myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Obamacare in a nutshell
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 59, 60, 61, 62  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You are wrong on both--and criminally malinformed. Ending Obamacare would send a huge shock through the health care economy--which the Republicans would own. They are very nervous. But then Fox and Breitbart used the death spiral talking point, and you don't think critically--or deeply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After studying the GOP bill a bit and reading a number of analyses, it reinforces my opinion that this bill is nothing but a ruse at best and a potential disaster at its worst. The bill strips funding for the ACA but doesn't touch a lot of the law. It really can't because of the Senate rules. This is a worst case scenario...maintaining the minimum requirements of the insurance, the Medicare cost cutting, records requirements and a host of other parts of the bill and then eliminate the mandate, subsidies, and Medicaid funding.

Of special note is a lot of the bill is devoted to defunding Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a major player in reproductive health care for Medicaid women. Anybody have any idea who would provide these services?

Now, insurance companies may lose subscribers while still needing to write ACA policies. Yikes! Docs will be required to integrate new rules but have less insured clients. This will not drive down unit costs for medical care. It might drive down total costs because less people will get care. Is this the goal?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coboardhead wrote:
After studying the GOP bill a bit and reading a number of analyses, it reinforces my opinion that this bill is nothing but a ruse at best and a potential disaster at its worst. The bill strips funding for the ACA but doesn't touch a lot of the law. It really can't because of the Senate rules. This is a worst case scenario...maintaining the minimum requirements of the insurance, the Medicare cost cutting, records requirements and a host of other parts of the bill and then eliminate the mandate, subsidies, and Medicaid funding.

Of special note is a lot of the bill is devoted to defunding Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a major player in reproductive health care for Medicaid women. Anybody have any idea who would provide these services?

Now, insurance companies may lose subscribers while still needing to write ACA policies. Yikes! Docs will be required to integrate new rules but have less insured clients. This will not drive down unit costs for medical care. It might drive down total costs because less people will get care. Is this the goal?



How refreshing to have the first phase of the bill posted for all to see and debate. Now we can listen and learn and hopefully tweak the bill so it works best for all Americans.
A complete 180 from what the Dems did 8 years ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mat-ty wrote:
coboardhead wrote:
After studying the GOP bill a bit and reading a number of analyses, it reinforces my opinion that this bill is nothing but a ruse at best and a potential disaster at its worst. The bill strips funding for the ACA but doesn't touch a lot of the law. It really can't because of the Senate rules. This is a worst case scenario...maintaining the minimum requirements of the insurance, the Medicare cost cutting, records requirements and a host of other parts of the bill and then eliminate the mandate, subsidies, and Medicaid funding.

Of special note is a lot of the bill is devoted to defunding Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is a major player in reproductive health care for Medicaid women. Anybody have any idea who would provide these services?

Now, insurance companies may lose subscribers while still needing to write ACA policies. Yikes! Docs will be required to integrate new rules but have less insured clients. This will not drive down unit costs for medical care. It might drive down total costs because less people will get care. Is this the goal?


How refreshing to have the first phase of the bill posted for all to see and debate. Now we can listen and learn and hopefully tweak the bill so it works best for all Americans.
A complete 180 from what the Dems did 8 years ago.


Matty I went to seminars with my wife prior to the passage of the ACA that outlined provisions of the bill. The information was out there even if a couple of idiot legislators said they didn't read it. There WAS a lot of minutia, but there were lots of definitions on what a provider is (physician, podiatrist, chiropractor, hospitals etc....that in itself is a lot of words.

I wouldn't use refreshing when the GOP has made a target of a particular provider within the code...Planned Parenthood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I got this from a very smart friend of mine. Quite insightful, and I thought it would amuse CB.

Quote:
A. Two fables.

This is the tale of the dog that caught the car. Plus Robin Hood versus bad King John.

Dogs rarely, if ever, catch the car that they've been chasing. But after 8 years, this dog actually caught the car. But, as the dog laments, the car just sits there - and I have to go to all of these Affordable Care Act town meetings where people just scream at me as bout taking way their health care insurance. For a party that hasn't been able to agree on health care policy in 25 years (according to no less an authority than John Boehner), what do we do?

Basically, as one commentator astutely observed, the ACA (I hate the term "Obamacare") represents the greatest effort at reducing income inequality since LBJ miraculously passed the Medicare legislation in 1965. Funding for the ACA comes from two sources: (1) Medicare cost reductions; (2) a tax on the upper 1% of taxpayers, comprised of a 0.9% income tax surcharge and a 3.8% tax on investment income (Obama cleverly included taxing capital gains taxes because the 1% are so adept at sheltering "income").

Lower income, working class/middle class earners receive two forms of health care coverage under the ACA:

(1) The Medicaid Expansion- This is targeted at workers making less than $35,000 per year;

(2) The Insurance Exchanges - This targets the next higher group of wage earners, generally up to 400% of poverty level income as the cutoff for receiving health insurance subsidies. Higher wage-earners benefit from being able to purchase more affordable insurance than whist is available in the private "market."

So, fully consistent with the concept of a "progressive" federal Income Tax (the more you make, the higher percentage of income is taxed), the top 1% provide funding for lower income groups - Robin Hood comes through for the people Bad King John and Sir Paul of Ryan enter the scene this week, as described below.

B. Bad King John, with his loyal Knight Sir Paul of Ryan - Regressive Taxation and Budget Deficits Republican Style

Enter the Robin Hood versus bad King John part of the fable. How about dramatically reducing health insurance funding for the working class and lower middle class by taking away the ACA means test and replacing it with a tax credit system that provides tax credits on the basis that the more you make, the more tax credit you get. The Ryan Trumpcare package provides that, in the place of using a means test geared toward those who are truly in need, Sir Paul of Ryan provides a formula where the higher your income, the bigger the tax credit you receive. For instance, lower income folk may get a few hundred dollars, but someone making $150,000 per year will get a $4,000 tax credit, $250,000 per year, lots more. That certainly sounds "fair," the wealthy get wealthier under Republican "regressive taxation."

But a funny funny thing happened on the way to the bank. Bad king John thought he could disguise this drastic Trumpcare switch to regressive taxation, along with its federal budget deficit implications by switching from ACA "subsidies" to Trumpcare "tax credits." In the Republican lexicon, tax credits are always good because they cut taxes. Conservative Republican fiscal hawks see this for what it is, bigger (lots bigger) federal budget deficits. $1 of ACA subsidy payments = $1 of Trumpcare tax credits with respect to the federal budge deficit. This leaves the Republicans with two options:

(1) Keep the Trumpcare subsidies and the tax cut for the top 1% and likely balloon the federal budget deficit (the latter is highly unpopular with the House "Freedom Caucus/Tea Party), knowing that another windfall for the rich in the form of huge overall tax credits is ready to come down the road.

(2) Attack the Ryan Trumpcare bill as "Obamacare Lite" and drop the subsidies.

(C) Time for the Opponents of the ACA to Squirm - Internecine Warfare

Low and behold, there are a fair number of Republican Governors who have found the Medicaid Expansion to be very helpful. Governor Kasich of Ohio has stated that the Medicaid expansion is critical to addressing Ohio's huge opioid addiction health/social problems. Governors also see the Trumpcare phase out of federal funding (conveniently right after the 2020 presidential election) as shifting the financial burden to the states. Plus the spectacle of increases in emergency room visits in rural areas and elsewhere isn't overly appealing. So there are anywhere from 4 to 11 US Senators (the latter number from MSNBC) who are opposed to the bill drafted by Sir Ryan of Paul. If Senate opposition from Republicans firms up, House Republicans will be less than gung ho to vote for a bill that already has them in political trouble.

Many of those who will be hurt badly by the provisions of the Ryan Trumpcare bill are Trump supporters. If Democrats can hit these funding provisions really hard (there are also other funding hits to the middle-class in the Ryan bill) with a clear, consistent message, the Town Hall meetings will become really interesting. Take from the poor and the middle class and give to the rich, all the while increasing the federal budget deficit. Plus,the spectacle of Republicans challenging each other could provide some solace.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2017 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here are the 10,535 pages of Obama Care condensed to 4 simple sentences...

As humorous as it sounds... every last word is reputedly TRUE!

1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.

2. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.

3. To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.

4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured, so it will be 'free-of-charge' to them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even far left sources see the fallacies in Berniecare (aka VA for everyone). From Jay Ambrose of the (Chicago) Tribune News Service comes this (yes, it's copyrighted, but what's the difference between posting the article vs a link to it as long as we credit it?):

For better health, run from Bernie:

The socialist threat best known as Sen. Bernie Sanders wants a single-payer health care system, and here is what that means: adding monstrously to our unbelievable entitlement debt, endangering the economy, doing away with our freedom to choose our own health care plan and helping to make our future a flop.

It is all very simple, you see, because you get rid of health insurance companies and let the government take over and then do what it does best: spend money to the point of crisis. You will get everything free — no co-pays, no premiums, no deductibles — except that you won't. There is this thing called taxes, remember?

The Urban Institute, taking a look at an earlier Sanders adventure into this mindless utopianism, figured the cost would be about $3 trillion a year because, well, everything would be covered for everyone. So that comes to more than $30 trillion over a decade, and the taxes Sanders had in mind? They would come to $15 trillion, the institute concluded.

Sanders, during his campaign, was figuring on taxing just about all income at least 2.2 percent to pay the bills that would be lowered whether the hospitals, clinics, drug companies and doctors liked it or not. Employers? Hand over 6.4 percent, please. And Sanders' hated rich? Get ready to wander around homeless, ladies and gentlemen, at least if the plan doesn't get as much as needed, and it wouldn't have.

Whatever tax ideas he settles on this time around, they won't be enough unless income is more or less forbidden, and the next solution, of course, will be rationing. Even though Sanders is calling his plan Medicare for all, you can figure the elderly who get most of it now will get less of it under this scheme. Some people, after all, are going to have to get less care, and the elderly have lived a long time and tend to be those chosen for sacrifice in such schemes.

It might be noted, too, that less money to hospitals, doctors and drug companies will also mean fewer hospitals, doctors and life-saving drugs, which the dreaded Big Pharma produces more than anyone else in the world. The squeeze will be on, and you just may have to wait in line until death renders patience.

Keep in mind, by the way, that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are already adding enormously to our national debt, despite references to technical issues that obscure the fact. By 2026, our entitlements, joined with the interest on the debt, will consume every cent of federal tax revenues if left unadjusted, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Still, supposed freebies win elections, politicians tend to be opportunists and 16 confused Democrats are already holding the socialist's hands on a disaster that would make Obamacare look like a success.

Obviously, it has been no such thing. The Democrats made it impossible for insurance companies to make an adequate profit in the program, deductibles and premiums went way, way up, companies dropped out, and the call was for subsidies on top of subsidies on top of subsidies.

The Republicans also have a lot to answer for. They were negligent over the years in not coming to terms on workable solutions, although they finally considered a Senate measure that would then have gone to a conference with the House with all kinds of right answers conceivably emerging. A vote by Sen. John McCain inexcusably ruled out that possibility.

Some alert GOP senators and House leaders, however, are at it again, with the chance of coming up with something solid. That could be crucial in preventing Sanders-style thinking that could give us both health and economic tragedies through the belief that nothing good ever happens without ever bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government that actually does the opposite of what it promises.

Jay Ambrose is an op-ed columnist for Tribune News Service. Readers may email him at speaktojay@aol.com.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many of what you folks term liberals are not enamored with Bernie Sanders. His understanding of issues, banking issues during the campaign and health care now, is shallow. He's kind of the Trump of the left--either unwilling or unable to do his homework, but eager to assure people that don't do their homework that these complicated problems have simple solutions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14834
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bernie should stick to his independent party.

He has no right running as a Democrat. Just as trump should have no right running as a republican.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9293

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why, at the barrel of a gun, with the power of law enforcement are we being forced to buy a lousy product?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 59, 60, 61, 62  Next
Page 60 of 62

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group