If Corporations are people...

123457

Replies

  • joekrz wrote: »
    Nope. Not at all. Doesn't bother me one bit.



    40+ million to go...

    This. Even if all 7 million pay, about half of those are only their because their health insurance was canceled under the ACA. Whoop-di-doo.

    Peggy Noonan asks an interesting question today. Knowing what you know now, would you still support this law?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79776284/
    "Most of them were already insured": The argument here is that if we've just moved people from one insurance plan to another, we've just been wasting Americans' time and subjecting them to an onerous bureaucratic procedure as well.

    The claim is based primarily on a survey in January from McKinsey and Co., which concluded that only 11% of exchange enrollees had been previously uninsured. A McKinsey survey a month later raised that figure to 27% -- still low, compared to expectations.

    The major problem with the McKinsey survey is that doesn't say what its hawkers claim. The survey combines on-exchange enrollments and off-exchange enrollments; the latter are likely to heavily skew figures toward the previously insured because those are most likely people signing up again with their existing carriers. The goal of the exchange marketplaces, however, is to reach uninsured Americans. The McKinsey surveys don't break out on-exchange signups, but it's probably that the share of previously uninsureds in that group is higher than the combined total.

    The few states that do break out their own numbers reinforce that expectation. Kentucky says that some 75% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. New York says that about 60% of its exchange enrollees were previously uninsured. That number has been rising over time, raising the prospect that the March surge will include an even higher ratio of uninsured customers; Gaba, who has calculated a time series of New York enrollments based on the state's monthly news releases, calculates that of enrollees in mid-February, at least 92% had been uninsured.

    http://wfpl.org/post/over-quarter-million-kentuckians-are-newly-insured-under-affordable-care-act
    A vast majority of Kentuckians who have signed up for healthcare plans under the Affordable Care Act are going to be insured for the first time in their lives.

    More than 370,000 Kentuckians have signed up for health coverage under the state’s insurance exchange, KyNect. The Governor’s Office reports that the number of enrollees “surged” in the days before the March 31st open enrollment deadline, with about 12,000 signing up for coverage on the deadline.

    Here are the key numbers:

    8.6: The percentage of the state's population who have signed up through KyNect.
    75: The percentage of enrollees who are reported to not have any health insurance before signing up
    35: Half of the enrollees are reportedly under 35-years-old. This is a key demographic needed for the federal healthcare overhaul to work and keep costs down
    294,000: The number of enrollees who are qualified for Medicaid, which was expanded under the ACA
    77,000: The number of enrollees who purchased private insurance
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 10,000 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Very questionable as he still must faithfully execute the laws. The courts could legitimately ask why major deadlines have been changed - like the employer mandate - even after a law was passed four years earlier.

    It's possible, and with this law and this reactionary political activist-controlled court it may even be likely.

    But the concept of faithfully executing the laws has almost as many shades of gray as right or wrong, good or bad. Many, many laws are not enforced although they remain on the books. Previous administrations often have ignored laws they did not like, leaving untouched funds Congress appropriated for their implementation.

    (I'm about to leave for a day of doctors, a museum open house and a fly fishing banquet, but you can look it up if you choose to)
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    I believe the law actually allows the executive branch to set deadlines.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • The law does not allow the executive branch to set the deadline. Even Nancy Pelosi knew that.

    I'm not going to look up the McKinsey study, but the left-leaning Urban Institute came out with a survey yesterday that suggested that 5.4 million Americans will be getting insurance that didn't have insurance last year (still a long way away from 48 million people).

    The Urban Institute notes that the biggest decrease in uninsured rates came in states that expanded Medicaid (4% decline versus 2%). If 50% of the population live in expansion states (it's probably more as the only big non-expansion states are Florida and Texas), then of that 5.4 million, half got coverage through expanded Medicare.

    As I've said before we didn't need the ACA and 3,000 pages of law to expand Medicaid.
    And Kentucky, btw, is a Medicaid expansion state.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    As I've said before we didn't need the ACA and 3,000 pages of law to expand Medicaid.
    And Kentucky, btw, is a Medicaid expansion state.

    This is the part that liberals have a hard time grasping. Their only argument (and not even a valid one) is that the GOP states wouldn't have allowed it.

    Without ACA around, I'm positive medicaid expansion would have been accepted everywhere...even by the GOP states.

    It would have accomplished the same thing as ACA without all of the headaches and 3000 pages of BS.






    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    Like the GOP ever proposed it or would not be doing the same amount of screaming and yelling they are doing now if that is what was passed. However it still would not have done a **** thing about insurance companies collecting your money and refusing to pay for treatment. Alan Grayson was right, the Republican solution is for you to die quickly.

    And how is it not a valid argument? Have the GOP governors allowed the medicaid expansion?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    The GOP governors that have denied Medicaid expansion did so because of ACA in its current format. Simplify it and they wouldn't have.

    -Eliminate pre existing conditions
    -Kids stay on insurance until 26
    -Eliminate lifetime benefit cap
    -Medicaid expansion in all states to help the poor and uninsured.
    -Certain essential benefits covered
    -No individual mandates
    -No employer mandates.

    Simple as that.

    Bill could probably have been less than 100 pages, there would have been less resistance and it would have accomplished the same thing.

    Let's be honest here. There were no cost saving measures that saved anyone money that purchases insurance off the exchange. Or cost saving measures for people on employer sponsored insurance plans.

    What we ended up with is policies being cancelled, people choosing to pay the fine instead of purchasing insurance because its cheaper, Employers reducing hours or employees so they don't have to provide insurance, certain specialty hospitals and doctors that are choosing not to participate in exchange plans and doubled premiums for those that don't qualify for the exchange.

    All of that for a whole 15% of the population that was uninsured...



    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »
    The GOP governors that have denied Medicaid expansion did so because of ACA in its current format. Simplify it and they wouldn't have.

    -Eliminate pre existing conditions
    -Kids stay on insurance until 26
    -Eliminate lifetime benefit cap
    -Medicaid expansion in all states to help the poor and uninsured.
    -Certain essential benefits covered
    -No individual mandates
    -No employer mandates.

    Simple as that.

    Bill could probably have been less than 100 pages, there would have been less resistance and it would have accomplished the same thing.

    Let's be honest here. There were no cost saving measures that saved anyone money that purchases insurance off the exchange. Or cost saving measures for people on employer sponsored insurance plans.

    What we ended up with is policies being cancelled, people choosing to pay the fine instead of purchasing insurance because its cheaper, Employers reducing hours or employees so they don't have to provide insurance, certain specialty hospitals and doctors that are choosing not to participate in exchange plans and doubled premiums for those that don't qualify for the exchange.

    All of that for a whole 15% of the population that was uninsured...



    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

    This is the funniest post I have ever read. How many Republicans do you think would vote for that? As Steven stated you cannot have pre-existing conditions without a mandate.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    Maybe you misunderstood me.

    I was insinuating that as part of a simplified ACA plan that we keep the provision that insurance companies can't deny you for pre-existing conditions.

    I personally believe the republicans would have went along with a simpler plan that would also include Medicaid expansion.

    Glad you found that funny and that I could make you laugh.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,560 Senior Member
    ACA is costing everyone a $hit ton.... that's it in a nutshell.
    Nothing affordable about it for most people and I definitely can't blame most for just taking the penalty.
    When's the next rollback? This thing's a joke, late-night comedians are even cashing in on it.
    Most people are pretty pissed, regardless of mainstream media bs which I don't watch. The wind is blowing south on this one.
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,149 Senior Member
    Joe, you are giving those governors are real benefit of the doubt and not remembering what went on earlier. Most of these same people want to get rid of medicare and medicaid. As I remember Washington gave Wisconsin the ability to expand Badger care as a medicare expansion. Instead, They are throwing people off of Badger care now. The resistance by most of these governors refusing the money to expand it father,is simply to help make it fail. Many have stated just that. Personally I was in favor of the whole thing as being a medicare/caide expansion, the dems were nearly all behind it. And the Republicans were completely against the idea., why, because they wanted failure. ACA is a hollow POS in many places because the republicans watered it down so much it was just a shell of what was originally offered. I doubt there is one Republican in Congress that would voice any support for expansion. not one.

    If I had my way there would be an expansion, every X number of years four age groups would be added, until we would all be covered. No elected Republican that I know of would endorse that.
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    swizz wrote: »
    ACA is costing everyone a $hit ton.... that's it in a nutshell.
    Nothing affordable about it for most people and I definitely can't blame most for just taking the penalty.
    When's the next rollback? This thing's a joke, late-night comedians are even cashing in on it.
    Most people are pretty pissed, regardless of mainstream media bs which I don't watch. The wind is blowing south on this one.

    Swizz, did you see the Ted Cruz FB post on Obamacare? Ted posted a question on his FB page asking a simple question....are you for Obamacare or not. To date he has over 50,000 replies. 99% are favorable. Read the comments if you have a strong stomach.

    https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/517779935000978?stream_ref=10
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    Wetdog wrote: »
    Joe, you are giving those governors are real benefit of the doubt and not remembering what went on earlier. Most of these same people want to get rid of medicare and medicaid. As I remember Washington gave Wisconsin the ability to expand Badger care as a medicare expansion. Instead, They are throwing people off of Badger care now. The resistance by most of these governors refusing the money to expand it father,is simply to help make it fail. Many have stated just that. Personally I was in favor of the whole thing as being a medicare/caide expansion, the dems were nearly all behind it. And the Republicans were completely against the idea., why, because they wanted failure. ACA is a hollow POS in many places because the republicans watered it down so much it was just a shell of what was originally offered. I doubt there is one Republican in Congress that would voice any support for expansion. not one.

    If I had my way there would be an expansion, every X number of years four age groups would be added, until we would all be covered. No elected Republican that I know of would endorse that.

    Yes I am giving the governors the benefit of the doubt. But I believe their resistance is more because of ACA in it's current format vs. actually wanting a medicaid expansion failure. Simplified I believe more GOP states would have went along with an expansion.

    Maybe I'm wrong. Never know I guess.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    dryflie wrote: »
    Swizz, did you see the Ted Cruz FB post on Obamacare? Ted posted a question on his FB page asking a simple question....are you for Obamacare or not. To date he has over 50,000 replies. 99% are favorable. Read the comments if you have a strong stomach.

    https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/posts/517779935000978?stream_ref=10

    Well, that worked out well for Ted, didn't it..

    LMAO

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »
    Maybe you misunderstood me.

    I was insinuating that as part of a simplified ACA plan that we keep the provision that insurance companies can't deny you for pre-existing conditions.

    I personally believe the republicans would have went along with a simpler plan that would also include Medicaid expansion.

    Glad you found that funny and that I could make you laugh.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

    Dude the only thing you listed that is different than the ACA is the mandates. So I fail to see how this would have gotten the Republicans to sign on. But then again perhaps unicorns could come flying out of my butt, you never know.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    The respondents are Obamacare beneficiaries through the exchange or state medicaid expansion. Would you expect anything but 99% favorable responses?

    Hell...if GM sold me one of their blow up cars and promised free gas for the life of the car I would be telling EVERYONE how great GM cars are. :D

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    But you would think there would be a larger contingent of respondents that had something bad to say. I mean it being a huge failure and millions of people left uninsured and all.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 10,158 Senior Member
    Dude the only thing you listed that is different than the ACA is the mandates. So I fail to see how this would have gotten the Republicans to sign on. But then again perhaps unicorns could come flying out of my butt, you never know.

    Because there is more to it than just the mandates...such as more taxes and fees placed upon those in the medical industry, higher premiums for non exchange participants etc. At a gazillion pages long its too much to get into.

    A unicorn flying out of your butt would probably require medical treatment. Is that covered under ACA? :D ;)

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Joe, 99%!! Nuff said.. Giving you the raspberry ;)

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »
    Because there is more to it than just the mandates...such as more taxes and fees placed upon those in the medical industry, higher premiums for non exchange participants etc. At a gazillion pages long its too much to get into.

    A unicorn flying out of your butt would probably require medical treatment. Is that covered under ACA? :D ;)

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

    So tell me how are you going to pay for the medicaid expansion without those taxes and fees? The ACA does not set the premiums for non-exchange participants. Do you think those premiums would be lower if they had to cover preexisting conditions, had no lifetime limits and no mandates?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,560 Senior Member
    But then again perhaps unicorns...
    If you really believed in Unicorns you would have capitalized it. You're not one of Us.
    Charlatan!
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • swiperswiper Senior Member Posts: 396 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    Wrong. He has not rolled back or altered any law. Like his predecessors he quite legally, and usually wisely and appropriately, has tinkered with the implementing and administrative regulations. It's part of his job

    Thank you George.
  • swiperswiper Senior Member Posts: 396 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Very questionable as he still must faithfully execute the laws. The courts could legitimately ask why major deadlines have been changed - like the employer mandate - even after a law was passed four years earlier.

    It's funny to see the Conservative lemmings whine about this ad nauseum when every President in recent history has done the same thing on legislation. If you want to nit-pick, let's look at Reagan's track record. Otherwise just get over it. It's his prerogative.

    It's a sign you guys have run out of anything legitimate to whine about.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    joekrz wrote: »
    The respondents are Obamacare beneficiaries through the exchange or state medicaid expansion. Would you expect anything but 99% favorable responses?

    Hell...if GM sold me one of their blow up cars and promised free gas for the life of the car I would be telling EVERYONE how great GM cars are. :D

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

    The issue is ....Where are Ted's supporters on the subject of the ACA. Why don't we read 100,000 posts telling us how bad it is. Everyone had their chance.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,560 Senior Member
    dryflie wrote: »
    Why don't we read 100,000 posts telling us how bad it is.
    Those people can't afford computers.
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    The people that cannot afford computers are getting medicaid.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,560 Senior Member
    You'll have to provide a link for that.
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,242 Senior Member
    So will you.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.