A simple question
 

For those that want to cancel healthcare:

1. Are you willing to deny care for those without cash or insurance?

2. If no to 1. are we not paying for it anyway?

I look at it in simple math and may be wrong, but I am not alone one this.

Are you kidding me??? Where have you been? Those without insurance and/or cash are NOT denied in this country. Walk into any emergency room hospital and look around. Matter of fact wait in line while those who are here ILLEGALLY are in front of you!! What a joke.

If God forbid the Joker gets in again, you can kiss your health care goodbye, your doctors and nurses too!! Great life, socialism !!

Absolutely wrong!!!

"If God forbid the Joker gets in again, you can kiss your health care goodbye, your doctors and nurses too!!"

I do not see any conservative posters on here chastising you on "cute or obnoxious names" for public figures. Does not bother me as it bothers them.

However, what proof do you have about kissing healthcare, doctors, and nurses goodbye? I did see a TeaParty poll that was faxed to doctors and the percentage of doctors that said they were going to retire if ACA came in, were from doctors of retirement age. Totally bogus poll.

Remember, the same was said of HMO's when they first appeared. They provide excellent care. I wish I had my Kaiser HMO available in The Villages.

ObamaCare Is Not HealthCare
 

ObamaCare was created in a partisan and back room environment comprised of well over 2,000 pages that is going to have an affect on 6% of our GDP.

ObamaCare is not about chnages in health care. ObamaCare is about drastic changes in insurance coverage. There is materially no change to our weary health care system. All ObamaCare has accomplished is to add several million more people who now have access to a broader cafateria of benefits that is going to negatively affect an already broken health care system.

In addition it is going to have a adverse affect on citizens insurance. And to add insult to injury ObamaCare is going to raise or create 21 new/revised taxes. The CBO has already disputed Team Obama's cost and tax projections which are clearly to the deteriment to taxpayers. It is clear at this juncture that treatment will eventually have to be rationed not only from a cost aspect but also because the health care system will not be able to sustain the heavy patient loads.

This another one of those issues that causes my brow to furrow when I see or hear confuse citizens in a congratualtory mode. Hmmmmmmmm

I had an experience recently that highlights the issue with not requiring everyone to have health insurance. I had routine blood work done at the hospital. In the past six months I had the same blood work done at the doctor's office. The hospital charged me $426.40 while the doctor's office charged me $57.34 for the exact same blood tests.

I have insurance except I have a high deductible policy ($5000) which costs me $6000 per year. So as I am responsible for these charges, I contacted the hospital administration and asked them to justify these exorbitant charges. This is, in part, the response: "Hospitals provide a guaranteed access point for emergency needs, where care is provided to patients regardless their ability to pay. This is a factor considered in setting hospital charges for all hospitals."

One thing that I found very interesting is if I had not had a high deductible policy - based on the explanation of benefits, my insurance company would have been required to pay the $426.40 charge. I also wonder what Medicare would have paid for this service. When I had company paid, no deductible insurance, I won't have given this exorbitant charge a second thought. And I wonder how many Medicare recipients actually look at what is being charged not simply at what they are required to pay.

Everyone needs health insurance so that hospitals can no longer use this as an excuse to inflate charges that everyone, particularly those with health insurance and those taxpayers who are paying for Medicare. I also think that those with health insurance (public or private) need to be smarter consumers and not just simply think, a third party is paying for this so I don't have to care what the costs are.

and you picture the Illegals not being in the ER after the election if your guy wins?

:1rotfl: so true

The people who do the most complaining about The Affordable Care Act are people who either have Medicare or their own private insurance. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear from the 50 million who don't have insurance who will be able to purchase it from the exchanges starting in 2014. Would also like to hear from the women who are now eligible for free preventive services, effective Aug 1, 2012, and also those young people who are allowed to stay on their parents insurance policies until they are 26 years old.

How about people with pre-existing conditions who can't be discriminated against or people who can't be dropped because you got sick, or people who won't have lifetime caps put on their insurance? Let's hear from some of these individuals about how they feel about the ACA and not from people on Medicare.

These are all facets of the ACA that Mitt Romney will be taking away from people when he repeals the ACA as promised, with no promises of any replacement.

:bigbow:

20-30 years from now the US will look back at the AHCA and consider it landmark legislation and folks will wonder why so many right wingers opposed such a positive step for our society. :icon_wink:

That's the way the Country is going. The "haves" saying to Hell with the "have nots". There are folks that would have people suffering with no insurance or sitting for hours in the ER. We all pay for that BTW. I agree though that the ones that have coverage are the most vocal. What do they care?

20-30 years from now if ObamaCare was not repealed in 2012/13 the country will be related to a third world status.

You are absolutely right. I would love to see the right come up with a more human way to kill off poor people rather than making them suffer and die without medical help just because they are poor.

I mean; even the good Samaritan act requires us to help someone in distress, come on Right wing, Have a heart.

The 50 million figure is inflated it is more like 10 million all of whom have access to health care. No one is arguing against dropping pre-existing limitation including uber -con. Lifetime caps are seldom if ever met.

When the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare individual mandate a tax health care stock went through the roof...meaning that if people believe hosiptals et al over charge now just wait until the government completely takes over.

There are many people and corporations that believe it is cheaper to pay the penalty then to join ObamaCare.

Clearly we need to make adjustments to our present healthcare system but to throw the baby out with the bathwater and into a money pit no less is just not economically smart

"There's no question that the 50 million people who don't have health insurance right now are the greatest beneficiaries of this decision" said Jonathon Oberlander, Professor of Health Policy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, speaking of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act.


What the Health Care Law Decision Means for You

are you all of the opinion that the "50 million" who do not have health care are going to miraculously get it for free?

In that 50 million number are millions who choose not to have insurance and spend the money elsewhere. They will also be the same ones who will not sign up and wait and see if anybody comes after them. It is a good gamble wouldn't you all agree?

If millions can can across our borders and be ILLEGAL with no reprecussions,
there is certainly no risk in not following the insurance law....right?

We all agree to help the needy and less fortunate. Some of us do not agree with giving to the lazy, those collecting illegally and the you owe me crowd which number in the multi millions.

When some of us take a position of not supporting the bail outs and the give aways it is because of the multi millions who do not deserve to be on the list......and run no risk of being terminated even when found out.

And there are some of us who once upon a time never had two nickels to rub together and spent most of our lives busting our a$$e$ to get what we eventually EARNED made sure that never happens to us or our loved ones again.

Yes I object to the free loaders that are known and allowed for political reasons to continue. I object to the new free loaders who see that and get on band wagons formed by the likes of Obama's buy the public's support programs and I will take care of you.

For some of you to categorize some as not caring just because we refuse to roll over and support WHOLE SALE UN-WARENTED give aways....you are as usual out in left field (pun definitely intended).

btk

Oh come on now, where did you pull that one from?

Yah right. :blahblahblah:

I post reluctantly on this topic because I suspect any response will be about the conditions and terms of the law and I am speaking on ONLY THE COST.

In 2010, the 10 year cost according to the CBO was 944 Billion.

This past July the CBO said it has risen to 1,856 Billion and is rising.

In 2010 the CBO estimated tax increases of 626 Billion from 2013-2019 and 631 Billion over 10 years.

Now, the tax increases are estimated at 672 Billion from 2013-2019 and 1,221 Billion and rising.

This and this law does not even address health costs or tort reform WHICH was originally the idea !

This has NOTHING to do with the benefits, but surely you can see how this cost is rising each and every month and is going to become an anchor on our economy for a long long time !

Where will this money come from ? I invite all of you, if you care about this countries very survival financially, read how this is supposed to paid for.

and the cost of the uninsured being treated is........?

I call to your attention, as nice as possible, that all agreed about health care costs being a burden, a problem and something that had to be dealt with...all agreed on that ......probably as close to 100% as you can get...so your point is well taken.

Then we elected a man who made promises, promises that I supported at the time and waited anxiously. He backed down on ALL of them......mainly....will have both parties in a public discussion to work toward an answer....will come up with a bill to address health care costs, that, in his words.."must include tort reform but must address the cost of health care".....must be totally transparent in getting to the law because of the fact everyone agreed on the problem

What we got was NONE of what he said...NONE. This law does no address health care costs, does not include any tort reform, was done with backroom deals (remember, he used blackmail to even get his final democratic votes becuase they didnt want it)...was entirely the opposite of transparent and actually was so secret that nobody read it.

So your question, I hope is just jiving because we all agree with you..problem is that we were totally duped...totally and now we have a mess that will never ever get paid for and does nothing for health care costs. So, get ready...the costs will continue to rise for all of us.....and the cost of this bill is an albatross !

The title of this thread is misleading. There is nothing "simple" about this 2700+ page law.

If you've ever tried reading it, you quickly see that there is everything but the kitchen sink embedded in and tangled up in this healthcare FINANCE--not health CARE--package.

As the endless confusion and quagmire of this massive health finance package unfolds, here is one of the biggest reasons many of us dread how all of our health care will be hugely affected, adversely:

What IS scandalous and the President is silent about this “unelected issue” is this…

by Greta Van Susteren

April 2 2012 - 3:29 PM ET

The Supreme Court has the power to review the constitutionality of the health care law (and any other law) Marbury v. Madison, Supreme Court, 1803. So do not be disturbed by them reviewing the health care law. That IS their job.

What may disturb you is that not one member of Congress READ the bill before voting for it…and the President sure didn’t read it before he SIGNED it.

But, to get to the President’s point about ‘unelected officials’ (see prior posting) – AND WHAT IS SCANDALOUS – is that after the 2700 page law was signed by the President, it got sent to HHS for them to create rules to implement.

Those who are writing these rules – and there are thousands of rules expected – are not only NOT elected, we don’t ever learn their names.

They are simply government employees at the HHS with ENORMOUS power over your lives and you have zero say about it. You can’t vote them out of office – they aren’t elected and you don’t know their names!

Yes, THAT is scandalous because they have so much power over your life. Congress – our elected officials – should write the rules. They are answerable to us. (End of Greta Van Susteren's commentary)

Now read this, from a different essay writer:

(excerpt)...The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they, and not Congress, would subsequently write.

For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something, and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action.

On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.

American Thinker- Print Article

431 COMMENTS
What IS scandalous and the President is silent about this “unelected issue” is this… « Gretawire

A supertanker boatload of outrageously exaggerated generalizations!!

Bucco, this is the verbatim stuff you've been challenged on, point-by-point in the past. You later admitted it was either overstated or not what you really meant, (my words/your meaning). Now you dredge it up again. :ohdear:

excuse me - but aren't poor people [and illegal aliens, too] getting free medical care in hospitals, emergency rooms and clinics that taxpayers are paying for in every state's budget for charity care/uncompensated care? aren't hospitals tacking on a fee to all services to offset the charity care/uncompensated care they are required to provide?

if poor people are dying because of no medical help - who is costing these medical providers so much money? and why are the poor people in hospitals, emergency rooms and clinics if they are dying off?

thanx for the great clarification re why so many of us do not support obamacare. :ho:

And that is what Obam's plan is fixing so please don't let a Rep destroy all that has been gained.

its called "hyperbole" in order to emphasis a point...the point being ObamaCare is unaffordable and one cannot rely on the government to restrict spending. Just as the 50 million uninsured figure is hyberbole that when detailed drops to about 10 million people removing those who won't pay for a health pan, illegal aliens, etc

The ACA saves money (and lives)
 

Great point. An article in our own highly left wing newspaper looked at the cost issue. See the Daily Sun July 25th, page A11 after the Supreme court decision
"Health care overhaul will shrink ...the nation's federal deficits over the next decade" "Republicans have insisted Obamacare will actually raise deficits by "trillions" according to Mitt Romney But that's not so the CBO said." On the other hand repealing the ACA "would itself boost the deficit by 109 billion from2013 to 2022"

The CBO is not always right, but it is non-partisan and uses best available evidence to do its calculations. The ACA "Obamacare" is going to lower the federal deficit in every calculation they have done.

I suppose it must be my old age, but I sure do not recall what you are saying...I certainly have said it over and over but do not recall any rebutall.

1. EVERYONE agreed that health costs were a problem when Obama made his proposal.

2. We were promised an open debate, transparency, a law that addressed health costs, and tort reform and we got none of that

3. He had to give "payoffs" (I will admit that payoff is my word) to LA and SC to even have it passed under a obscure rule in the senate.

4. We have a health law that does not address health care costs in any way nor tort reform.

5. We have a law where the cost is rising so fast it is close to double the original in 2010

Which is untrue and I assure you when shown the light I will stop talking about it...which of those items is not true ?

I have posted this many times, and yes I recall you challenging me and I wrote a lengthy response on which you never responded; I will attempt to locate that thread

Actually I did find it....post #25 on the thread WHO'S GOING TO PAY was my response to your challenge and you never responded to that.
Here is a link I hope.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...tml#post522371

Is this from someone who sits home, attends nothing , speaks to NO doctors and of course knows nothing. It's funny. I'm telling you what the DOCTORS are saying and you still don't believe it. The sheep being led to slaughter. what else is there to say? common sense isn't common anymore. Sad Those who don't believe hopefully will be the first to wait and wait and wait in line while they need the knee or hip. Good luck with that.

I never chastised a progressive poster from using ridicule as a weapon. I only pointed out where that tactic comes from and what is usually the political bent of those who use it. It is an effective tactic, especially if you cannot win on the ideas.

Oh, and to answer the question from post #1, yes.

excuse me again - but if poor people are in emergency rooms/clinics receiving medical care at taxpayers expense - how can you say they are dying?

What I meant to say is that if people go to emergency rooms for care and they do not have insurance or money, Medicare picks it up.

Also, emergency room visits cost a lot more than clinics and Dr offices.

Also, without medical check ups, people get so bad before they see a doctor, that some of them die.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.