Who's Going To Pay?

[Guest]

Today's USA TODAY had a front page story on how the states are splitting along a purely political Republican-Democrat divide on whether to expand Medicaid in the way it was designed in the now legal ObamaCare. At this point, fourteen states with Democratic governors are moving forward with adoption; seven more are waiting. None of the states with GOP governors have adopted the changes, with seven saying they definitely will not and twenty-two others waiting.

So who's going to suffer? The 'GOP states' have more than 10 million people who will have no healthcare other than hospital emergency rooms who will provide care without being paid. Without broad action by the states, millions of Americans will remain uninsured, hospitals will face continued demands for uncompensated care, and private health insurance companies will certainly announce major hikes in premiums.

So other than the people in the Republican-governed states who will continue to have no health insurance, who will suffer? Who will pay?

The health insurance companies set up insurance programs by creating individual companies in each state. They do that because insurance is normally regulated by state insurance commissioners on a state-by-state basis. The terms of policies issued in each state and the premiums charged result from the insurers submitting their experience in each state to the state commissioners. They can't use high claim experience in New York as an example, to justify premium increases in Mississippi.

So who's going to pay for those millions of uninsured people? The other residents of those GOP-governed states who for mostly political reasons are refusing to let their state participate in the newly-designed Medicaid program...that's who!

What about Florida? Governor Rick Scott has already announced that Florida will not participate in the "new Medicaid". He's also said he would block the creation of an insurance exchange to encourage more private companies to compete for the business of Florida residents. Pretty much a party-line position. (Maybe it's even a personally-driven position. Scott had a felonious Medicare fraud experience when he was CEO of Hospital Corporation of America. And he still owns Solantic, a company trying to be an alternative to hospital emergency rooms. Might Scott personally have a "dog in this fight", making decisions for Florida residents for personal gain? Just wondering.)

The cost of Medicaid in Florida is growing at a rate 3-1/2 time faster than the state's general revenue. You can read the "fix" to that problem only two ways--increased taxes or elimination of service. Its reasonable to expect that a large number if the 3.19 million currently on Florida Medicaid will be kicked out as the result if the state's inability to fund the program. Where will they get care? Back to those hospital emergency rooms, who don't get paid for the care they provide. Or maybe the families of those with no money and no Medicaid will be required to pay. Increasingly, states are "reaching out" to demand payment from sons, daughters and other family members of indigent Medicaid patients to require payment.

Then the next step, obviously, is the insurance companies (really only one major one in Florida--United Healthcare) seeking major premium hikes, which almost certainly will be approved. So who's going to pay for the politically-driven recalcitrance? Why those of us with private insurance policies, obviously. Expect your premiums to skyrocket.

This is better than a single payer system? This will provide for better health results of the tens of millions of Americans with no insurance? This is affordable by the people who are paying for insurance?

In the meantime all that our feckless Congress has found time to do is pass a bill to repeal ALL of the ACA...and hold hearings on the problems of medication of racehorses!

C'mon all you small government conservatives out there...tell me how this is good for America...good for Americans...or affordable by Americans? Other than just saying, "repeal ObamaCare" and asserting that "we already have the best healthcare system in the world", what's the answer to this problem? What candidates from either party for any office is proposing a fix? C'mon tell me how and why politicizing the health of tens of millions of Americans is a good thing? Get your head out of the sand...or some other dark place.

[Guest]

Once again, VK, a very good posting from you. Once again, you have me wondering and scratching my head of why in the world do you keep repeating that you will not vote for Pres. Obama.

[Guest]

Once again, VK, a very good posting from you. Once again, you have me wondering and scratching my head of why in the world do you keep repeating that you will not vote for Pres. Obama.
He's shown no willingness or ability to lead either the Congress or the country. His re-election would almost certainly cause more divisiveness in the country than currently exists--if that's possible. And he's an incumbent. It's no more complicated that that, Buggy.

I'll be voting for whoever runs against Rick Scott as well.

[Guest]

Today's USA TODAY had a front page story on how the states are splitting along a purely political Republican-Democrat divide on whether to expand Medicaid in the way it was designed in the now legal ObamaCare. At this point, fourteen states with Democratic governors are moving forward with adoption; seven more are waiting. None of the states with GOP governors have adopted the changes, with seven saying they definitely will not and twenty-two others waiting.

So who's going to suffer? The 'GOP states' have more than 10 million people who will have no healthcare other than hospital emergency rooms who will provide care without being paid. Without broad action by the states, millions of Americans will remain uninsured, hospitals will face continued demands for uncompensated care, and private health insurance companies will certainly announce major hikes in premiums.

So other than the people in the Republican-governed states who will continue to have no health insurance, who will suffer? Who will pay?

The health insurance companies set up insurance programs by creating individual companies in each state. They do that because insurance is normally regulated by state insurance commissioners on a state-by-state basis. The terms of policies issued in each state and the premiums charged result from the insurers submitting their experience in each state to the state commissioners. They can't use high claim experience in New York as an example, to justify premium increases in Mississippi.

So who's going to pay for those millions of uninsured people? The other residents of those GOP-governed states who for mostly political reasons are refusing to let their state participate in the newly-designed Medicaid program...that's who!

What about Florida? Governor Rick Scott has already announced that Florida will not participate in the "new Medicaid". He's also said he would block the creation of an insurance exchange to encourage more private companies to compete for the business of Florida residents. Pretty much a party-line position. (Maybe it's even a personally-driven position. Scott had a felonious Medicare fraud experience when he was CEO of Hospital Corporation of America. And he still owns Solantic, a company trying to be an alternative to hospital emergency rooms. Might Scott personally have a "dog in this fight", making decisions for Florida residents for personal gain? Just wondering.)

The cost of Medicaid in Florida is growing at a rate 3-1/2 time faster than the state's general revenue. You can read the "fix" to that problem only two ways--increased taxes or elimination of service. Its reasonable to expect that a large number if the 3.19 million currently on Florida Medicaid will be kicked out as the result if the state's inability to fund the program. Where will they get care? Back to those hospital emergency rooms, who don't get paid for the care they provide. Or maybe the families of those with no money and no Medicaid will be required to pay. Increasingly, states are "reaching out" to demand payment from sons, daughters and other family members of indigent Medicaid patients to require payment.

Then the next step, obviously, is the insurance companies (really only one major one in Florida--United Healthcare) seeking major premium hikes, which almost certainly will be approved. So who's going to pay for the politically-driven recalcitrance? Why those of us with private insurance policies, obviously. Expect your premiums to skyrocket.

This is better than a single payer system? This will provide for better health results of the tens of millions of Americans with no insurance? This is affordable by the people who are paying for insurance?

In the meantime all that our feckless Congress has found time to do is pass a bill to repeal ALL of the ACA...and hold hearings on the problems of medication if racehorses!

C'mon all you small government conservatives out there...tell me how this is good for America...good for Americans...or affordable by Americans? Other than just saying, "repeal ObamaCare" and asserting that "we already have the best healthcare system in the world", what's the answer to this problem? What candidates from either party for any office is proposing a fix? C'mon tell me how and why politicizing the health of tens of millions of Americans is a good thing? Get your head out of the sand...or some other dark place.

I said on here a number of times....first of all, this is an election year and the states will certainly go down the political party path. I will predict a number of more "Wisconsin's" happening as a result of states being FORCED by the new health care act to do this.

To your other point, I am really being sold on the merits of what Romney did in Ma. Dismantle the new law and allow the states fo put into force their own response to the problem. I have found out that there are in fact other states, not quite as pronounced as MA, but Maryland for example where you can have existing coverage and you can remain on your parent insurance, but it is NOT automatic. It can be done but this was forced on the states at a time they cannot afford it.

Repeal the health care law...begin to build laws to help the states handle this on their own, as in MA an MD and others. Make provisions and put timetables on any affected by the repeal. Any new provisions must address COST of health care, Tort reform

You can say I have my head in the sand all you want....where was our congress when they FORCED this on us as part of a political plot. Latest polls suggest the unpopularity of it is growing. Wait until the payday arrives...we have not even begun the payment part yet.

The criticism belongs in this WH for doing what it did in the manner that it did it. You will not make me feel guilty with your "C'mon tell me how and why politicizing the health of tens of millions of Americans is a good thing? Get your head out of the sand...or some other dark place"

The man who did this to us....caused all this grief because he had to find ways to pay for it for his own legacy and forgot completely about what the entire idea was.

yes, we must be realistic...it is the law, and that is why this election is so important, not only to reverse this monstrosity but to prevent any more of the shenanigans he used in getting us here.

[Guest]

I am thinking that the initial bluster and rejection of Medicaid by the Republican governors is designed to stir up and solidify their base. Later they will try to quietly opt in cuz it is very hard to turn down the financial deal offered to them.

[Guest]

I am thinking that the initial bluster and rejection of Medicaid by the Republican governors is designed to stir up and solidify their base. Later they will try to quietly opt in cuz it is very hard to turn down the financial deal offered to them.

I think that is what I was trying to say...this year is all about politics. What you say is so true if it is not repealed ! The states cannot afford to pick up that tab !!!

I will look but one of the problems with the cost of this law is that they used this particular piece as a savings and a cost when they presented it to the CBO !!

[Guest]

I said on here a number of times....first of all, this is an election year and the states will certainly go down the political party path. I will predict a number of more "Wisconsin's" happening as a result of states being FORCED by the new health care act to do this.

To your other point, I am really being sold on the merits of what Romney did in Ma. Dismantle the new law and allow the states fo put into force their own response to the problem. I have found out that there are in fact other states, not quite as pronounced as MA, but Maryland for example where you can have existing coverage and you can remain on your parent insurance, but it is NOT automatic. It can be done but this was forced on the states at a time they cannot afford it.

Repeal the health care law...begin to build laws to help the states handle this on their own, as in MA an MD and others. Make provisions and put timetables on any affected by the repeal. Any new provisions must address COST of health care, Tort reform

You can say I have my head in the sand all you want....where was our congress when they FORCED this on us as part of a political plot. Latest polls suggest the unpopularity of it is growing. Wait until the payday arrives...we have not even begun the payment part yet.

The criticism belongs in this WH for doing what it did in the manner that it did it. You will not make me feel guilty with your "C'mon tell me how and why politicizing the health of tens of millions of Americans is a good thing? Get your head out of the sand...or some other dark place"

The man who did this to us....caused all this grief because he had to find ways to pay for it for his own legacy and forgot completely about what the entire idea was.

yes, we must be realistic...it is the law, and that is why this election is so important, not only to reverse this monstrosity but to prevent any more of the shenanigans he used in getting us here.Your "state's rights" idea is a good one, I think. Maybe the federal government should provide some guidelines to assure that what each state designs meets some minimum national standards. That is, there should be some minimum standards for individual states' healthcare insurance programs. I believe that should include a requirement that every citizen have health insurance.

Maybe the feds should provide a basic program of insurance--not as complicated as ObamaCare--that would be required for use in each state that has not enacted their own health insurance program, or adoptable by those states who choose not to spend the time and money to develop their own program. Kind of similar to "no child left behind" in the education sector. The feds don't tell the states of municipalities specifically how to accomplish things, but they do measure the results and establish penalties or results-based requirements for states whose programs fall short of national standards.

[Guest]

Same singers different song. whether its the fiscal cliff or healthcare or....these guys in Congress will stand on their hinds quarters beat their chest and growl but when the time comes they will compromise and kick the can down the road again. I question whether we will ever again have a majority of intestinal fotituded statesmen. Blame it on lobbyist, blame it on our educational system or blame it on voters poor choices.. it is a fact.

Try and settle it by never voting for an incumbent will not work. The only proper way is to fix our broken political system because we continue to vote in unqualified and weak people.

[Guest]

Your "state's rights" idea is a good one, I think. Maybe the federal government should provide some guidelines to assure that what each state designs meets some minimum national standards. That is, there should be some minimum standards for individual states' healthcare insurance programs. I believe that should include a requirement that every citizen have health insurance.

Maybe the feds should provide a basic program of insurance--not as complicated as ObamaCare--that would be required for use in each state that has not enacted their own health insurance program, or adoptable by those states who choose not to spend the time and money to develop their own program. Kind of similar to "no child left behind" in the education sector. The feds don't tell the states of municipalities specifically how to accomplish things, but they do measure the results and establish penalties or results-based requirements for states whose programs fall short of national standards.

VK, you sounded much more reasoned on this post than you did in the one that started this thread - another ad hominem attack on Republicans. This is an issue that is not split upon party lines. Seven Democrat governors are lying back until after the election before they roil the water. Medicaid expansion a tough sell to governors of both parties - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/medicaid-expansion-a-tough-sell-to-governors-of-both-parties/2012/07/12/gJQAF4RAfW_story.html)

In another post that attacked Rick Scott for his stance against the expansion of Medicaid, I detailed the data that showed Florida simply cannot afford to implement this. The money simply is not there. Given your background as a banker would you recommend someone or some entity commit to a project that they cannot afford?

As much as I do not want to sound like a nag, please go to mittromney.com and look at what he has to say on the issue. In the spirit of compliance with forum rules, I provide only the link and do not post his bullet points or the full reasoning why the Unaffordable Healthcare Act, aka Obamacare, does not work. Do I agree with him on everything? Of course not. I strongly favor severe tightening on malpractice lawsuits. Any law firm that brings a malpractice action, must be held to pay opposing legal costs and expenses unless they can show that the client has reimbursed them in full for their own legal fees and expenses and is capable of paying the defending party’s legal fees and expenses. In addition, to encourage full disclosure, the law firm must reveal to the jury before verdict is rendered the amount they will collect in legal fees and expenses together with their share of the verdict. I’m tired about hearing this or that lawyer is ‘for us’. They are not. They are for themselves. The cost of the bar in these United States is now approaching the cost of the Defense budget. Who to we need protection from – the infamous military/industrial complex or our lawyer system?

[Guest]

All this talk about Florida can't afford to expand medicaid makes me wonder where were all these folks when Governor Rick Scott approved Florida's 12th university at the end of the last legislative session. This is the same university that has no students, no faculty, no building, no charter. There wasn't much interest in it except for the legislator who lives in that area and is a big land owner. I don't remember much discussion about who was going to pay for it. Now they want to build a new highway to the university that doesn't exist. Where is the outrage?


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/scott-approves-states-12th-university-florida-poly/nN3KB/


http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/roads/road-jd-alexander-fought-for-tucked-into-state-budget/1217976

[Guest]

...In another post that attacked Rick Scott for his stance against the expansion of Medicaid, I detailed the data that showed Florida simply cannot afford to implement this. The money simply is not there. Given your background as a banker would you recommend someone or some entity commit to a project that they cannot afford?...As a retired banker, I'd frame the choice as follows...Adopt the Medicaid provisions contained in the Affordable Healhcare Act and either modify provisions of the state program to reduce costs or raise taxes to pay for the program, or both.

OR...

Permit the state Medicaid program to expire or be so constrained in size that millions of Floridians would lose any healthcare insurance and be forced to use emergency rooms for their sole source of care. That option would not be free to Floridians, of course. Insurance companies will increase the premiums for those who are insured to pay for the newly uninsured former Medicaid patients. In essence, that's a hidden tax on those who can afford to pay.A decision not to insure millions of indigent Floridians, mostly elderly, is not only inhumane in my opinion, but also far more costly in the long run, and certainly erodes the quality and length of life for millions of people. Then there's that "hidden tax", wherein those with insurance will wind up paying for care provided to the uninsured.

To answer your question, yes I think the governor should adopt the Medicare provisions of ACA, even though taxes would have to be increased to pay for it. Certainly the fundamental health of Florida citizens is a more important priority than many of the other expenditures at the state level.

[Guest]

As a retired banker, I'd frame the choice as follows...Adopt the Medicaid provisions contained in the Affordable Healhcare Act and either modify provisions of the state program to reduce costs or raise taxes to pay for the program, or both.

OR...

Permit the state Medicaid program to expire or be so constrained in size that millions of Floridians would lose any healthcare insurance and be forced to use emergency rooms for their sole source of care. That option would not be free to Floridians, of course. Insurance companies will increase the premiums for those who are insured to pay for the newly uninsured former Medicaid patients. In essence, that's a hidden tax on those who can afford to pay.A decision not to insure millions of indigent Floridians, mostly elderly, is not only inhumane in my opinion, but also far more costly in the long run, and certainly erodes the quality and length of life for millions of people. Then there's that "hidden tax", wherein those with insurance will wind up paying for care provided to the uninsured.

To answer your question, yes I think the governor should adopt the Medicare provisions of ACA, even though taxes would have to be increased to pay for it. Certainly the fundamental health of Florida citizens is a more important priority than many of the other expenditures at the state level.

My Friends:

The above post is IT IN A NUTSHELL!

And it's why the governors and congressmen in "We hate Obama" states need to stop their purely political posturing and do what is fairest and right for their constituents.

[Guest]

It's interesting that Gov Rick Scott's company Solantic Inc doesn't accept medicaid, but provides urgent care to walk-in customers. Coincidence? You decide.


Gov. Rick Scott, Solantic and conflict of interest: What's the deal? - Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/article1161158.ece)



Five GOP governors said yesterday they would accept the medicaid expansion if they could get it in block grants, which has been their goal all along. Gov Rick Scott was not one of them.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78499.html

[Guest]

As a retired banker, I'd frame the choice as follows...Adopt the Medicaid provisions contained in the Affordable Healhcare Act and either modify provisions of the state program to reduce costs or raise taxes to pay for the program, or both.

OR...

Permit the state Medicaid program to expire or be so constrained in size that millions of Floridians would lose any healthcare insurance and be forced to use emergency rooms for their sole source of care. That option would not be free to Floridians, of course. Insurance companies will increase the premiums for those who are insured to pay for the newly uninsured former Medicaid patients. In essence, that's a hidden tax on those who can afford to pay.A decision not to insure millions of indigent Floridians, mostly elderly, is not only inhumane in my opinion, but also far more costly in the long run, and certainly erodes the quality and length of life for millions of people. Then there's that "hidden tax", wherein those with insurance will wind up paying for care provided to the uninsured.

To answer your question, yes I think the governor should adopt the Medicare provisions of ACA, even though taxes would have to be increased to pay for it. Certainly the fundamental health of Florida citizens is a more important priority than many of the other expenditures at the state level.


OR

Repeal this monstrosity of a law, which will financially bring this country to its knees in a few short years when the bill comes do. Allow the states to manage health care at their level as in MA and MD.

We are going to have so many Wisconsin's if this stays....The cost, if anyone has even taken the time to check instead of playing the political game) is so prohibitive as to be crazy. This should never have gotten this far...and you folks who want to play politics ought to think about COSTS to do all of this.

The politics of it, as taught to us by Obama, is by hook or crook get this stuff done...health care bill, take the work rule out of welfare, etc and then when someone wants to right that ship, you call them insensitive or inhumane as a matter of fact. This country cannot afford this...not sure how old you folks are but if you are young enough to be around when the bill comes in, you will rue the day. States cannot afford this, and lest you think that it is only Republicans, think again and do some research. This is a cost that will bring most states to their knees and services will be cut to such a degree......always nice to do things,BUT you have to pay for them.

This never should have happened and Obama who had to ...well, we all know what he did to get this passed, even though he had complete control of both house and senate...he is the one to blame.

[Guest]

OR

Repeal this monstrosity of a law, which will financially bring this country to its knees in a few short years when the bill comes do. Allow the states to manage health care at their level as in MA and MD.

We are going to have so many Wisconsin's if this stays....The cost, if anyone has even taken the time to check instead of playing the political game) is so prohibitive as to be crazy. This should never have gotten this far...and you folks who want to play politics ought to think about COSTS to do all of this.

The politics of it, as taught to us by Obama, is by hook or crook get this stuff done...health care bill, take the work rule out of welfare, etc and then when someone wants to right that ship, you call them insensitive or inhumane as a matter of fact. This country cannot afford this...not sure how old you folks are but if you are young enough to be around when the bill comes in, you will rue the day. States cannot afford this, and lest you think that it is only Republicans, think again and do some research. This is a cost that will bring most states to their knees and services will be cut to such a degree......always nice to do things,BUT you have to pay for them.

This never should have happened and Obama who had to ...well, we all know what he did to get this passed, even though he had complete control of both house and senate...he is the one to blame.

Bucco, Why would 49 states suddenly decide to set up health care systems which have the positive features of ACA? Your suggestion simply begs the question. Didn't happen in over 200 years, wouldn't happen in another 200. Before the ACA was passed and reaffirmed by the Court, EVERYONE agreed the states were not interested in putting in the effort to set up a decent health care system. Just imagine Texas doing it. The state with the most uninsured. Impossible! Your argument is just as just as much an impossibility today as it has always been.

I have read your many comments about ACA. You have been rather focused on criticizing many of it's features and your general solution is to repeal the entire law. However, despite repeated requests I have yet to read your specifying even a single element of the law which you can DEMONSTRATE needs to be changed, and for which you can offer a constructive revision.

Anyone can SAY that stuff is wrong, unaffordable or unconstitutional. But I'm waiting for you or ANYONE else to show exactly WHAT the problems are, WHY they are, and HOW to fix them, including removing them if there is no alternative.

This is what bothers me most about the current Republican platform. There is only negative talk, not constructive, FEASIBLE suggestions. OK, maybe the candidates can't be constructive because they might lose political points.
But what's stopping you?

[Guest]

Bucco, Why would 49 states suddenly decide to set up health care systems which have the positive features of ACA? Your suggestion simply begs the question. Didn't happen in over 200 years, wouldn't happen in another 200. Before the ACA was passed and reaffirmed by the Court, EVERYONE agreed the states were not interested in putting in the effort to set up a decent health care system. Just imagine Texas doing it. The state with the most uninsured. Impossible! Your argument is just as just as much an impossibility today as it has always been.

I have read your many comments about ACA. You have been rather focused on criticizing many of it's features and your general solution is to repeal the entire law. However, despite repeated requests I have yet to read your specifying even a single element of the law which you can DEMONSTRATE needs to be changed, and for which you can offer a constructive revision.

Anyone can SAY that stuff is wrong, unaffordable or unconstitutional. But I'm waiting for you or ANYONE else to show exactly WHAT the problems are, WHY they are, and HOW to fix them, including removing them if there is no alternative.

This is what bothers me most about the current Republican platform. There is only negative talk, not constructive, FEASIBLE suggestions. OK, maybe the candidates can't be constructive because they might lose political points.
But what's stopping you?

Veryquickly as I have company....I have posted this before. Let me start with this....because of the current administration we now have a law that DOES NOT ADDRESS HEALTH CARE COSTS AND THEY WILL GO UP. It also does not address tort reform....BOTH were promised and I might add touted by Obama as the entire basis for his plan...he made fun of Hillary Clintons plan which is basically what he passed and said HIS was based on cost and tort reform as a base. And before, as most do, you go off on the anti Obama thing...THEY WERE PROMISED and that was about the only thing I thought Obama said on the campaign trail that was interesting and got my attention, But he politicized it so much it has become a FINANCIAL NIGHTMARE that we cannot afford.

Keep that in mind....it sounds great but WE CANNOT AFFORD IT...I dont car if you tax the millionaires to death, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT and this will sink the states.

AND to my knowledge I am not aware of what you mean "EVERYONE agreed the states were not interested in putting in the effort to set up a decent health care system." WHO is everyone ?

There are many good things and I am on board and support the allowing the states to do as MD and MA have already done. In MD if you want to stay on your parents insurance, you can....if you have pre existing condition, you can get insurance....BUT...IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC. They are doing fine with it....The federal government role is to allow exchange and force the insurance companies to abide by rules to allow it.

HOWEVER, if you have read about the formation of this bill and how it is to be paid for...Obama sold out completely to the insurance industry so without repeal it is just going to get worse.

Hope that makes some sense as I am doing it in a rush...lots of good things in the bill...EXCEPT what we wanted..cost and tort reform, AND come 2013 the cost of this bill will rise as it has every 6 months since passed and we will be in so far over our heads it will be just plain insane.

Nobody on any political platform I have heard has criticized the pluses for what is in the bill....that really bugs me to be painted as an unfeeling, insensitive rat as is now becoming the norm if you disagree with the President. NOthing is further from the truth, and despite what you say the Republicans were screaming to be heard at the beginning but the President went behind closed doors. But if you oppose it, it is taken for granted you are a heartless son of a gun, when that is not, and has not been the case....we cannot afford this and there is a better way....no bills due until 2013...oh wait yes there are...setting it up which is not budgeted..oh...we have no budget, sorry.

I am just tired of being called names because I oppose this bill...never oppoosed what it is in it, but in the history of this country there has never been such a large bill passed under such partisan conditions. Why to you think he had to pay off for votes when he controlled both houses.

Guess this is enough for you to take aim at me

And please stop saying there have been no feasible options presented...it is not true....same story with how the right is holding everything up....over 30 bills that will create jobs to some degree cannot see the light of day in the senate as Reid will not even discuss them.....including a bill to stop the IRS scam by illegals.

Listen, both parties are just plain screwed up but you always make it a one way street...and what you say is not true....there are other ideas..many of them but you will never hear of them with this WH and Senate.

Give me your best shot...after the last day or so I flat out dont care anymore...we are NEVER going to talk about issues in this forum and based on what I am seeing in this country...just tear each other down and call names.

[Guest]

Veryquickly as I have company....I have posted this before. Let me start with this....because of the current administration we now have a law that DOES NOT ADDRESS HEALTH CARE COSTS AND THEY WILL GO UP. It also does not address tort reform....BOTH were promised and I might add touted by Obama as the entire basis for his plan...he made fun of Hillary Clintons plan which is basically what he passed and said HIS was based on cost and tort reform as a base. And before, as most do, you go off on the anti Obama thing...THEY WERE PROMISED and that was about the only thing I thought Obama said on the campaign trail that was interesting and got my attention, But he politicized it so much it has become a FINANCIAL NIGHTMARE that we cannot afford.

Keep that in mind....it sounds great but WE CANNOT AFFORD IT...I dont car if you tax the millionaires to death, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT and this will sink the states.



AND to my knowledge I am not aware of what you mean "EVERYONE agreed the states were not interested in putting in the effort to set up a decent health care system." WHO is everyone ?

There are many good things and I am on board and support the allowing the states to do as MD and MA have already done. In MD if you want to stay on your parents insurance, you can....if you have pre existing condition, you can get insurance....BUT...IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC. They are doing fine with it....The federal government role is to allow exchange and force the insurance companies to abide by rules to allow it.

HOWEVER, if you have read about the formation of this bill and how it is to be paid for...Obama sold out completely to the insurance industry so without repeal it is just going to get worse.

Hope that makes some sense as I am doing it in a rush...lots of good things in the bill...EXCEPT what we wanted..cost and tort reform, AND come 2013 the cost of this bill will rise as it has every 6 months since passed and we will be in so far over our heads it will be just plain insane.

Nobody on any political platform I have heard has criticized the pluses for what is in the bill....that really bugs me to be painted as an unfeeling, insensitive rat as is now becoming the norm if you disagree with the President. NOthing is further from the truth, and despite what you say the Republicans were screaming to be heard at the beginning but the President went behind closed doors. But if you oppose it, it is taken for granted you are a heartless son of a gun, when that is not, and has not been the case....we cannot afford this and there is a better way....no bills due until 2013...oh wait yes there are...setting it up which is not budgeted..oh...we have no budget, sorry.

I am just tired of being called names because I oppose this bill...never oppoosed what it is in it, but in the history of this country there has never been such a large bill passed under such partisan conditions. Why to you think he had to pay off for votes when he controlled both houses.

Guess this is enough for you to take aim at me

And please stop saying there have been no feasible options presented...it is not true....same story with how the right is holding everything up....over 30 bills that will create jobs to some degree cannot see the light of day in the senate as Reid will not even discuss them.....including a bill to stop the IRS scam by illegals.

Listen, both parties are just plain screwed up but you always make it a one way street...and what you say is not true....there are other ideas..many of them but you will never hear of them with this WH and Senate.

Give me your best shot...after the last day or so I flat out dont care anymore...we are NEVER going to talk about issues in this forum and based on what I am seeing in this country...just tear each other down and call names.



1) Neither you nor anyone else here has presented factual data that "WE CANNOT AFFORD" ACA. Show me even basic data which includes anticipated costs AND revenues which convinces you we cannot afford ACA. Remember to stack it up against anticipated net costs if we continued with what we have now for another 10-20 years. Failure to provide any data makes your above comment more hearsay. I know it's complicated, but you have to cut through it and present facts, or it's just talk. If you're looking for a good template of comparing costs ACA/no ACA, look above at the excellent outline of US health care cost implications submitted by VK

2) Tort reform is not here yet. It isn't part of ACA. It was a well-documented sacrifice made to achieve ACA. It will be nice to have it some day. It would make ACA even better. Just like eliminating every dollar of Medicare fraud would be nice. One of the reasons I'm tempted to vote for Obama is that he will more likely make those two things a priority than his opponent, especially tort reform.

3) Please. PLEASE, cease the constant reference to Presidential Promises. Statements by candidates or even sitting Presidents about things they want to do, even desperately, are promises only in YOUR mind, not in the reality of our constitutional republic.

4) Prior to the "we will now say anything to attack ACA" days, No one ever suggested 49 more states would even try to institute ACA-like healthcare. I used the EVERYONE word as emphasis that this has never been regarded as feasible. Yeah, there are lots of folks who've said the states SHOULD do it, but I've never read or heard anyone suggest that the states WOULD do it voluntarily.

5) Kindly explain and give some data about how Obama "sold out to the insurance companies".

6) Next time you're talking to your guests, be sure to tell them that the guy you were answering tonight while they were there, is not the one who thinks you're an insensitive rat or a heartless son of a gun. And before you dissolve in despair, I REALLY do want to talk about the issues. How about starting with either #1 or #5 above. (hint: lots of facts).

[Guest]

All this talk about Florida can't afford to expand medicaid makes me wonder where were all these folks when Governor Rick Scott approved Florida's 12th university at the end of the last legislative session. This is the same university that has no students, no faculty, no building, no charter. There wasn't much interest in it except for the legislator who lives in that area and is a big land owner. I don't remember much discussion about who was going to pay for it. Now they want to build a new highway to the university that doesn't exist. Where is the outrage?


Scott approves state's 12th university, Florida Polytechnic, afte | www.palmbeachpost.com (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/scott-approves-states-12th-university-florida-poly/nN3KB/)


Road JD Alexander fought for tucked into state budget - Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/roads/road-jd-alexander-fought-for-tucked-into-state-budget/1217976)

Let me try to deal with the misunderstandings and newspaper fulminations and tell what is actually happening. First the ‘new’ university, Florida Polytechnic. This is not a new University but rather a repurposing of the USF Lakeland campus to increase emphasis on the STEM (Science, technology, engineering and mathematics) programs in Florida. The State of Florida is low on this type of expertise and more than fully meeting the needs for liberal arts graduates. This is something that should have happened a long time ago. Most States have recognized the need for a science and engineering school. Some examples are Georgia Tech, MIT, University of Missouri Science and Technology, Cal Berkley, etc. Nothing is happening other than looking down the road and trying to fulfill the needs of Florida in the future.

As to the $300 million cut in the budget for the University system. This is not caused by Florida Polytechnic – it was already funded included needed expansion. The cut in the budget for the Florida University system was made to reflect budget priorities. You may disagree with some of the priorities, but again the State budget must be balanced.

Now for the new toll road. First understand that Florida is a rapidly growing state and needs new limited access roads. Since the Federal government is not offering to build these needed roads, they are being built as fully self-funding toll roads. The proposed Central Polk Parkway will do a number of things, but will primarily provide a north/south route through the center of the state. This is desperately needed. To understand that I suggest you take a drive down US 27 to Lake Wales. To say traffic is snarled is being nice about it. Enjoy your trip and stay at Chalet Suzanne in Lake Wales. It’s a unique place with a very good dining room. Go out and enjoy looking at all the different rooms – each one is different just as your tableware will be at dinner. A great romantic place to visit.

[Guest]

Let me try to deal with the misunderstandings and newspaper fulminations and tell what is actually happening. First the ‘new’ university, Florida Polytechnic. This is not a new University but rather a repurposing of the USF Lakeland campus to increase emphasis on the STEM (Science, technology, engineering and mathematics) programs in Florida. The State of Florida is low on this type of expertise and more than fully meeting the needs for liberal arts graduates. This is something that should have happened a long time ago. Most States have recognized the need for a science and engineering school. Some examples are Georgia Tech, MIT, University of Missouri Science and Technology, Cal Berkley, etc. Nothing is happening other than looking down the road and trying to fulfill the needs of Florida in the future.

As to the $300 million cut in the budget for the University system. This is not caused by Florida Polytechnic – it was already funded included needed expansion. The cut in the budget for the Florida University system was made to reflect budget priorities. You may disagree with some of the priorities, but again the State budget must be balanced.

Now for the new toll road. First understand that Florida is a rapidly growing state and needs new limited access roads. Since the Federal government is not offering to build these needed roads, they are being built as fully self-funding toll roads. The proposed Central Polk Parkway will do a number of things, but will primarily provide a north/south route through the center of the state. This is desperately needed. To understand that I suggest you take a drive down US 27 to Lake Wales. To say traffic is snarled is being nice about it. Enjoy your trip and stay at Chalet Suzanne in Lake Wales. It’s a unique place with a very good dining room. Go out and enjoy looking at all the different rooms – each one is different just as your tableware will be at dinner. A great romantic place to visit.Yup, the state budget is based on a statement of priorities. And given just the few mentioned in this thread, I'd rank them...
Adopt ACA/Medicaid and better assure the health and well being of those Floridians unable to afford quality healthcare.
Make the investment in the new tech college, but maybe try to find a private partner like those that fund the University of Miami, Full Sail University or the Ringling College.
And lastly, I'd cut the toll road budget. Nice idea to eliminate the aggravating traffic jams. But it doesn't rise to he priority of health and education.

[Guest]

The states were in the hole long before the mandates of obamacare go into effect!

Medicaid and New York's Budget
The New York Times | by EDITORIAL BOARD | February 19, 2011

New York State spent more than $20 billion on Medicaid this fiscal year - or nearly a quarter of the total operating budget. With the state confronting a projected $10 billion deficit for next year, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has little choice but to cut back the program. The challenge will be to do that in a way that causes the least possible harm to some of the state's most vulnerable citizens.
Mr. Cuomo’s new budget seeks to reduce the state’s share of Medicaid spending from a projected $20.8 billion to about $18 billion. That would trigger a loss in federal matching funds of about $2.7 billion, draining a total of more than $5.5 billion."
Read more: Medicaid and New York's Budget > Blog > State Budget Solutions (http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/blog/detail/medicaid-and-new-yorks-budget#ixzz20f54z65R)

Judge allows cuts to Arizona's Medicaid program
Businessweek August 11, 2011

A judge ruled Wednesday that Gov. Jan Brewer can legally reduce enrollment in Arizona's Medicaid program to help balance the state budget.

The state has barred childless adults with incomes above the federal limit for Medicaid from either enrolling for the first time or re-enrolling in the state program. The partial enrollment freeze would save the state a projected $207 million this year.

Public-interest law firms sued on behalf of low-income Arizonans, arguing that the eligibility reductions, especially the one for childless adults, violate state constitutional protections for voter-approved laws.

Brewer and other state officials contend the cuts are necessary to protect other vital state services that have been devastated by decreased revenue, and that the 2000 law hinged on the availability of funding.

Read more: Judge allows cuts to Arizona's Medicaid program > Publications > State Budget Solutions (http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/judge-allows-cuts-to-arizonas-medicaid-program#ixzz20f6qQJy6)

Medicaid Madness
by BOB WILLIAMS | February 7, 2011

The federal government has long created unfunded mandates for states to deal with; programs required by law that states must fund themselves. Though the federal government provides some Medicaid funds via matching rates, this welfare program has been taking up a larger and larger share of state budgets in recent years.

As state legislators face budge pressure from all sides-lower revenues, depleted reserves, and enormous liabilities-they are coming to a head with federal lawmakers over Medicaid. Governors in several states have already begun to roll back Medicaid coverage, while others are seeking waivers from new provisions in the new health care law. The results of these challenges to the federal program will have a big impact on state budgets for years to come.

Health & Human Services Secretary Kathlessn Sebelius urged states to find savings by charging higher copayments for some services; limiting certain benefit, managing high-cost patients more efficiently, squeezing drug costs, and cracking down on improper payments.

Latest budget projections

Arizona: $763.6 million shortfall through June 30, 2011 and another $1.2 billion for FY 2011. Governor's Budget. January 2011
California: $25.4 billion through June 2012. Foxnews.com. 1/22/11
Colorado: $1.5 billion. Denver Post. NPR.1/12/11
Connecticut: $3.67 billion. The CT Mirror.1/25/11
Delaware:$216.4 million. Delawareonline.com 1/28/11
Florida: Budget shortfall of $3.6 billion for FY 2011-12.FoxNews.com. 2/1/11
Georgia:$1-2 billion.The Moultrie Observer. 1/8/11
Hawaii: $71 million (FY 2010-11); $771 million (FY 2011-13).KITV.com. 12/20/10
Idaho: $185 million between now and June 30, 2012.Idahopress.com. 1/28/11
Illinois: $13 billion (FY 2010-11) WSJ.1/12/11
Iowa: $700 million (FY 2011-12). Bloomberg.com. 12/22/10
Kansas: $550 million (FY 2011-12). Kansascity.com. 1/5/11
Louisiana: $1.6 billion FOX 8. 12/30/10
Maine: $840 million.The Portland Press Herald. 11/27/10
Maryland: $1.3 billion (FY 2011-12) Afro.com. 1/27/11
Massachusetts: Budget shortfall of up to $1.5 billion. Masslivecom. 1/17/11
Michigan: Up to a $1.85 billion shortfall for FY 2011-12. WNEM.com. 12/28/10
Minnesota: Senate passed $930 million budget fix to solve part of $6 billion shortfall. Bloomberg.com. 2/3/11
Mississippi:$634 million. Thegovmonitor.com. 11/16/10
Missouri: $1 billion. Kansas City Business Journal. 8/5/10
Montana: $388 million (FY 2011-12). Bloomberg Businessweek. 10/8/10
Nebraska: More than $1 billion (FY 2011-13) Action3news.com. 1/6/11
Nevada: $2.9 billion. Las Vegas Sun. 1/5/11
New Hampshire: $800 million. Sentinelsource.com.9/22/10
New Jersey: $10.5 billion (FY 2011-12).Blogs.APP.Com. 7/22/10
New Mexico:$452 million. Bloomberg Busineeweek.com.11/11/10.
New York:$9 billion NY Times. 1/1/11
North Carolina: $3.7 billion (FY 2011-12) Newsobserver.com. 1/1/11
Ohio: $4-8 billion (FY 2011-13)Ohio.com. 1/1/11
Oklahoma:$600 million (FY 2011-12) Sunshine Review.org.
Oregon: $3.5 billion (FY 2011-13). NRToday.11/23/10
Pennsylvania: $4-5 billion (FY 2011-12). The Philadelphia Inquirer. 12/17/10
Rhode Island:$365 million (FY 2011-12)). WPRI.com. 11/10/10
South Carolina: $829 million (FY 2011-12). GoUPstate.com. 1/7/11
South Dakota: $32 million shortfall for FY 2011 and $107 million for FY 2012.Yankton press. 1/30/10
Tennessee: $1 billion. WSMV.com. 1/31/11
Texas: $15 billion. Chron.com. 1/18/11
Utah: $700 million. KCPW. 12/11/10
Vermont: $112 million (FY 2012-13).5WPTZ.com. 8/22/10
Virginia: $200 million (FY 2011-12). WashingtonExaminer.com. 12/17/10
Washington: Senate Democrats and Republicans proposed a plan to address $394 million of the $550 million state budget shortfallfor the current year (FY 2010-11) by a combination of budget cuts and raiding money from other dedicated funds. Seattle Times.2/2/11
West Virginia: $150 -$160 million (FY 2011-12). Charleston Gazette. 6/7/10
Wisconsin: State faces $79- $340 million state budget shortfall (FY 2010-11) and $3.2 billion (FY 2011-12).Bloomberg.com. 1/31/11


Read more: Medicaid Madness > Blog > State Budget Solutions (http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/blog/detail/medicaid-madness-2#ixzz20f8n1WEB)

[Guest]

Actually, you missed probably the biggest reason for so many state's being near bankruptcy. Over the years elected state officials have pandered for the votes of the unions representing state employees, agreeing to outrageous pay, benefits and retirement packages. That was the crux of the big disagreement in Wisconsin. The governor wanted to roll back those sweet union contracts and limit the unions rights to continue to negotiate for even more.

Unfortunately, lots of states are now stuck with long term obligations such as employees being able to retire at an age that wouldn't even qualify them to live in The Villages for retirement pay that exceeds what they were earning while working. There are lots of examples. The Wisconsin teachers, Chicago firemen and New York cops are just the tip of the iceberg.

But now, because of those egregious union contracts and state retirement benefits, the states say they can't afford and refuse to pay for health insurance for their neediest and most helpless citizens, essentially creating a hidden tax on those more able to pay. And many here carp and complain about the threat of death panels and insidious increased taxes? What do you think the refusal of many states to endorse the broader health coverage of ACA amounts to? If the politicized decisions by governors and state legislators isn't a "death panel", doesn't essentially "throw Granny off the cliff", you're looking at a different situation than I am.

This sounds like Greece getting ready to happen, right here between New York and Los Angeles.

[Guest]

And the fact that Florida state senator J. D. Alexander owns huge tracts of land near the new university and toll road are just a coincidence?

[Guest]

1) Neither you nor anyone else here has presented factual data that "WE CANNOT AFFORD" ACA. Show me even basic data which includes anticipated costs AND revenues which convinces you we cannot afford ACA. Remember to stack it up against anticipated net costs if we continued with what we have now for another 10-20 years. Failure to provide any data makes your above comment more hearsay. I know it's complicated, but you have to cut through it and present facts, or it's just talk. If you're looking for a good template of comparing costs ACA/no ACA, look above at the excellent outline of US health care cost implications submitted by VK

2) Tort reform is not here yet. It isn't part of ACA. It was a well-documented sacrifice made to achieve ACA. It will be nice to have it some day. It would make ACA even better. Just like eliminating every dollar of Medicare fraud would be nice. One of the reasons I'm tempted to vote for Obama is that he will more likely make those two things a priority than his opponent, especially tort reform.

3) Please. PLEASE, cease the constant reference to Presidential Promises. Statements by candidates or even sitting Presidents about things they want to do, even desperately, are promises only in YOUR mind, not in the reality of our constitutional republic.

4) Prior to the "we will now say anything to attack ACA" days, No one ever suggested 49 more states would even try to institute ACA-like healthcare. I used the EVERYONE word as emphasis that this has never been regarded as feasible. Yeah, there are lots of folks who've said the states SHOULD do it, but I've never read or heard anyone suggest that the states WOULD do it voluntarily.

5) Kindly explain and give some data about how Obama "sold out to the insurance companies".

6) Next time you're talking to your guests, be sure to tell them that the guy you were answering tonight while they were there, is not the one who thinks you're an insensitive rat or a heartless son of a gun. And before you dissolve in despair, I REALLY do want to talk about the issues. How about starting with either #1 or #5 above. (hint: lots of facts).

I do not want to ignore you and will return later today I hope...just want you to know I am not ignoring.

[Guest]

Actually, you missed probably the biggest reason for so many state's being near bankruptcy. Over the years elected state officials have pandered for the votes of the unions representing state employees, agreeing to outrageous pay, benefits and retirement packages. That was the crux of the big disagreement in Wisconsin. The governor wanted to roll back those sweet union contracts and limit the unions rights to continue to negotiate for even more.

Unfortunately, lots of states are now stuck with long term obligations such as employees being able to retire at an age that wouldn't even qualify them to live in The Villages for retirement pay that exceeds what they were earning while working. There are lots of examples. The Wisconsin teachers, Chicago firemen and New York cops are just the tip of the iceberg.

But now, because of those egregious union contracts and state retirement benefits, the states say they can't afford and refuse to pay for health insurance for their neediest and most helpless citizens, essentially creating a hidden tax on those more able to pay. And many here carp and complain about the threat of death panels and insidious increased taxes? What do you think the refusal of many states to endorse the broader health coverage of ACA amounts to? If the politicized decisions by governors and state legislators isn't a "death panel", doesn't essentially "throw Granny off the cliff", you're looking at a different situation than I am.

This sounds like Greece getting ready to happen, right here between New York and Los Angeles.

I have been trying to say this very thing to you and others. You want the states to take on an enormous cost on top of everything else. I dont care HOW they got there.....they are there.

Now you want to paint every state as unfeeling, and I think you used the word INHUMANE at one time. You are going to have close to 50 Wisconsin's as a result of this thing...you can call them inhumane if you wish, but because of the lack of transparency and open dialogue on this law this is now surely to happen and the blame will be placed not on those who did this behind closed doors.....you, or anyone else knew this when the bill was passed on....the votes were blind and we all know that, and now we want to label people as inhumane or bad people ! THAT is what I object to.

This country is in bad financial shape..you have posted that on a number of occassions...the states are in bad financial shape as you have pointed out, yet we take on MORE....does not make sense to me but then I am not as smart as you !

[Guest]

1) Neither you nor anyone else here has presented factual data that "WE CANNOT AFFORD" ACA. Show me even basic data which includes anticipated costs AND revenues which convinces you we cannot afford ACA. Remember to stack it up against anticipated net costs if we continued with what we have now for another 10-20 years. Failure to provide any data makes your above comment more hearsay. I know it's complicated, but you have to cut through it and present facts, or it's just talk. If you're looking for a good template of comparing costs ACA/no ACA, look above at the excellent outline of US health care cost implications submitted by VK

2) Tort reform is not here yet. It isn't part of ACA. It was a well-documented sacrifice made to achieve ACA. It will be nice to have it some day. It would make ACA even better. Just like eliminating every dollar of Medicare fraud would be nice. One of the reasons I'm tempted to vote for Obama is that he will more likely make those two things a priority than his opponent, especially tort reform.

3) Please. PLEASE, cease the constant reference to Presidential Promises. Statements by candidates or even sitting Presidents about things they want to do, even desperately, are promises only in YOUR mind, not in the reality of our constitutional republic.

4) Prior to the "we will now say anything to attack ACA" days, No one ever suggested 49 more states would even try to institute ACA-like healthcare. I used the EVERYONE word as emphasis that this has never been regarded as feasible. Yeah, there are lots of folks who've said the states SHOULD do it, but I've never read or heard anyone suggest that the states WOULD do it voluntarily.

5) Kindly explain and give some data about how Obama "sold out to the insurance companies".

6) Next time you're talking to your guests, be sure to tell them that the guy you were answering tonight while they were there, is not the one who thinks you're an insensitive rat or a heartless son of a gun. And before you dissolve in despair, I REALLY do want to talk about the issues. How about starting with either #1 or #5 above. (hint: lots of facts).

1. First of all, I do not believe in looking to show we cannot afford; my preference is that our leaders looked to make sure
that we COULD afford it in the first place. Already, and the law is new, the cost estimate has DOUBLED in cost and is now
2.6 Trillion over 10 years.

Now the fact that the cost of this law has doubled even before it is in affect is troublesome, but recall that those who
voted this law in, did not even read it, thus perhaps we should not be surprised.
Continuing on…..it is not easy to gather all the taxes, etc involved in this. Congress nor the WH talks much about it
But the payment of those costs are so much a varying item it really scares me and others. Here are a few examples
of the "maybes" including in paying for a MASSIVE law unread by those who voted it in.

What is of greatest concern to me is how this will be paid for as so much of what is SUPPOSED to pay for it is all
maybe's and ifs. For example this is what the President says will pay the bills

…..medicaire funding to be reduced by 575 million. The President says that this
is to reduce fraud.
…..The law expects that companies that will not pay for health care any longer will increase the wages
of their employees thus creating more social security taxes to be collected.
YES that money will need to be used for payments to those collecting SS but this is what
they say is one way to raise the money for this law. I am not making this up.
…..Codification of the "economic substance doctrine" (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely--legal tax deductions and
other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks "substance" and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.
.....In 2018 insurance companies will pay a 40% excise tax on any high end insurance policies
.....Medical device manufacturers will pay 2.9% excise tax on the sale of any of any of their products beginning in 2013
.....Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals if they fail to meet "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by
HHS
.....Increase in additional tax on distributions from Health Savings Accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts not used for qualified medical expenses

These are just some that I can find anyway to inusre the income YET they are used as justification for paying
the bill for this law.

Now then….there are some of the taxes….

..... A 3.9 tax on investment income for individuals over 200M and families over 250 M starting next year.
.....a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel called "black liquor"
.....The special tax deductions in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are
spent on clinical services (called Blue Cross/Blue Shield tax hike)
.....Increase in additional tax on distributions from Health Savings Accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts not used for qualified medical expenses
…..
Then of course…

....Drug manufactures will pay the government 16 Billion in the next 8 years
.....Health insurer will pay 47 Billion in the next 8 years
…..Companies with more than 50 employees would be required to pay a fee of $2,000 per worker if the company does not provide coverage and any of
of that company’s workers receives federal health care subsidies. This now has so many exemptions
allowed by the government they will not even publish how many companies have received exemptions.

I will stop at this point but asking if you see how this many "maybes and ifs" might pay for this bill. I don’t,
but maybe it will, but maybe it wont either and this is one big law to stradle on our kids and grandkids because
this will take over 12 years to pay and only a few of these items even kick in for a few years while we pay
I will stop at this point but asking if you see how this many "maybes and ifs" might pay for this bill. I don’t,

You asked about continuing in the same fashion as we are and everyon agrees we cannot do that, and
that is why I expected a bill that will cut costs. But in actually it appears that this law
will in reality INCREASE COSTS OF INSURANCE.

I will stop on costs as it will make your head spin, but keep in mind that the CBO is required to work
only with numbers supplied to them so they approving the costs are depending on the numbers supplied to
them by Obama, etal.

2. Tort reform and Medicarie fraud

You get upset when I say this but according to our President, TORT refrom and COST reduction were the keys
so I will not say a word but on Medicaire fraud it better get reduced because as you see it is
a big part of his cost justification for this law.
QUESTION….if he knows how to reduce this amount of medicaire fraud, why hasn’t there
been anything done about it ?

3. Your point on promises made is valid. What makes this a bit different is that it was the cornerstone
not only of his victory over Clinton in the primary but the campaign against McCain. This is a big big
deal for me because he made it that way, not me. They were not in my mind and
in fact I left several videos on here where he made this a BIG BIG deal, ie. The cost cutting and torty
reform, all of them in relative to what he was trying to accomplish. I was simply repeating his words

4. Insurance industry sell out

This bill is not for health care. It's for profits for the insurance conglomerates as in forcing all Americans to buy insurance with no limits on costs.
Why do you think they agree to share their profits by contributiing billions for the cost ?
When this bill got down to the wire, instead of calling in the democrats who were opposed and the Republicans
that could have been swayed, he went behind closed doors with the insurance industry and please
feel free to check me on this or anything else I have said. They made out like a bandit


I am going to stop now, but am willing at anytime to continue. This law is going to anchor this country for many years to come financially. The payment of the bill is iffy AT BEST and full of such terrible assumptions.

I have tried to keep with factual and not opinions, but had this President, at any time in his 3 years in office shown any wanting to work with EVEN HIS OWN PARTY, he could have had a great bill. To pass a bill that is so mammoth with such a mammoth cost in this manner (paying off states for votes ...see SC and LA.) which were democrats by the way. If he had just had the open hearings for everyone to participate...but his ego will not allow that. Now, yell if I said anything wrong or what, but would love to continue to discuss.

I apologize for the typing and structure but I am not that smart !


PS...TO CONSIDER PLEASE. When you pass a law that will takeover about 20% of the nations economy and you have NO Republican votes, had to pay off to get some of your own party, used procedural tricks, reconciliation in the Senate and the Slaughter rule in the House, and all polls indicate the american people dont want it, should that not make you pause ?

[Guest]

Yup, the state budget is based on a statement of priorities. And given just the few mentioned in this thread, I'd rank them...
Adopt ACA/Medicaid and better assure the health and well being of those Floridians unable to afford quality healthcare.
Make the investment in the new tech college, but maybe try to find a private partner like those that fund the University of Miami, Full Sail University or the Ringling College.
And lastly, I'd cut the toll road budget. Nice idea to eliminate the aggravating traffic jams. But it doesn't rise to he priority of health and education.


To your first point, please see the lead editorial in today's Sun. Realizing that intentions are all that matter to liberals, reflect on the fact that results matter to conservatives. There is no evidence that significantly expanding the Medicaid system will improve healthcare, rather it will encourage people and companies to rely on the system when self pay could be achieved. Rick Scott does not oppose Medicaid, but rather reckless expansion of the system that now accounts for nearly a third of the Florida State budget.

On your second point, I agree fully. FPU is essential to the future of Florida and the University of Miami model, the same as the MIT model, may be an excellent way to go, but this is an ongoing, decades long process and will not help today.

The idea of cutting the toll road budget is a non-starter. There is no budget to cut. The toll roads are self funding. Here is an example from The Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority: https://www.oocea.com/Portals/0/Fiscal%20Year%202013%20full%20document%20Draft%202 _1.pdf

Ongoing expenses, maintenance, expansion and improvement are funded by tolls. The same is true of the Florida Turnpike. Here's a list of Florida's toll roads and bridges. Florida Toll Roads and Bridge Tolls at TollFinder.com (http://www.tollfinder.com/states/FL/They) They are self-sustaining. A new 17 mile toll road is now approved for the Jacksonville area. The go-ahead did not happen until after a Florida DOT study showed that it would be self-sustaining. The Central Polk Parkway has not been approved since the FDOT study does not support it at this time.