| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/01/2013 06:32:19 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by bohemka:
cynicism and apathy do us no favors. |
cynicism and apathy are the only legal, non-violent recourse I have. :P |
I hear ya. In fact, I'm going to go grab a nice tall glass of cynicism and apathy. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 07:33:57 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by bohemka:
cynicism and apathy do us no favors. |
cynicism and apathy are the only legal, non-violent recourse I have. :P |
I hear ya. In fact, I'm going to go grab a nice tall glass of cynicism and apathy. |
 |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 08:18:39 PM · #403 |
| We're gonna need a stronger drink. |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 08:22:30 PM · #404 |
"What exactly would the White House's "middle ground" be in this situation? What kind of 'compromise' can be made when one side is demanding concessions in exchange for something both sides want? And doesn't it seem the Republican strategy is designed specifically so there is no middle-ground option for Obama to take, making compromise impossible?" |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 08:23:57 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
We're gonna need a stronger drink. |
  |
|
|
|
10/01/2013 08:26:36 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"What exactly would the White House's "middle ground" be in this situation? |
Repeal the Second Amendment? |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 09:45:21 AM · #407 |
| So, my husband and I have been trying to apply for a policy on the New York State exchange website, haven't been successful yet in completing the application due to high traffic (7.5 million unique hits on Day 1, over 30 million hits altogether up to this point). But, we have managed to get far enough into the process to know that our premium will be in the range of $3,000/yr. to $6,000/yr., depending on the coverage we choose. That is as compared to a minimum of nearly $15,000/yr. before the Affordable Care Act. Thank you very much, President Obama!! |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 05:41:44 PM · #408 |
Let's see ...
The Senate has passed a Continuing Resolution funding bill.
The Speaker of the House refuses to let the House membership vote that bill up or down.
Who is "responsible" for the the "shutdown" again ...? |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 05:42:24 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Let's see ...
The Senate has passed a Continuing Resolution funding bill.
The Speaker of the House refuses to let the House membership vote that bill up or down.
Who is "responsible" for the the "shutdown" again ...? |
The entire lot of 'em, that's who. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 05:53:01 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
So, my husband and I have been trying to apply for a policy on the New York State exchange website, haven't been successful yet in completing the application due to high traffic (7.5 million unique hits on Day 1, over 30 million hits altogether up to this point). But, we have managed to get far enough into the process to know that our premium will be in the range of $3,000/yr. to $6,000/yr., depending on the coverage we choose. That is as compared to a minimum of nearly $15,000/yr. before the Affordable Care Act. Thank you very much, President Obama!! |
And I now have to go shopping, since Humana has decided to stop offering coverage in New Mexico concurrent with the beginning of this program.
Honestly, I don't give a shit what I'm saving, I liked my plan, it was fine, and I don't want to spend another couple of days having to deal with this.
Now, here's my fear - everyone with health insurance, fewer doctors, more patients, lower margins.
I already won't even go in for anything that's not visibly spilling blood or crispy blackened due to the poor level of service and the fact that I end up so angry and upset that I'd rather just deal with whatever ails me instead of dealing with the screwed up excuse of a health-care system we have.
Aside from the fundamental issue with the idea that health insurance isn't health insurance, if home insurance worked like health insurance I'd be putting in insurance claims every time I needed to change a lightbulb.
What a mess. Not that it worked well before this, but I can't forsee this being anything but a disimprovement, and it's certainly annoying me with the need to now reevaluate all the options instead of doing the other 100 things that I'd prefer to/need to be doing.
Message edited by author 2013-10-03 17:53:43. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 06:22:40 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Let's see ...
The Senate has passed a Continuing Resolution funding bill.
The Speaker of the House refuses to let the House membership vote that bill up or down.
Who is "responsible" for the the "shutdown" again ...? |
The entire lot of 'em, that's who. |
Your logic doesn't follow -- the "entire lot of them" is not refusing to hold a vote to get things going again -- just one person, who's being held hostage by thirty or so radicals in the Republican party ... |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 06:50:14 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I already won't even go in for anything that's not visibly spilling blood or crispy blackened due to the poor level of service and the fact that I end up so angry and upset that I'd rather just deal with whatever ails me instead of dealing with the screwed up excuse of a health-care system we have. |
Cory have you eve been in Europe or Canada and had one of those emergency trips to the hospital? I have a few times, and it was very strange in it's simplicity. Seeing a doctor walking around the emergency room from patient to patient doing triage on patients as they walked in the door instead of the 25 minute wait to see the lady who is only concerned with your coverage, was a nice change. I want that. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 06:55:33 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Let's see ...
The Senate has passed a Continuing Resolution funding bill.
The Speaker of the House refuses to let the House membership vote that bill up or down.
Who is "responsible" for the the "shutdown" again ...? |
The entire lot of 'em, that's who. |
Your logic doesn't follow -- the "entire lot of them" is not refusing to hold a vote to get things going again -- just one person, who's being held hostage by thirty or so radicals in the Republican party ... |
They've all got a hand in this. Sure, at the moment we've got the speaker holding up everything, but give it a week, there'll be some new issue.
Frankly I'm just so very tired of all of them, they're nearly universally more interested in their career in politics than anything else. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 06:57:18 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
I already won't even go in for anything that's not visibly spilling blood or crispy blackened due to the poor level of service and the fact that I end up so angry and upset that I'd rather just deal with whatever ails me instead of dealing with the screwed up excuse of a health-care system we have. |
Cory have you eve been in Europe or Canada and had one of those emergency trips to the hospital? I have a few times, and it was very strange in it's simplicity. Seeing a doctor walking around the emergency room from patient to patient doing triage on patients as they walked in the door instead of the 25 minute wait to see the lady who is only concerned with your coverage, was a nice change. I want that. |
Me too, but this won't even come close. If I thought that's what I'd get I'd gladly pay 2x the amount I pay now. GLADLY.
Instead, I think now our already stressed and overloaded health-care system will be beset with 3x the patients. Don't see how that will really work in anyone's favor.
Message edited by author 2013-10-03 18:57:29. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 07:16:49 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Instead, I think now our already stressed and overloaded health-care system will be beset with 3x the patients. Don't see how that will really work in anyone's favor. |
Only 1/6 of the population is without current coverage, so I don't see how that translates in 3x the patients. I though math was your strong suit.
However, given that, it sounds like a great time to go to nursing/NP/PA/medical school ...
Message edited by author 2013-10-03 19:17:14. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 07:59:43 PM · #416 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Instead, I think now our already stressed and overloaded health-care system will be beset with 3x the patients. Don't see how that will really work in anyone's favor. |
Only 1/6 of the population is without current coverage, so I don't see how that translates in 3x the patients. I though math was your strong suit.
However, given that, it sounds like a great time to go to nursing/NP/PA/medical school ... |
I believe the Affordable Care Act addresses the issue of doctor shortages in several ways, providing funds to train more primary care physicians and nurses and physician assistants, incentives such as loan forgiveness, an increase in scholarships, bonuses for treating Medicare patients, etc. I can't remember all the incentives at the moment, but the authors of the law were aware of the problem. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 08:02:12 PM · #417 |
Since the bill was signed into law, have the Republicans proposed any changes to improve it at all? They tried to repeal it 42 times, but have they proposed any improvements. ...Now they want more time??? They're afraid it's going to be popular, if they didn't they would ride it's failures into the next 2 elections. What they're doing now is more harmful to the public than long waits in the waiting room and bigger premiums. The latter of which is already being proved wrong. Also, if I have to wait longer in the waiting room in return for more people getting healthcare, then I'm in!
Message edited by author 2013-10-03 20:03:06. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 09:02:40 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by cynthiann:
Since the bill was signed into law, have the Republicans proposed any changes to improve it at all? |
Who are we kidding? The current actions have nothing whatsoever to do with how good or bad Obamacare might be, and scary claims regarding costs, jobs and premiums are readily disproven by the very sources they rely upon. This is nothing more or less than a perceived opportunity to get something in exchange for allowing a vote on must-pass legislation. Rep. Marlin Stutzman flatly stated exactly that, and Obamacare is just one checkmark on the policy wish list. Whatever you may personally think of the ACA, can anyone look at that list and honestly say EACH of these things is worth shutting down the government or threatening to default on America's debts? Of course not.
This afternoon, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said "democrats should drop their ‘no negotiations’ stance, and work with us on a plan to raise the debt limit in a responsible way, with spending cuts and reforms to get our economy moving again and create jobs.” Read that carefully. Obamacare is a net savings and healthcare reform was never proposed, so we're not even talking about healthcare anymore. They've just moved on to other things on the list in exchange for not killing the country. The Keystone pipeline perhaps? As if the strategy of demanding policy at gunpoint weren't reprehensible enough, the clean Continuing Resolution passed by the Senate was already a compromise that kept government funding at sequester levels. That would be the very same sequester levels that Boehner himself said hurts the economy and threatens jobs. His spokesman is literally asking us to believe that now the issue important enough to risk global economic collapse is the need to make cuts beyond those hurting the economy and threatening jobs to get our economy moving again and create jobs! |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 09:02:56 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Instead, I think now our already stressed and overloaded health-care system will be beset with 3x the patients. Don't see how that will really work in anyone's favor. |
Only 1/6 of the population is without current coverage, so I don't see how that translates in 3x the patients. I though math was your strong suit.
However, given that, it sounds like a great time to go to nursing/NP/PA/medical school ... |
I believe the Affordable Care Act addresses the issue of doctor shortages in several ways, providing funds to train more primary care physicians and nurses and physician assistants, incentives such as loan forgiveness, an increase in scholarships, bonuses for treating Medicare patients, etc. I can't remember all the incentives at the moment, but the authors of the law were aware of the problem. |
I strongly, strongly suspect your 1/6 figures. I'm good enough with math, but not so great with politics, and that sort of polling is rarely unbiased or completely accurate.
Let me ask you this, do you think that 1/6 will need more than average medical care? Do you think they might tend to take advantage of it?
Another issue of course is the problem of time - an unemployed person who is not under time pressure can much more easily afford to take a couple of days to sort something out, I really don't have the time, and there's nothing worse than waiting for hours after you arrived at the scheduled time. This translates out into working persons paying more for their coverage and using it less, while the non-working persons are taking more advantage of the coverage and essentially not paying for it.
I'm just highly suspicious and see about a thousand ways this train can derail hard.
Whatever, I just hope you two optimists are right.
Message edited by author 2013-10-03 21:06:47. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 09:37:19 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I strongly, strongly suspect your 1/6 figures. |
They're not his figures. The number of uninsured Americans comes from the U.S. Census, and it's actually slightly below 1/6. Your claim of 3X the patients would mean 67% currently lack health insurance. Does that sound more accurate to you?
Originally posted by Cory:
an unemployed person who is not under time pressure can much more easily afford to take a couple of days to sort something out, I really don't have the time, and there's nothing worse than waiting for hours after you arrived at the scheduled time. This translates out into working persons paying more for their coverage and using it less, while the non-working persons are taking more advantage of the coverage and essentially not paying for it. |
Appalling. Shall we offer full-timers an HOV lane at the grocery store and sort DMV lines by income since your time is so much more precious than a furloughed teacher?
Message edited by author 2013-10-03 21:39:43. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 09:47:27 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
I strongly, strongly suspect your 1/6 figures. |
They're not his figures. The number of uninsured Americans comes from the U.S. Census, and it's actually slightly below 1/6. Your claim of 3X the patients would mean 67% currently lack health insurance. Does that sound more accurate to you?
Originally posted by Cory:
an unemployed person who is not under time pressure can much more easily afford to take a couple of days to sort something out, I really don't have the time, and there's nothing worse than waiting for hours after you arrived at the scheduled time. This translates out into working persons paying more for their coverage and using it less, while the non-working persons are taking more advantage of the coverage and essentially not paying for it. |
Appalling. Shall we offer full-timers an HOV lane at the grocery store and sort DMV lines by income since your time is so much more precious than a furloughed teacher? |
Sure if they're willing to pay for it. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 09:49:29 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Sure if they're willing to pay for it. |
Then you can also pay more for private insurance and private doctors. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 10:02:40 PM · #423 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
Sure if they're willing to pay for it. |
Then you can also pay more for private insurance and private doctors. |
I've been with private insurance, and would have gladly stayed with it, but they are cancelling my policy and leaving the state.. Private doctors? Pfft. right. Where the hell are those? Not here.... So, what is a public doctor? Do we now get some sort of 'clinic style' no appointment doctors? Is that what you think defines quality healthcare?
Message edited by author 2013-10-03 22:03:10. |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 10:27:05 PM · #424 |
Update: a House Republican said tonight that they could go back to the chained CPI demand for Social Security, possibly in exchange for reducing the sequester cuts (more spending). "It's a pretty common view among Republicans that we've done way too much. So some of the spending can be restored. ... Then the president's going to get some of what he wants, for domestic initiatives, Head Start and whatever." So you see, it was never about the supposed evils of Obamacare or even deficit reduction. It's just a craven ploy for the minority to ransom policy concessions that they can't get through democracy.
Same congressman: "The irony of this is that the guys who got us into this mess won't be there to cut the deal that gets us out. And they will attack the people that actually come to the deal, and profit by it politically," he said. "This is more about political position for a few members. For most of them I don't question their motives." |
|
|
|
10/03/2013 10:35:56 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by Richard Reeves:
Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, put it this way:
"The Constitution requires the president to spend what Congress has instructed him to spend, to raise only those taxes Congress has authorized him to impose and to borrow no more than Congress authorizes. ... Lawyers tend to play down policy considerations as a basis for interpreting law. In this case, the consequences are so overwhelmingly on one side that they cannot be ignored by the president and should not be ignored by the courts. If the debt ceiling is not increased, the president should disregard it, and honor spending and tax legislation....
"If President Obama spends what the law orders him to spend and collects the taxes Congress has authorized him to collect, then he must borrow more than Congress has authorized him to borrow. If the debt ceiling is not raised, he will have to violate one of these constitutional imperatives. Which should he choose?"
If it comes to that, even House Speaker John Boehner, allegedly the leader of House Republicans, including the 30 or 40 members who apparently do want to destroy government, says he will do whatever he can to prevent the mid-October default. Boehner may be weak, but he is no fool. He does not want to be the boy on the burning deck as the ship of state is sinking.
And the president will certainly choose to pay the bills and keep the government running. And then the tea party crazies will try to dump Boehner and impeach Obama. That will be their last resort, unless they are planning to burn down the Capitol and the White House. Maybe that's their Plan B. |
|
|
