would be extremely transparent. He did NONE of these things.

2. Frank was correct; what needed to be addressed was the job situation. He wasted a year NOT working on jobs. I do not mean LITERALLY wasted a year but most of his energies were focused NOT on jobs but on health care bill.

3. The bill was structured on so many if, ands and maybes, it was extremely difficult for the CBO to even project costs. The CBO as already begun increasing those costs. The administration AND congress are already borrowing money that was destined for health care bill.

4. The bill was passed ONLY because of deals made with drug companies, and final votes were actually the result of blackmail. La. and Neb. in particular sweetheart deals in direct deals made for their vote.

5. All polls showed that american citizens opposed the passage of this bill at the time of the passage. I am not big on polls but keep hearing about the evil Republicans not voting for the charade of a bill called BUFFET and having the polls show americans want it. If you want this is a wash !

These facts, and I believe they are facts and hope you can show me where I erred.......these facts alone reflect a total lack of leadership, misrepresentation and even lying. I might add that he had TOTAL control over both house and senate and the "payoffs" were to get his own party to vote on it.


Please lets discuss only this bill.....I happen to feel probably the same way that you do about the drug bill, and it has nothing to do with this bill.

Thanks for responding.
I never did this before, but going to bump this just to get some conversation on the health care bill.

I am asking any supporter of the President or this bill to please respond (especially WAYNENET because the response was specifically to his post) and let me know if I have misrepresented the scenario in anyway


Is anything here incorrect, false or even out of context ???

[Guest]

Bucco,I agree with all of your post. My problem as I posted earlier is where do we go from here. Healthcare costs are crippling American families and business. Reform is needed everyone knows it. Yet, as a country we cannot agree on anything either side says or proposes. Why? To me the answer is simple :payoffs. Our reps are getting rich off of this simple as that. Their votes yea or nay are bought and paid for.This is what angers me. It should not be that hard.

[Guest]

Bucco,I agree with all of your post. My problem as I posted earlier is where do we go from here. Healthcare costs are crippling American families and business. Reform is needed everyone knows it. Yet, as a country we cannot agree on anything either side says or proposes. Why? To me the answer is simple :payoffs. Our reps are getting rich off of this simple as that. Their votes yea or nay are bought and paid for.This is what angers me. It should not be that hard.

Ok....thank you for responding and in a civil manner.

While my post was originally intended as an example of the lack of leadership by our President, it certainly can be the basis for discussion.

I truely believe that the President was on the right track when he said all he said during the campaign. Just having a PUBLIC and TRANSPARENT discussion would go a long way. Points such as BBQMAN has brought up in another thread could be discussed, and I will admit to total anger at the outcome of the process as this was one thing I thought he might be able to pull off but instead we are in court.

We are polarized.....my hope and it IS just hope at this point is to put the pressure now on the Republicans to bring this together...that is on the assumption it is overturned by the Supreme Court. This is where I need to get political a bit....if Romney wins, in my opinion it is on his shoulders to lead an open transparent move to control costs. If Obama wins, I fear it will be more of the same just wrapped more tightly so it does not smell as much...he obviously is not concerned about costs, tort reform, etc.

I DID start this as a political anti Obama thread, but I surely would hope that people will use it as something to think about as we move forward.

This is not an endorsement of the Republicans I want to make clear....health costs need to be addressed and soon.

I would like to add also that what concerns me is all the issues that are left untouched or skewed. We not only need this health cost thing addressed but immigration reform, tax reform, etc.

How do we get unpolarized, if that is even a word ? My opinion, this man has been a divider and we need a change. Is Romney the answer...do not know but as all the Democrats said in 2008 ....lets give it a try because this is not working.

I would further say that we need to pay more attention, as I think many did in 2010 to the off year elections as those are the folks who can make so much of this happen.

Thanks for responding again...hope I was not too bias in my reply, but I share your frustration.

[Guest]

Bucco, you stated you believe health costs need to be addressed soon. You have stated you do not like the Affordable Health Care Act and you believe it will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Do you have any good ideas on what should be included in a health care act or do you think the whole thing should just be left alone? Those who can afford health care can buy theirs. Those who cannot buy health insurance or cannot get coverage can do without it as a free market system takes care of itself.

You want some discussion and I would like to hear your ideas on what you feel should be done if you think health costs need to be addressed soon.

[Guest]

Bucco, you stated you believe health costs need to be addressed soon. You have stated you do not like the Affordable Health Care Act and you believe it will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Do you have any good ideas on what should be included in a health care act or do you think the whole thing should just be left alone? Those who can afford health care can buy theirs. Those who cannot buy health insurance or cannot get coverage can do without it as a free market system takes care of itself.

You want some discussion and I would like to hear your ideas on what you feel should be done if you think health costs need to be addressed soon.

Did you read my last post on this thread ?

Not detailed YET, but answered most of what you are asking...do you read anything on these threads or just load and fire ?

[Guest]

Yes, I read your last post and it did not give any specifics of what you would propose as an alternative to the President's Affordable Health Care Act.

If I missed your proposals for an alternative, please point them out to me.

I have given my viewpoints on what I think is good about the Affordable Health Care Act - especially the part of insurance companies not being able to pick and choose who they will take as customers based on pre-existing conditions. This is one real big deal among so many American families.