New Dumbama was a Lazy, Chicken Shit Who Doesn't Support Our Troops

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by CJ7

that's as bad as your death panels that don't exist thread

Looks like you created another one! ...LOL

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by therock18

The video below explains everything that everyone can understand! The video below shows the person attempting to utilized Canada's socialized health care system which is what Liberals want here!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Daaammnnnn...thats fucked up.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by therock18

Because, if you read the article the board decides if you get treatment or not and what treatment. If Pill A will fix the issue but it cost more than Pill B which does not fix the issue - you will receive Pill B.

Just like that youtube link that I sent.

Point is the Gov't should not get between you and your doctor. The treatment decision should be left between you two alone. The Gov't has no business getting involved.

And what good is having access to medical care when you will be denied treatment? I do not understand why you don't get that?

And your ok with Obamacare proving the Gov't permission to go inside your home and inspect it? If you are a smoker the gov't is allowed to go in your home for inspection. If you own a firearm, the gov't is allowed to go in your home and inspect it. This is ok with you?

Obamacare WAS NOT designed for the purpose of providing healthcare to millions uninsured. Even the CBO released that with Obamacare the same amount of millions of people will be uninsured still. The purpose of Obamacare is to put the Gov't in your healthcare decisions and to control the people.

No, actually it doesn't and even if it did that is exactly what private insurance companies do today. The board decides what treatments are covered, not who gets covered by each treatment. There are covered treatments that are effective and treatments that are not covered because they are not proved effective or there is another equally effective treatment that is less expensive. This is just like private insurance, except the board is supposed to decide about whether those treatments will be covered by programs under the umbrella based on medical effectiveness AND economic factors (just like a private insurance company only supposed to be better - time will tell if that is the result, but it will be more uniform than the current patchwork quilt of coverage by private insurance).

ObamaCare was designed by Republicans as an alternative to a single payer system (and called for by Richard Nixon that commie pinko RINO in front of congress in 1973 - nevermind being what most of the rest of the advanced industrialized world has adopted) which is what the Democrats mostly favored but relented since they would never have passed due to Republican intransigence and obstructionism.

Plain bottom line fact is Republicans were for it before they were against it (just like almost everything that they are against today) and Romney signed a very similar bipartisan bill in MA with many Repubican votes sent it from a Democratically led State house.

[therock18]

“The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them,” Dean wrote in The Wall Street Journal.

The board will now determine if you get treatment or not so something standard as a stress test which is NOW covered by insurance will be denied by the IPAB board!

Saying Obamacare was designed by Republican to avoid single payer is an outright lie. Obamacare was designed, passed, and implemented by Democrats WITHOUT a Republican vote! And it was designed for the purpose to lead into single payer.

Originally Posted by austxjr

No, actually it doesn't and even if it did that is exactly what private insurance companies do today. The board decides what treatments are covered, not who gets covered by each treatment. There are covered treatments that are effective and treatments that are not covered because they are not proved effective or there is another equally effective treatment that is less expensive. This is just like private insurance, except the board is supposed to decide about whether those treatments will be covered by programs under the umbrella based on medical effectiveness AND economic factors (just like a private insurance company only supposed to be better - time will tell if that is the result, but it will be more uniform than the current patchwork quilt of coverage by private insurance).

ObamaCare was designed by Republicans as an alternative to a single payer system (and called for by Richard Nixon that commie pinko RINO in front of congress in 1973 - nevermind being what most of the rest of the advanced industrialized world has adopted) which is what the Democrats mostly favored but relented since they would never have passed due to Republican intransigence and obstructionism.

Plain bottom line fact is Republicans were for it before they were against it (just like almost everything that they are against today) and Romney signed a very similar bipartisan bill in MA with many Repubican votes sent it from a Democratically led State house.

[therock18]

In just about seven weeks, people will be able to start buying Obamacare-approved insurance plans through the new health care exchanges.

But already, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is predicting those plans, and the whole system of distributing them, will eventually be moot.

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

The idea of introducing a single-payer national health care system to the United States, or even just a public option, sent lawmakers into a tizzy back in 2009, when Reid was negotiating the health care bill.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by therock18

In just about seven weeks, people will be able to start buying Obamacare-approved insurance plans through the new health care exchanges.

Some carriers for group/employer based policies are now offering them with enrollment effective this month, which will "roll over" in January. Some are also offering temporary plans to carry new hires through December and then enroll them "permanently" in Dec 2013.The temporary polices do not cover automatically pre-existing conditions and the insureds have high premiums, high copays, and high deductibles.

The packages I've seen and reviewed for the 2014 year with current enrollments ..

have higher premiums higher deductibles, higher copays, more limited selection of doctors, limited selection of facilities, drug programs, and no copays for "screening" and "testing," but with a limited number off them. On the prescription side some previously covered drugs are no longer carried, and generics are being replaced for "patent" brand-named drugs.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Some carriers for group/employer based policies are now offering them with enrollment effective this month, which will "roll over" in January. Some are also offering temporary plans to carry new hires through December and then enroll them "permanently" in Dec 2013.The temporary polices do not cover automatically pre-existing conditions and the insureds have high premiums, high copays, and high deductibles.

The packages I've seen and reviewed for the 2014 year with current enrollments ..

have higher premiums higher deductibles, higher copays, more limited selection of doctors, limited selection of facilities, drug programs, and no copays for "screening" and "testing," but with a limited number off them. On the prescription side some previously covered drugs are no longer carried, and generics are being replaced for "patent" brand-named drugs.

you and rockhead get a room and swap stupidity

[therock18]

Damn, you're so jealous that you can't use liberal lies to make a point. Even if we were stupid as you put it - we are still thousand times smarter than you. so take the dick out of your mouth and start reading. Maybe you will be able to read a word that is larger than 3 characters and comprehend them.

Originally Posted by CJ7

you and rockhead get a room and swap stupidity

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by therock18

You want to have adults 26 yrs old on parents healthcare plans fine (its a result of Obama's failed economy). You want pre-existing conditions - fine, etc... But get government out of healthcare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMZ1ELoFIJE

So, you agree that having someone 26 years old on their parents healthcare plan is fine. You also agree that people with pre-existing conditions should still be covered. Health insurance companies in the "free" market have no interest in covering people with pre-existing conditions. This is why The Affordable Care Act is needed. The bottom line is the USA has between 30 - 50 million people who are uninsured. The Affordable Care Act will insure between 25 - 30 million of these people. They are not setting up all these state exchanges to insure just a couple hundred extra people. The uninsured need some type of health insurance coverage. We are talking about 10's of millions of people. Republican Newt Gringrich said it best last Thursday, the GOP has no alternative health care plan. Actually, they do the GOP plan is, if you don't have health insurance, then just don get sick or marry someone from Canada.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

So, you agree that having someone 26 years old on their parents healthcare plan is fine. You also agree that people with pre-existing conditions should still be covered. Health insurance companies in the "free" market have no interest in covering people with pre-existing conditions. This is why The Affordable Care Act is needed. The bottom line is the USA has between 30 - 50 million people who are uninsured. The Affordable Care Act will insure between 25 - 30 million of these people. They are not setting up all these state exchanges to insure just a couple hundred extra people. The uninsured need some type of health insurance coverage. We are talking about 10's of millions of people. Republican Newt Gringrich said it best last Thursday, the GOP has no alternative health care plan. Actually, they do the GOP plan is, if you don't have health insurance, then just don get sick or marry someone from Canada.

#1: Someone 26 years old ought to have their own insurance for the past 8 years.
#2: You might want to review the law and regs under the ACA on "pre-existing conditions"!
#3: The government cannot force insurance companies to accept the mandates.
#4: By requiring carriers to meet certain criteria the carriers just don't offer the coverge.
#5: As more and more carriers drop out of health care for individuals a one-payer system results.
#6: There are roughly 75 million now on Medicaid and about 6-7 million on Medicare.
#7: So you want 100 to 120 million on Medicaid. We are not talking "10's" of millions.
#8; You are suggesting that 1/3 of the U.S. population need the taxpayers to provide coverage for them
#9: What you are saying is that ACA is the best the Democrats can do to solve the "problem".
#10: Put the uninsured on Medicaid whether they like it or not. Pass Federal legislation to provide immunity for those providers who refuse to treat those who do not present a valid insurance coverage (including Medicaid or Medicare). Deduct a premium for their benefits checks, tax refunds, and/or any other source of revenue. Establish "death panels" with specific regulations for those on Medicaid and Medicare. Reinstate the full deduction for health insurance premiums (dental and visual) and noncovered expenses for health care (dental and visual, as well as travel and time off from work (lost wages).

I have not heard of employer based group plans that do not insure pre-existing conditions .... so a key in the solution is get people back to work on a basis that provides them with an opportunity to benefit from employer based group plans.

If the government wants to "reduce health care costs" it can only do that by "price controls"! IMO the "one payer" system, which is the now announced goal of the ACA, will result in "price controls" on health care costs ... as is effectively done with Medicare and Medicaid, EXCEPT providers push up the costs by inflating their own charges to "civilian" carriers.

What all the above will achieve by default is a two tier system of health care in this country. One for the haves and one for the have nots. The "haves" will include the employed with group plans, as well as those who have sufficient discretionary funds to purchase "Cadillac" premiums .... or can travel over seas to benefit from lower cost procedures. In other words: Not much will change in the reality, except the 30 million will be "covered" whether they like it or not.

If you want to know what adding 30 million recipients to the mix will cost the taxpayers (Federal and State) look at the total cost for MEDICAID ALONE and divide that in half ... add that amount back in to the total cost now. Then each year factor in 3% inflation (with the knowledge that it should be adjusted if REAL inflation exceeds 3%).

[Yssup Rider]

I will be able to swap my incredibly expensive self-employed insurance for the Exchange and save at least a grand a month.

Whine and moan all you want. Im pretty goddamned happy about this.