# Obamacare good?



## bio-chem (Mar 1, 2013)

Obamacare Finds Its Cost Savings 

healthcare reform ultimately boils down to how we pay our doctors? If we want to have the best care available here in the US we are going to have to realize that healthcare is expensive. It is a finite resource. We are going to spend more money for less coverage, and in the long term the quality of care is going to suffer. I hope everyone who voted for the representatives in favor of this realize what they are getting.

If you want the best doctors. you better be willing to pay for the best doctors.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 2, 2013)

If you can't afford to see any doctors having the best available is pretty much pointless.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 2, 2013)

GAO reported obamacare will add 6.2 trillion to the deficit.  

everything Obama said about Obama care was a lie.


----------



## FUZO (Mar 2, 2013)

Swiper said:


> GAO reported obamacare will add 6.2 trillion to the deficit.
> 
> everything Obama said about Obama care was a lie.




Barry is a Lie


----------



## Bowden (Mar 3, 2013)

Obamacare is good, if you are one of the 40 million + in America that has no other way to get health care than to show up in an hospital emergency room or do without health care .
It's bad, if you are someone with private health care insurance that has no objection to uninsured health care costs being shifted to you and increasing your insurance premium and medical bills.

What people don't understand or refuse to acknowledge is that there is a  massive redistribution of cost in the health care industry from uninsured to insured related to  uninsured health care costs.

Either way, you do now and will pay in the future for uninsured health care costs for people that either are unemployed and do not have private health insurance, or people whose employers will not provide it.
Like you indirectly currently do for uninsured health care for other people through cost shifting from uninsured to insured that is reflected in hospital cost shifting and higher hospital bills for insured patients, medical provider and insurance company cost shifting to insured patients.
Or like you will directly through increased taxes to fund Obamacare.

One thing positive about Obamacare is that it will force the freeloaders who could afford health care insurance but chose not to buy it to buy it.
If uninsured they get in a car accident or need major medical care for an illness and they cannot afford it out of pocket, so the rest of us pay for it.
I have no pity on those jerks what so ever.


----------



## jay_steel (Mar 4, 2013)

Bowden said:


> Obamacare is good, if you are one of the 40 million + in America that has no other way to get health care than to show up in an hospital emergency room or do without health care .
> It's bad, if you are someone with private health care insurance that has no objection to uninsured health care costs being shifted to you and increasing your insurance premium and medical bills.
> 
> What people don't understand or refuse to acknowledge is that there is a  massive redistribution of cost in the health care industry from uninsured to insured related to  uninsured health care costs.
> ...



Why should any one be forced to purchase any thing period. I don't buy into that crap, My dad hasnt had medical insurance for over 20 years and choices not to have it. He has gone to the ER and paid out of pocket for it and just does not believe that it is worth it for him due to him having a pre existing medical condition as a child they sky rocket his insurance plans, but he makes enough money to not qualify for any thing free from the Obama care. My dad probably makes close to 90k a year living in a cheap cost of living area. Why should he be forced period to purchase medical? 

when we live in a country were people have the most health issues in the world due to there own personal choice ie diabetes from obesity, smoking, and alcohol, Yeah I have issues paying for other peoples benefits. As a small time business owner i can afford to pay my few employees medical insurance, but if I get forced due to rates going up and have to go to obama care, I will elect to pay the fine. I don't make enough money right now to just pull it out of my ass to hand out to people and wont. So that will be excessive amounts of revenue lost each year. All the almond farmers I know hire legal workers, but I feel that this is going to push ALLOT more small family farms to hire illegal immigrants and run the risk of that. It all most makes more sense for me to just fire all my workers and take on another partner who has his own medical to further expand and do the work. 

I think your going to start seeing more small businesses going to more less family operated then hiring out. Medical is going to get so expensive that the middle class will not be able to afford it, and the fact that its ran by the gov't is horrible. The gov't cant even balance a budget and get their veterans paid so what makes you think they will be able to manage millions of people on medical? I have been waiting over a year now for my disability, so i can get my prescriptions covered and my GI bill check is all ways late.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 12, 2013)

*FIVE GUYS FRANCHISE OWNER SAYS ?OBAMACARE? WILL FORCE HIM TO RAISE PRICES*


Business owners across America say they?re experiencing poor sales, holding back hiring, and planning layoffs because of ?Obamacare,? or so says the Federal Reserve?s latest Beige Book (an overview of the business conditions in each of its 12 districts).
But in case you don?t trust the Beige Book?s anecdotal reporting, here?s something else to consider: Five Guys franchise holder Mike Ruffer said on Monday that the cost of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama?s landmark healthcare bill, will force him to raise the price of burgers and hot dogs, according to the Washington Examiner?s Paul Bedard.
?He will need all the profits from at least one of his eight outlets just to cover his estimated added $60,000-a year in new Obamacare costs,? Bedard?s report notes.
?Any added costs are going to have to be passed on,? said Ruffer, who operates eight Five Guys in the Raleigh-Durham, N.C. area.
But wait! There?s more: Ruffer also said that he had to scrap plans to build three additional restaurants because he?s still waiting for after the Obama administration to explain all the rules and penalties involved in the healthcare bill.
?I?m kind of in a holding pattern,? said Ruffer, adding that he?s not the only franchise owner to hold back.
?Ruffer was the star witness at a Monday Heritage Foundation seminar on the impact Obamacare will have on small businesses,? Bedard notes. ?He is typical of many: Because he has enough full time employees to activate the law, he faces either coughing up the money to provide health insurance or paying a fine of up to $3,000 per worker.?

The report goes on to explain that Ruffner thought he?d be exempt from ?Obamacare? because he built each restaurant as its own company. However, the healthcare law doesn?t recognize this distinction ? so now he?s exploring whether laying off employees or cutting back hours will keep his franchise safe from ?Obamacare.?
?He said that ?scorched earth plan,? however, would hurt his restaurants, so Ruffer is likely to either pay the fine or buy insurance,? the Washington Exmainer reports. ?But spreading the costs over his basic menu of fries, drinks, burgers and hot dogs, could scare off customers, he worries. He said that the recent spike in gas prices cut into his profits since fewer people were stopping at his restaurants.?
?And the health care law isn?t only going to hit Ruffer. He?s quizzed his workers to ask if they understand that they will be fined if they don?t get health insurance. Just one of 20 workers were aware of the $95 tax penalty that rises to $695 by 2016,? the report adds.
Five Guys Franchise Owner Says ?Obamacare? Will Force Him to Raise Prices | TheBlaze.com


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 12, 2013)

It doesn't force him to raise prices, that's a choice.


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 12, 2013)

yes obamacare is good...it's good for illegals, freeloaders, hoodrats milking the system, lazy people who refuse to work


----------



## Sherk (Mar 12, 2013)

irish_2003 said:


> yes obamacare is good...it's good for illegals, freeloaders, hoodrats milking the system, lazy people who refuse to work



Fuckin a right. Obamacare gives freeloaders one more reason not to get off their lazy asses and illegals to jump the fence.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 12, 2013)

wait a second, I thought all Presidents were honest? 

[that is sarcasm]


----------



## Sherk (Mar 12, 2013)

Lmao!!


----------



## Standard Donkey (Mar 12, 2013)

Dale Mabry said:


> It doesn't force him to raise prices, that's a choice.




true.. he could just close up shop and go home


----------



## 99raptor (Mar 13, 2013)

Budget office: Obama's health law reduces deficit | Fox News

And this just in


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 13, 2013)

Standard Donkey said:


> true.. he could just close up shop and go home



Or buy one less vacation home.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 13, 2013)

I was talking to a client who is a partner in a radiology firm yesterday and he told me something very interesting.  They are implementing a program where people with high BMI, or that smoke, etc have to pay higher health insurance premiums.  IMO, this is the way we will lower healthcare costs, by hitting people in the pocketbook for their choices.


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 13, 2013)

Dale Mabry said:


> I was talking to a client who is a partner in a radiology firm yesterday and he told me something very interesting.  They are implementing a program where people with high BMI, or that smoke, etc have to pay higher health insurance premiums.  IMO, this is the way we will lower healthcare costs, by hitting people in the pocketbook for their choices.



i don't believe that is gonna happen...i believe more people will begin to rely on gov't insurance instead...they won't pay out of pocket...other taxpayers will pay more for them instead


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

99raptor said:


> Budget office: Obama's health law reduces deficit | Fox News
> 
> And this just in



from a year ago, this just in? WTF?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 13, 2013)

I pay almost $600/month for major medical insurance, each person (3 of us) has an annual $5k deductible, that means everything is out of pocket until we each hit our $5k deductible each year, so yeah I will take Obama Care over the shit I have now.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

Prince said:


> I pay almost $600/month for major medical insurance, each person (3 of us) has an annual $5k deductible, that means everything is out of pocket until we each hit our $5k deductible each year, so yeah I will take Obama Care over the shit I have now.



I wonder if you will be saying that when there are shortages of healthcare providers, and you aren't able to see a Dr. when you need to, especially a specialist. Watch how fast a two tier system develops here just like in Canada. Healthcare is expensive, and Good healthcare with access costs more. Too many people don't recognize this. Think what you pay for car insurance. how much a month, and what's the deducible? now multiply that by 10. That's the difference in schooling to be a Dr. vs. a mechanic. How much do you think your body is worth vs a 40k car? 600/month and a 5K deductible doesn't seem so out of the question now does it? And if you are a healthy person, and wanted to just pay out of pocket you could have just saved the 600/month and put it in the bank. Obamacare doesn't let you do that anymore. Now you get fined, excuse me, taxed, for not having healthcare.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

Prince said:


> I pay almost $600/month for major medical insurance, each person (3 of us) has an annual $5k deductible, that means everything is out of pocket until we each hit our $5k deductible each year, so yeah I will take Obama Care over the shit I have now.



It's funny that you think your personal costs for healthcare are going to go down. They certainly won't. Neither your premiums nor your deductibles will drop. This isn't saving you money.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 13, 2013)

Dale Mabry said:


> I was talking to a client who is a partner in a radiology firm yesterday and he told me something very interesting.  They are implementing a program where people with high BMI, or that smoke, etc have to pay higher health insurance premiums.  IMO, this is the way we will lower healthcare costs, by hitting people in the pocketbook for their choices.



BMI indexes are useless unless they are used only for evaluating sedentary people.
In example a 5'9 bodybuilder with a large amount of muscle mass weighing 170 with a bf% at or less than 10% would have a high BMI and be considered overweight.
Weighing 200 they would be considered obese on a BMI scale.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I wonder if you will be saying that when there are shortages of healthcare providers, and you aren't able to see a Dr. when you need to, especially a specialist. Watch how fast a two tier system develops here just like in Canada. Healthcare is expensive, and Good healthcare with access costs more. Too many people don't recognize this. Think what you pay for car insurance. how much a month, and what's the deducible? now multiply that by 10. That's the difference in schooling to be a Dr. vs. a mechanic. How much do you think your body is worth vs a 40k car? 600/month and a 5K deductible doesn't seem so out of the question now does it? And if you are a healthy person, and wanted to just pay out of pocket you could have just saved the 600/month and put it in the bank. Obamacare doesn't let you do that anymore. Now you get fined, excuse me, taxed, for not having healthcare.



There already is a shortage of healthcare providers.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 13, 2013)

99raptor said:


> Budget office: Obama&#39;s health law reduces deficit | Fox News
> 
> And this just in



A recent analysis by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) reveals that President Obama’s health care overhaul is likely to add $6.2 trillion to the deficit over the next 75 years.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...re-likely-to-add-6-2-trillion-to-the-deficit/


----------



## dave 236 (Mar 13, 2013)

Bowden said:


> BMI indexes are useless unless they are used only for evaluating sedentary people.
> In example a 5'9 bodybuilder with a large amount of muscle mass weighing 170 with a bf% at or less than 10% would have a high BMI and be considered overweight.
> Weighing 200 they would be considered obese on a BMI scale.



This is another example of why medical care can't be one size fits all. Im in this category. Had my physical a cpl weeks ago. My Doctor now has to chart BMI for helth care record regs now being implemented. Im 5'10 and weigh about 190. Im probably! About 12-13% bf and have visible abs but his chart had me overweight and borderline obese. So what do you think in the future that will mean for my( and all other bbuilders or powerlifters) health care and insurance costs. Used the same doc for 12 yrs with no issues but now im obese and he had to take a photo of me for the new electronic records. Yay progress

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> There already is a shortage of healthcare providers.



So lets add another 40 million to the amount of people using these services and see what that does to the shortage, and our wait times. Oh yeah, and we are going to continually cut the reimbursements, while upping their costs thereby reducing the incentive for there to be more trained doctors to fill the shortage. Good plan.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 13, 2013)

What could possibly go wrong with 2,700 pages of legislation, written by lobbyists and special interests, that no one on planet earth has even read?  

The Congressional Budget Office recently doubled their estimate of the number of people that will be dropped from their employer-sponsored insurance to 7 million.  Don't be surprised when it doubles again, and again.

But hey, Obummer can stand up on a podium, stick his nose up in the air, and pretend like he fought the evil insurance companies.  Most Americans are too fucking stupid to realize the insurance companies were filing amicus briefs at the Supreme Court in support of the legislation.  

The same way that bad government regulation created a housing bubble which ultimately led to the financial collapse, the government is causing the cost of health care to sky rocket by instituting bad regulation encourages wasteful consumption, abuse, fraud, and suppresses the free market competition that keeps cost down and drives customer service.  Obamacare only makes this worse.  The more health care costs continue to rise, the more people will be dropped by their employers, many of these people will end up on medicaid which further drives up private health insurance costs, which causes more people to be dropped - a vicious downward spiral.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> It's funny that you think your personal costs for healthcare are going to go down. They certainly won't. Neither your premiums nor your deductibles will drop. This isn't saving you money.



If that's the case I will just keep the shitty health insurance I have, as far as not having insurance and saving $600/month, I am not stupid and I have seen people lose everything over medical bills, I am not going risk that. After the $5k deductible my insurance covers everything 100%.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 13, 2013)

Oh as far as being healthy, yes I am, but what if I ended up getting cancer like my 45 year old sister did two years ago, they racked $1 million in medical bills on treatment for her.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

Prince said:


> Oh as far as being healthy, yes I am, but what if I ended up getting cancer like my 45 year old sister did two years ago, they racked $1 million in medical bills on treatment for her.



My point exactly. Health care is expensive, and is not an infinite resource. So how is obamacare helping you?  So what will happen to people like your sister when there are not enough oncologists available? What will you be complaining about when there both the quantity and quality of patient care goes down? Our system is flawed, we can all agree to this, but obamacare isn't the answer. It completely surprises me that people believe politicians getting involved can in any way benefit us. Americans blindly trust Obama for god knows what reason when the man has never spoken an intelligent word about it. Matter of fact he hasn't spoken on it other than carefully crafted sound bite prepared to appeal to emotion rather than logic. Logic would tell anyone that this was more than government could fix in one fell swoop.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> My point exactly. Health care is expensive, and is not an infinite resource. So how is obamacare helping you?  So what will happen to people like your sister when there are not enough oncologists available? What will you be complaining about when there both the quantity and quality of patient care goes down? Our system is flawed, we can all agree to this, but obamacare isn't the answer. It completely surprises me that people believe politicians getting involved can in any way benefit us. Americans blindly trust Obama for god knows what reason when the man has never spoken an intelligent word about it. Matter of fact he hasn't spoken on it other than carefully crafted sound bite prepared to appeal to emotion rather than logic. Logic would tell anyone that this was more than government could fix in one fell swoop.



we have many members here that live in Canada and say the healthcare is great.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 13, 2013)

Prince said:


> we have many members here that live in Canada and say the healthcare is great.



There are many other nations that enjoy their gov ran healthcare too.  Japan is a good example.

50-60% of bankruptcies are from medical bills and the majority of those are from people that had health insurance.  Rates in insurance costs rose 20% from 2000-2008.  It's not like our system wasnt getting shitty already.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 13, 2013)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Applying for benefits under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul could be as daunting as doing your taxes.
The government's draft application runs 15 pages for a three-person family. An outline of the online version has 21 steps, some with additional questions.
Seven months before the Oct. 1 start of enrollment season for millions of uninsured Americans, the idea that getting health insurance could be as easy as shopping online at Amazon or Travelocity is starting to look like wishful thinking.
At least three major federal agencies, including the IRS, will scrutinize your application. Checking your identity, income and citizenship is supposed to happen in real time, if you apply online.
That's just the first part of the process, which lets you know if you qualify for financial help. The government asks to see what you're making because Obama's Affordable Care Act is means-tested, with lower-income people getting the most generous help to pay premiums.
Once you're finished with the money part, actually picking a health plan will require additional steps, plus a basic understanding of insurance jargon.
And it's a mandate, not a suggestion. The law says virtually all Americans must carry health insurance starting next year, although most will just keep the coverage they now have through their jobs, Medicare or Medicaid.
Some are concerned that a lot of uninsured people will be overwhelmed and simply give up.
"This lengthy draft application will take a considerable amount of time to fill out and will be difficult for many people to be able to complete," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group supporting the health care law. "It does not get you to the selection of a plan."
"When you combine those two processes, it is enormously time consuming and complex," added Pollack. He's calling for the government to simplify the form and, more important, for an army of counselors to help uninsured people navigate the new system. It's unclear who would pay for these navigators.
Drafts of the paper application and a 60-page description of the online version were quietly posted online by the Health and Human Services Department, seeking feedback from industry and consumer groups. Those materials, along with a recent HHS presentation to insurers, run counter to the vision of simplicity promoted by administration officials.
"We are not just signing up for a dating service here," said Sam Karp, a vice president of the California HealthCare Foundation, who nonetheless gives the administration high marks for distilling it all into a workable form. Karp was part of an independent group that separately designed a model application.
The government estimates its online application will take a half hour to complete, on average. If you need a break, or have to gather supporting documents, you can save your work and come back later. The paper application is estimated to take an average of 45 minutes.
The new coverage starts next Jan. 1. Uninsured people will apply through new state-based markets, also called exchanges.
Middle-class people will be eligible for tax credits to help pay for private insurance plans, while low-income people will be steered to safety-net programs like Medicaid.
Because of opposition to the health care law in some states, the federal government will run the new insurance markets in about half the states. And states that reject the law's Medicaid expansion will be left with large numbers of poor people uninsured.
HHS estimates it will receive more than 4.3 million applications for financial assistance in 2014, with online applications accounting for about 80 percent of them. Because families can apply together, the government estimates 16 million people will be served.
Here are some pros and cons on how the system is shaping up:
— Pro: If you apply online, you're supposed to be able to get near-instantaneous verification of your identity, income, and citizenship or immigration status. An online government clearinghouse called the Data Services Hub will ping Social Security for birth records, IRS for income data and Homeland Security for immigration status. "That is a brand new thing in the world," said Karp.
— Con: If your household income has changed in the past year or so and you want help paying your premiums, be prepared to do some extra work. You're applying for help based on your expected income in 2014. But the latest tax return the IRS would have is for 2012. If you landed a better-paying job, got laid off, or your spouse went back to work, you'll have to provide added documentation.
— Pro: Even with all the complexity, the new system could still end up being simpler than what some people go through now to buy their own insurance. You won't have to fill out a medical questionnaire, although you do have to answer whether or not you have a disability. Even if you are disabled, you can still get coverage for the same premium a healthy person of your age would pay.
—Con: If anyone in your household is offered health insurance on the job but does not take it, be prepared for some particularly head-scratching questions. For example: "What's the name of the lowest cost self-only health plan the employee listed above could enroll in at this job?"
HHS spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt said in a statement the application is a work in progress, "being refined thanks to public input."
It will "help people make apples-to-apples comparisons of costs and coverage between health insurance plans and learn whether they can get a break in costs," she added.
But what if you just want to buy health insurance in your state's exchange, and you're not interested in getting any help from the government?
You'll still have to fill out an application, but it will be shorter.
Online — Insurance Affordability Application package: http://tinyurl.com/akkvu9f
Copyright © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...JZpcWQ?docId=f3f34515dbd940aead0c117e6444f677


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> There are many other nations that enjoy their gov ran healthcare too.  Japan is a good example.
> 
> 50-60% of bankruptcies are from medical bills and the majority of those are from people that had health insurance.  Rates in insurance costs rose 20% from 2000-2008.  It's not like our system wasnt getting shitty already.


So why is it Canada has private hospitals where people pay out of pocket for treatment instead of going to the government run ones? 

Remember neither Japan, nor Canada has either our population nor our defense spending. This is bad policy that will only worsen an already strained and flawed system. But keep on blindly believing things will get better.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> So why is it Canada has private hospitals where people pay out of pocket for treatment instead of going to the government run ones?
> 
> Remember neither Japan, nor Canada has either our population nor our defense spending. This is bad policy that will only worsen an already strained and flawed system. But keep on blindly believing things will get better.



I'm merely pointing out that our system was already fucked up, and it seems that the only people that hate Canada's healthcare are Fox News viewers.  Every Canadian I've ever spoken w loved it.  I had a buddy have a climbing accident in Canada, had to be helicoptered out and received great care w no cost, no wait.

Additionally, we already pay for poor people's healthcare, except, since they don't have insurance, they use the ER for everything.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> I'm merely pointing out that our system was already fucked up, and it seems that the only people that hate Canada's healthcare are Fox News viewers.  Every Canadian I've ever spoken w loved it.  I had a buddy have a climbing accident in Canada, had to be helicoptered out and received great care w no cost, no wait.
> 
> Additionally, we already pay for poor people's healthcare, except, since they don't have insurance, they use the ER for everything.



I work at a healthcare solutions firm. We do business here in the states, Canada, and Europe. Give me the flawed system here every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Tell me, where are the best med schools and medical innovations coming from? Why is that?


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I work at a healthcare solutions firm. We do business here in the states, Canada, and Europe. Give me the flawed system here every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Tell me, where are the best med schools and medical innovations coming from? Why is that?



I don't know, but when 60% of people filing for bankruptcy are because of medical bills, and the majority of them have insurance, that's pretty fucked up.  These aren't people milking the system, they're the ones that actually pay for insurance.

I'm a healthcare professional and I know that docs and nurses aren't getting rich and neither are hospitals, that only leaves insurance companies, who are the ones deciding who gets treated and who doesn't, and they are also trying to make a profit.  The 2 are not a good mix.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> I don't know, but when 60% of people filing for bankruptcy are because of medical bills, and the majority of them have insurance, that's pretty fucked up.  These aren't people milking the system, they're the ones that actually pay for insurance.
> 
> I'm a healthcare professional and I know that docs and nurses aren't getting rich and neither are hospitals, that only leaves insurance companies, who are the ones deciding who gets treated and who doesn't, and they are also trying to make a profit.  The 2 are not a good mix.


If you are a healthcare professional then you know the answer to that is competition. competition is what makes our healthcare system the best. And it's what we need with insurance. We need more competition.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 13, 2013)

health insurance companies have a 2.2% profit margin.  they profit 2 cents for every dollar in revenue.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> If you are a healthcare professional then you know the answer to that is competition. competition is what makes our healthcare system the best. And it's what we need with insurance. We need more competition.



You mean fair competition.

Here's a quote I like: "whatever the fight is, the person/corporation/entity w the most money always wins."


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

Swiper said:


> health insurance companies have a 2.2% profit margin.  that means they profit 2 cents for every dollar in revenue.



What other large industries can we demonize while we are at it I wonder?


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> What other large industries can we demonize while we are at it I wonder?



Are you suggesting that insurance companies don't control the market?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> So why is it Canada has private hospitals where people pay out of pocket for treatment instead of going to the government run ones?



What's wrong with that? 
I am sure the majority of Canadians that pay to go to a private hospital are wealthy or well off, so they pay for convince, e.g. Bypassing any waiting list to have a procedure done that is not an emergency.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

Prince said:


> What's wrong with that?
> I am sure the majority of Canadians that pay to go to a private hospital are wealthy or well off, so they pay for convince, e.g. Bypassing any waiting list to have a procedure done that is not an emergency.



hahha. Taxes go up to pay for universal healthcare, and we end up where we started. A two tier system where the rich get a level of care the poor don't. Well Prince, good job. you end up right where we started and your taxes go up. The trade off is longer lines, poorer service, and we lose the advantage of leading the world in medical technology. Win Win


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Are you suggesting that insurance companies don't control the market?



I'm saying that it seems to be a liberal trait to always go after business and make it look evil.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I'm saying that it seems to be a liberal trait to always go after business and make it look evil.



If they control the markets, they deserve negativity.  I don't like insurance companies and their death panels


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 13, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> If they control the markets, they deserve negativity.  I don't like insurance companies and their death panels



i'm sure the government death panels will be so much better. 

I'm happy with the points i've made in this thread. People can make up their own opinions. Have a great evening


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 13, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> i'm sure the government death panels will be so much better.
> 
> I'm happy with the points i've made in this thread. People can make up their own opinions. Have a great evening



I'd rather vote for who controls insurance, rather then someone be chosen by their business skills.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 14, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Obamacare Finds Its Cost Savings
> 
> healthcare reform ultimately boils down to how we pay our doctors? If we want to have the best care available here in the US we are going to have to realize that healthcare is expensive. It is a finite resource. We are going to spend more money for less coverage, and in the long term the quality of care is going to suffer. I hope everyone who voted for the representatives in favor of this realize what they are getting.
> *
> If you want the best doctors. you better be willing to pay for the best doctor*s.



Bio,

I do not have $300,000 needed to save my life.  Or say, $200,000 at the moment.

Care is not the only issue. The pharmaceuticals are hurting people, and Medicare-D shifting lots of taxpayer money into the big pharmaceutical companies.


----------



## Big Smoothy (Mar 14, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> If you are a healthcare professional then you know the answer to that is competition. competition is what makes our healthcare system the best. And it's what we need with insurance. We need more competition.



Our healthcare is the best?

I disagree.

Only for the extreme wealthy who can afford to best care.

The entire US healthcare system is plagued with problems. 

Insurance coverage
Insurance premiums
Insurance caps
Employer-employee co-insurance plans - US is the only industrialized country in the world that does this
At the age of 65 you are pushed onto medicare
48+ million with no medical coverage/insurance and most of them work.

Is the US health care system the best in the world?  No, not at all.

Is it even "good?" - this is even debatable.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 14, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> If they control the markets, they deserve negativity.  I don't like insurance companies and their death panels




Yeah, liberals don't like private insurance companies.  Evil things like "profit" are for the dirty capitalists.  Liberals also don't like evil oil companies.  Liberals also don't like "fat cat" bankers (or so they say, despite engineering the bank bailout).  Liberals also don't like civilian gun ownership.  Liberals oppose adding more consumer choice into education or medicare.  Liberals oppose school choice programs that have been raging successes in places like D.C., particularly for impoverished inner city youth.  

It is an intolerant, malicious, naive, and hate-driven ideology.  The common denominator in the things liberals hate is that they all involve consumer choice (i.e. consumer freedom), competition, individualism, free-market voluntary interaction, and/or self-reliance.  The liberal model is to rely on bureaucratic central planning, which is the same model that worked out so well for the U.S.S.R.


----------



## clemson357 (Mar 14, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> I'd rather vote for who controls insurance, rather then someone be chosen by their business skills.




This is just so naive it is unbelievable.

Should you be able to vote for who controls grocery stores?  Is food less of a necessity than health care?  Why is it that insurance and medical care are increasing so much faster than inflation, but food isn't?

It is clear you haven't put much thought into this.  The answer is that food distribution is still subject to free-market competition, while the laws and regulations passed by bureaucratic central planners has removed health insurance and medical care from free-market competition.  Grocery stores, bread makers, dairy farms are all competing for your business, which prevents them from gouging.  It is the same thing with housing, and most other things that people need.  By contrast, health insurance companies are not competing for your business, and to a large extent neither are health care providers.  This is because of the way our federal government has set up the system.  For instance, your health insurance payments are only pre-tax if you go through your employer.  This one provision in our tax code effectively allows your employer to select your health insurance for you, removing insurance completely from free-market competition.  Why the fuck does it make the least bit of sense to let your employer select your health insurance for you?  Seriously?   Should your employer select your diet for you?  Your grocery store?  Your house?

But all liberal obamazombies can ever think about is more central planning, more bureaucratic control, less choice, less competition, attack the evil corporations, blame anyone who has made a success out of themselves, they aren't paying their fair share, whhaaaa whhhaaaa whhhaaa.  

If people used half the energy they expend on American Idol learning about things that are actually important, such as the way the government caused the housing bubble and the market collapse, or the way that the government is causing health care prices to sky rocket, we would get a lot more of these problems solved.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 14, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> hahha. Taxes go up to pay for universal healthcare, and we end up where we started. A two tier system where the rich get a level of care the poor don't. Well Prince, good job. you end up right where we started and your taxes go up. The trade off is longer lines, poorer service, and we lose the advantage of leading the world in medical technology. Win Win



Taxes go up but insurance premiums go away.  Prince said he spends like $600 a month in premiums, that's $7200 a year.  Businesses pay the brunt of healthcare costs, imagine if they didn't and could pay people a living wage.  I hate the idea of healthcare being paid for by anyone other than the person getting healthcare anyway.  It leads to the same problem conservatives always complain to be the problem with socialism, the people who are making the right decisions are paying for the people who don't give a shit.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 14, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> If you are a healthcare professional then you know the answer to that is competition. competition is what makes our healthcare system the best. And it's what we need with insurance. We need more competition.



Like I said before, having the best available is pointless if you can't afford it.


----------



## jldam1tz (Mar 14, 2013)

Priceless!!


----------



## Dark Geared God (Mar 14, 2013)

Prince said:


> we have many members here that live in Canada and say the healthcare is great.




If your young and heathy


----------



## Dark Geared God (Mar 14, 2013)

Prince said:


> What's wrong with that?
> I am sure the majority of Canadians that pay to go to a private hospital are wealthy or well off, so they pay for convince, e.g. Bypassing any waiting list to have a procedure done that is not an emergency.


it helps when you don't have to wait a year  to cure your cancer


----------



## jay_steel (Mar 14, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> I don't know, but when 60% of people filing for bankruptcy are because of medical bills, and the majority of them have insurance, that's pretty fucked up.  These aren't people milking the system, they're the ones that actually pay for insurance.
> 
> I'm a healthcare professional and I know that docs and nurses aren't getting rich and neither are hospitals, that only leaves insurance companies, who are the ones deciding who gets treated and who doesn't, and they are also trying to make a profit.  The 2 are not a good mix.



i dont know where you work but the average Orthopaedic Surgeon where I work at makes 50k a month and their PA's are making 12k a month... In a city with low cost of living...


----------



## jay_steel (Mar 14, 2013)

I see how the VA is ran and that is the last thing I want, I am still waiting 14 months to be seen for my PTSD and file a disability claim just so i can get rated at 0%, I am not even trying to get a pay check for it just rated so I am taken care of it any thing serious happens.


----------



## sneedham (Mar 14, 2013)

irish_2003 said:


> yes obamacare is good...it's good for illegals, freeloaders, hoodrats milking the system, lazy people who refuse to work



Agreed!!!!


----------



## Arnold (Mar 14, 2013)

Dark Geared God said:


> it helps when you don't have to wait a year  to cure your cancer



I am pretty sure in places like Canada if it's a life threatening disease you will get immediate treatment.


----------



## LAM (Mar 14, 2013)

Dark Geared God said:


> it helps when you don't have to wait a year  to cure your cancer



and you know this from never having lived in Canada.  because my gf's father in law who is Canadian and does have colon cancer had ZERO problem at all getting treatment in rural Canada close to where Shania Twain lives.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 14, 2013)

Dale Mabry said:


> Taxes go up but insurance premiums go away.  Prince said he spends like $600 a month in premiums, that's $7200 a year.  Businesses pay the brunt of healthcare costs, imagine if they didn't and could pay people a living wage.  I hate the idea of healthcare being paid for by anyone other than the person getting healthcare anyway.  It leads to the same problem conservatives always complain to be the problem with socialism, the people who are making the right decisions are paying for the people who don't give a shit.



Where exactly in that document does it say premiums go away?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Mar 14, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Where exactly in that document does it say premiums go away?



Which document? If you have insurance you don't get taxed, you're not paying a tax AND premiums


----------



## FUZO (Mar 17, 2013)

This country Has pathetic people who just take and dont care what happens to the future of the USA or are children.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Mar 17, 2013)

Prince said:


> I am pretty sure in places like Canada if it's a life threatening disease you will get immediate treatment.



jsut keep telling yourself that


----------



## Swiper (Mar 22, 2013)

Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own plans.
The projections, made in sessions with brokers and agents, provide some of the most concrete evidence yet of how much insurance companies might increase prices when major provisions of the law kick in next year—a subject of rigorous debate.
The projected increases are at odds with what the Obama Administration says consumers should be expecting overall in terms of cost. The Department of Health and Human Services says that the law will "make health-care coverage more affordable and accessible," pointing to a 2009 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that says average individual premiums, on an apples-to-apples basis, would be lower.
The gulf between the pricing talk from some insurers and the government projections suggests how complicated the law's effects will be. Carriers will be filing proposed prices with regulators over the next few months.
Part of the murkiness stems from the role of government subsidies. Federal subsidies under the health law will help lower-income consumers defray costs, but they are generally not included in insurers' premium projections. Many consumers will be getting more generous plans because of new requirements in the law. The effects of the law will vary widely, and insurers and other analysts agree that some consumers and small businesses will likely see premiums go down.
Starting next year, the law will block insurers from refusing to sell coverage or setting premiums based on people's health histories, and will reduce their ability to set rates based on age. That can raise coverage prices for younger, healthier consumers, while reining them in for older, sicker ones. The rules can also affect small businesses, which sometimes pay premiums tied to employees' health status and claims history.
The law's 2014 effect on larger companies is likely to be more limited. Many of the big changes coming next year won't touch them as directly as individual consumers and small businesses, though some will have to grapple with the cost of covering more workers or paying a penalty.
The possibility of higher premiums has become the latest focal point of the political tussle over the health law, which marks its third anniversary Saturday. Republican lawmakers have held hearings on the issue, and six GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce committee wrote last week to more than a dozen insurers asking them to turn over internal analyses on the law's impact on premiums and costs.
The insurance industry has also been talking publicly about big potential premium increases in lobbying for tweaks to the law.
The individual market includes about 15 million people, and around 18% of the roughly 149 million with employer coverage were at small companies, according to 2011 figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The individual market is expected to grow to around 35 million people by 2016 as a result of the law.
In a private presentation to brokers late last month, UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation's largest carrier, said premiums for some consumers buying their own plans could go up as much as 116%, and small-business rates as much as 25% to 50%. The company said the estimates were driven in part by growing medical costs not directly tied to the law. It also cited the law's requirements that health status not affect rates and that plans include certain minimum benefits and limits to out-of-pocket charges, among other things.
Jeff Alter, who leads UnitedHealth's employer and individual insurance business, said the numbers represented a "high-end scenario," not an average. "There are some scenarios in which a member could see as much as a 116% increase or over," he said, though others, such as some older consumers, could see decreases. He said the company dwelled on the possible increases because it was trying to prepare brokers to speak with clients facing big jumps.
Other carriers have also projected steep rate increases during private meetings and conversations with brokers. Brokers say they are being told to prepare the marketplace for small-business and individual rate increases as carriers get ready to file specific rate proposals and plan designs with regulators.
Insurers are "not being shy that premiums are going to increase in 2014," and are urging brokers to "brace our clients," said John Lacy, vice president of group benefits at Bouchard Insurance, a brokerage in Clearwater, Fla. His firm has been hearing from carrier representatives that individual premiums in Florida could go up 35% to 50%, on average, and small-business rates around 30%, though it hopes to find strategies to blunt the impact.
Aetna Inc., in a presentation last fall to its national broker advisory council, suggested rates on individual plans not being grandfathered under the law could go up 55%, on average, and gave a figure of 29% for small business rates. Both numbers included 10 percentage points tied to medical-cost inflation, not the law. An Aetna spokesman said the numbers are "still generally in line with what we've been estimating," and represented the average impact in a typical state.
An official with Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina told a gathering of brokers last week that individual premiums could go up by as much as 40% to 50%, according to brokers who were present. A spokeswoman for the insurer said "we don't have final numbers" yet on premiums.
There has long been debate, even among insurance experts, over how the law will affect premiums. Because the effect is likely to vary, different measurements can arrive at different conclusions. The CBO analysis cited by the administration determined that average premiums for consumers who buy their own coverage would be 14% to 20% lower because of the law—if the law didn't change the types of plans they purchased.
But the CBO also suggested the law would lead to consumers buying more expensive plans, largely because it requires coverage to include certain benefits and limit charges such as deductibles. When this effect was taken into account, the average premiums would go up 10% to 13%, the agency said, though subsidies would ease the bite for most people. The agency also said small-business policies were likely to cost within a few percentage points of the amount they would have without the law.
Health and Human Services officials say competition among insurers, as well as provisions to limit their financial risk from attracting high-cost consumers, will exert downward pressure on premiums, and point to the tax subsidies that will limit many consumers' costs.
Subsidies will be available on a sliding scale for people with incomes of up to four times the federal poverty level—currently $45,960 for a single person and $94,200 a year for a family of four. More than half of the 35 million people expected to be in the individual market by 2016 are likely to qualify for credits. People whose incomes are around the poverty level could see almost all of the cost of their insurance subsidized, while people at the upper end will get only a small discount toward their premiums.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887324557804578374761054496682?mg=reno64-wsj


----------



## Swiper (Mar 22, 2013)

what ever happened to our premiums going down by $2,500.?  Did Obama lie to me again so that the insurance industry can profit off the backs of the poor and middle class? you'd think this guy would do at least one thing to help the poor and middle class. But no he lets the lobbyist and insurance industry write the health care law sticking to the poor and middle class once again.  shame on you, Obama.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> what ever happened to our premiums going down by $2,500.?  Did Obama lie to me again so that the insurance industry can profit off the backs of the poor and middle class? you'd think this guy would do at least one thing to help the poor and middle class. But no he lets the lobbyist and insurance industry write the health care law sticking to the poor and middle class once again.  shame on you, Obama.



Shame on the entire government, not just Obama.


----------



## Bowden (Mar 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> Health insurers are privately warning brokers that premiums for many individuals and small businesses could increase sharply next year because of the health-care overhaul law, with the nation's biggest firm projecting that rates could more than double for some consumers buying their own plans.



In quotes is the entire problem.

"The company said the estimates were driven in part by growing medical costs not directly tied to the law."

Health care costs are escalating, the private insurance sector cannot control medical costs due to the way that the private for profit sector is inflating what they charge for health care products/supplies that they sell that are used for medical care delivery.

The issue is within the private for profit industries associated with manufacturing and selling health care products/supplies used for medical care delivery, price inflation on those health care products/supplies that are sold over the so called free market to hospitals, doctors.
Insurance premiums reflect the increased cost that is passed along to patients from hospitals and doctors.

The only way to control medical cost price inflation in the U.S. would be to put price controls on what health care companies can charge for health care products/supplies used for medical care delivery that they sell.

If insurance companies were allowed to compete and sell across state lines, an argument put forth by 'free market' capitalists who apply the free market competition reduces cost theory to the health care industry e.g. competition within the free market in selling a product like toasters reduces the price to consumers can be applied to medical care delivery, it still would not reduce the cost inflation associated with health care products/supplies used for medical care.

There are many companies selling health care products/supplies used for medical care that are sold over the so called free market to hospitals, doctors.
Competition on the free market by these companies has not reduced the cost of their products sold in the U.S.
If anything the cost of their products is escalating thus increasing insurance premiums.

Some countries, in example Canada, have price controls on certain patented non generic pharmaceuticals that are imported into Canada.
These pharmaceuticals fall under U.S. regulatory requirements. 
Price controls are the reason that the same patented prescription medicine sold in the U.S. and Canada costs much less in Canada than in the U.S.
It is also why people either drive into Canada to buy medicine or they order it over the internet.

Higher costs for patented prescription medicine sold in the U.S. are passed along to U.S. patients whose premiums are increased by insurance companies to maintain their profit margins, wall street quarterly EPS numbers and ROI to their investors.


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 23, 2013)

FUZO said:


> This country Has pathetic people who just take and dont care what happens to the future of the USA or are children.



they're called liberals


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 23, 2013)

irish_2003 said:


> they're called liberals



Really? Like warren buffet?


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 23, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Really? Like warren buffet?



warren buffet is a big fraud...he takes billions in tax breaks and doesn't pay a dime in yet claims the wealthy should pay more...he's typical


----------



## sneedham (Mar 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> GAO reported obamacare will add 6.2 trillion to the deficit.
> 
> everything Obama said about Obama care was a lie.



Ding Ding Ding!!!!! You are right!!!!! The middle class are already suffering and it is only getting worse.......I am really pissed about Obama Care and everyone with that entitlement mentallity.....Just saying.....


----------



## LAM (Mar 23, 2013)

irish_2003 said:


> they're called liberals



and this is why the blue states have the highest wages, the highest GDP, pay the most in federal taxes, have the lowest teen pregnancy rates and the highest high school and college graduation rates and home to 70% of the country's global 500 company's...

more like your type.  the ones that know absolutely nothing about the country or economics, only what tv and politicians tell them.  the ones that don't READ and actually look information and for answers, the extremely ignorant and the stupid.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 23, 2013)

LAM said:


> and this is why the blue states have the highest wages, the highest GDP, pay the most in federal taxes, have the lowest teen pregnancy rates and the highest high school and college graduation rates and home to 70% of the country's global 500 company's...
> .



^^^And also have the most debt and are completely bankrupt.  

yeah we need more blue states like California and Illinois.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 23, 2013)

Bowden said:


> In quotes is the entire problem.
> 
> "The company said the estimates were driven in part by growing medical costs not directly tied to the law."
> 
> ...



Obama care puts a tax on all medical devices. thus increasing the costs for everyone.


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> ^^^And also have the most debt and are completely bankrupt.
> 
> yeah we need more blue states like California and Illinois.



you beat me to it...point exactly!!!...


----------



## Arnold (Mar 23, 2013)

irish_2003 said:


> they're called liberals



that is just an ignorant statement, you think Repubs give a fuck about you, they only care about their own personal gain.


----------



## hypo_glycemic (Mar 23, 2013)

irish_2003 said:


> they're called liberals



You drink way to much Koch brothers coffee, don't you?


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> ^^^And also have the most debt and are completely bankrupt.
> 
> yeah we need more blue states like California and Illinois.


California is actually one of the few states in the black, despite all the illegals we manage to proffit. strange?


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 23, 2013)

California is #1 most profitable state

Federal Spending by State | Fed Spending by Place of Performance | Small Business Federal Contracts in FY09

Which states are the most in debt? | TheBlaze.com

Jerry Brown says California's budget deficit has disappeared - Gov. Jerry Brown - The Sacramento Bee


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 23, 2013)

hypo_glycemic said:


> You drink way to much Koch brothers coffee, don't you?



the koch's companies employ hundreds of thousands of americans in nearly every state combined...they can't be all that bad


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 23, 2013)

if I was president I would just issue everyone a canadien license and tell them to visit canada for free meds


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 23, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> if I was president I would just issue everyone a canadien license and tell them to visit canada for free meds



i'm curious now how much the US gives to canada in foreign aid (whether they need it or not)...it's the american way to give away our tax money to everyone else instead of using it to solve our own issues...


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 23, 2013)

irish_2003 said:


> warren buffet is a big fraud...he takes billions in tax breaks and doesn't pay a dime in yet claims the wealthy should pay more...he's typical



He pays taxes and makes them public.  He's also giving his entire fortune to charity when he dies.  How is that living off the system?


----------



## LAM (Mar 23, 2013)

while I don't really agree with Berkshire Hathaway's ability to use insurance premiums to fund investments Buffet is probably one of the least destructive capitalists in the US.  he has put actual effort into not participating in the massive non-productive investment opportunities in the US, which are mostly nothing but recurring bubble/burst cycles of overvalued assets.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Mar 23, 2013)

Prince said:


> that is just an ignorant statement, you think Repubs give a fuck about you, they only care about their own personal gain.



Yea and you care about everyone here .You care about everyone as much as a stray dog..and you like to line your pockets just like me..and i'm doing it right now as we speak
You lament the smae system that you profit from....


----------



## Swiper (Mar 23, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> California is actually one of the few states in the black, despite all the illegals we manage to proffit. strange?



 they have the most debt in the nation.


At $617.6 billion, California had by far the biggest total debt, more than twice the total of No. 2, New York, with $300.1 billion owed, according to State Budget Solutions, a research and non-partisan advocacy group.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/08/28/state-debt-report_n_1836603.html


----------



## LAM (Mar 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> they have the most debt in the nation.



they also have the highest population double that of NY and they are also the state with the highest GDP.  but my guess is that you don't understand the correlation between any of this data/information. correct?

like how Vermont has the lowest GDP, debt and population.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 23, 2013)

LAM said:


> they also have the highest population double that of NY and they are also the state with the highest GDP.
> 
> .


 so what?  it doesn't change the fact they're going/are bankrupt and have the most debt in the US.


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 23, 2013)

interesting/coincidence? states with the highest population of illegal immigrants (from all countries) and most populous minority populations have the most debt


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 23, 2013)

LAM said:


> *they also have the highest population double that of NY *and they are also the state with the highest GDP.  but my guess is that you don't understand the correlation between any of this data/information. correct?
> 
> like how Vermont has the lowest GDP, debt and population.



more specifically the highest illegal immigrant population sucking on their tit


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 23, 2013)

Swiper said:


> they have the most debt in the nation.
> 
> 
> At $617.6 billion, California had by far the biggest total debt, more than twice the total of No. 2, New York, with $300.1 billion owed, according to State Budget Solutions, a research and non-partisan advocacy group.
> 10 States With Enormous Debt Problems: Report


  cali is a reallt large state, if it were any where else it would be like 10 states and we have a majority of illegals


----------



## LAM (Mar 24, 2013)

Swiper said:


> so what?  it doesn't change the fact they're going/are bankrupt and have the most debt in the US.



so what = I don't understand any of this


----------



## irish_2003 (Mar 24, 2013)

Swiper said:


> so what?  it doesn't change the fact they're going/are bankrupt and have the most debt in the US.



it's so bad they still want a national bailout bill passed for california


----------



## Dark Geared God (Mar 24, 2013)

Dark Geared God said:


> Yea and you care about everyone here .You care about everyone as much as a stray dog..and you like to line your pockets just like me..and i'm doing it right now as we speak
> You lament the smae system that you profit from....


----------



## Swiper (Mar 26, 2013)

Obamacare Application Asks About Voter Registration
Monday, 25 Mar 2013 06:23 PM
By Kenneth Hanner

Federal regulators are preparing a questionnaire for Obamacare applicants which includes asking those seeking federal healthcare if they want to register to vote.

The draft questionnaire drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services prompted a GOP congressman to raise the specter of Democrats turning the sign-up for Obamacare into a voter registration drive, the Washington Examiner reported.

Rep. Charles Boustany, Jr. of Louisiana questioned whether groups used as “navigators” to sign up Obamacare applicants might include those friendly to Democrats, like AARP and Families USA.

The 61-page questionnaire seeks information about an applicant’s identity and whether they qualify for Obamacare. On page 59, is the question: “Would you like to register to vote?”

“The draft documents wander into areas outside the department’s purview and links applications for health insurance subsidies to voter registration,” Boustany wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “The position of the question could lead some to think voter registration is somehow tied to subsidy eligibility.” 

Boustany, chairman of the House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee, said that the agency was overstepping its bounds by asking the question about voting.

“While the health care law requires that government agencies collect vast information about Americans’ personal lives, it does not give your department an interest in whether individual Americans choose to vote,” Boustany wrote.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ob...gistration/2013/03/25/id/496253#ixzz2Og99q3fs 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!


----------



## DOMS (Mar 26, 2013)

Swiper said:


> so what?  it doesn't change the fact they're going/are bankrupt and have the most debt in the US.



It's the incredible stewardship of the libtards that have made Cali the paragon of financial responsibility that it is. For example, Governor Brown decided that scholarship funds (paid for with taxes) can't be withheld from illegal chewies. Great job, libtards.


----------



## Mipao (Mar 29, 2013)

Best way to start turning our country around is to re-educate the ones ignant enough to elect and support embalma!


----------



## jldam1tz (Apr 11, 2013)

What about many states making you have car insurance??


----------



## Swiper (Apr 11, 2013)

jldam1tz said:


> What about many states making you have car insurance??



you must buy a product (health Insurance) just because you breathe air or you'll get taxed, fined and thrown in prison if you don't.  If you choose to live on earth in the USA you must buy a product the govt mandates. You must buy auto insurance if you CHOOSE to drive in a state where it's required. there's a big difference.


----------



## Zaphod (Apr 11, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you must buy a product (health Insurance) just because you breathe air or you'll get taxed, fined and thrown in prison if you don't.  If you choose to live on earth in the USA you must buy a product the govt mandates. You must buy auto insurance if you CHOOSE to drive in a state where it's required. there's a big difference.



You choose to live in the US.  Mexico doesn't require you buy health insurance if you're interested in moving.


----------



## bio-chem (Apr 11, 2013)

So did anyone notice the part when they did there taxes that told them their added tax liability next year if they don't have sufficient insurance? Good luck with Obamacare. Added taxes for the poor, without increasing their ability to get service. things that make you go hmmmm


----------



## Swiper (Apr 11, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> You choose to live in the US.  Mexico doesn't require you buy health insurance if you're interested in moving.



 lol.


----------



## jagbender (Apr 17, 2013)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A senior Democratic senator who helped write President Barack Obama's health care law stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a "train wreck." 
"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama's health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense. 
Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year. 
The six-term Democrat is also expected to face a tough re-election in 2014. Baucus is still trying to recover from approval ratings that nosedived amid displeasure with the health care law in his home state. 
Normally low-key and supportive, Baucus challenged Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at Wednesday's hearing. 
He said he's "very concerned" that new health insurance marketplaces for consumers and small businesses will not open on time in every state, and that if they do, they might just flop because residents don't have the information they need to make choices. 
"The administration's public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade," he told Sebelius. "You need to fix this." 
Responding to Baucus, Sebelius pointedly noted that Republicans in Congress last year blocked funding for carrying out the health care law, and she had to resort to raiding other departmental funds that were legally available to her. 
The administration is asking for $1.5 billion in next year's budget, and Republicans don't seem willing to grant that either. 
"I don't know what he's looking at," Sebelius told reporters following her out of the room after Baucus adjourned the hearing. "But we are on track to fully implement marketplaces in Jan. 2014, and to be open for open enrollment." 
That open-enrollment launch is only months away, Oct. 1. It's when millions of middle-class consumers who don't get coverage through their jobs will be able to start shopping for a private plan in the new marketplaces, or exchanges. They'll also be able to find out if they qualify for tax credits that will lower their premiums. At the same time, low-income people will be steered to government programs, mainly an expanded version of Medicaid. 
But half the states, most of them Republican-led, have refused to cooperate in setting up the infrastructure of Obama's law. Others, like Montana, are politically divided. The overhaul law provided that the federal government would step in and run the new markets if a state failed to do so. Envisioned as a fallback, federal control now looks like it will be the norm in about half the country, straining the resources of the department Sebelius leads.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 17, 2013)

Of course it's a trainwreck, they just piled more people in to a system that doesn't work.  It's kind of like tying to fit more people on a train headed for derailment.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 18, 2013)

*Nation's biggest movie theater chain cuts workweek, blaming ObamaCare*

By Perry Chiaramonte
Published April 15, 2013
FoxNews.com


The nation's largest movie theater chain has cut the hours of thousands of employees, saying in a company memo that ObamaCare requirements are to blame.
Regal Entertainment Group, which operates more than 500 theaters in 38 states, last month rolled back shifts for non-salaried workers to 30 hours per week, putting them under the threshold at which employers are required to provide health insurance. The Nashville-based company said in a letter to managers that the move was a direct result of ObamaCare.

?To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible based on the law's definition of a full time employee.?​- Memo sent to managers of Regal theaters

?In addition, some managers have requested guidance on what they should tell those employees negatively impacted and, at your discretion, we suggest the following,? read the memo obtained by FoxNews.com. ?To comply with the Affordable Care Act, Regal had to increase our health care budget to cover those newly deemed eligible based on the law's definition of a full-time employee.?
?To manage this budget, all other employees will be scheduled in accord with business needs and in a manner that will not negatively impact our health care budget,? the message continues.
Regal, which had revenue of $2.8 billion in 2011, is the latest company to respond this way to the Affordable Health Care Act's requirement that employees at companies of a certain size who work more than 30 hours per week be provided health coverage. Applebee's and Olive Garden also scaled back the hours of workers. A handful of colleges have cut hours because of the law, including Palm Beach State College in Florida and New Jersey?s Kean University. Critics say the law is boomeranging on working folks.
"If you want to have reduced work, lower wages and economic stagnation, this is a great way to do it, said Ed Haislmaier, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
One Regal theater manager told FoxNews.com the move has sparked a wave of resignations from full-time managers who have seen their hours cut by 25 percent or more.
?In the last couple weeks, managers have been quitting on a daily basis from various locations to try and find full-time work,? said the manager, who asked not to be named. ?Regal up until now has never restricted anyone to anything below 40 hours.?
The manager told FoxNews.com ObamaCare has had the unintended consequence of taking food off his table.
?Mandating businesses to offer health care under threat of debilitating fines does not fix a problem, it creates one," he said. "It fosters a new business culture where 30 hours is now considered the maximum in order to avoid paying the high costs associated with this law.
?In a time where 40 hours is just getting us by, putting these kind of financial pressures on employers is a big step in a direction far beyond the reach of feasibility for not only the businesses, but for the employees who rely on their success," he said.
Regal, which operates cinemas under the names Regal Cinemas, Edwards Theatres and United Artists Theaters and recently purchased Oregon-based Hollywood Theaters for $191 million, did not respond to repeated requests for comment from FoxNews.com. The publicly-traded company's stock has risen nearly 30 percent over the last year.
In addition to the movie theater chain and several restaurants, the state of Virginia also rolled back the hours of all part-time employees back to 29 per week in February, with officials from the state claiming that the new mandate would cost the state tens of millions of dollars a year.
Nation's biggest movie theater chain cuts workweek, blaming ObamaCare | Fox News


----------



## Dale Mabry (Apr 18, 2013)

Revenue of $2.8 billion, I don't see how they could possibly stay in business with all of this healthcare mess.  I mean, the higher ups must be eating TV Dinners and living in 5 person crash pads.


----------



## Swiper (Apr 30, 2013)

*How Medicaid and Obamacare Hurt the Poor - and How to Fix Them*

Jim Epstein | April 25, 2013

"Most physicians can't afford to accept Medicaid" patients, says Dr. Alieta Eck, a primary-care physician based in Piscataway, New Jersey. "If you're getting paid about $17 per visit, it won't be long before you can't pay your staff or pay your rent."
Medicaid is the nation's health care system for the poor. It's funded jointly by the federal government and the states. Medicaid is either the first- or second-largest budget item in all 50 states and the program is slated for a massive expansion under President Obama's health-care reform law. Despite the program's huge and growing overall cost, reimbursements to medical providers are so low that many practices refuse to accept Medicaid patients, causing long waiting periods for treatment.
Eck and her husband, Dr. John Eck, are the founders of Zarephath Health Center, a free health care clinic in Somerset, New Jersey, where they each volunteers six hours per week taking care of poor patients. While the Ecks don't accept Medicaid in their private practice, some of the patients that show up at their free clinic are Medicaid recipients who can't find a regular doctor.
"The hardest thing for a Medicaid patient to do is get a doctor's appointment," says Avik Roy, who writes a health care blog at Forbes.com and is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. One consequence is that Medicaid recipients show up at emergency rooms at nearly double the rate of the privately insured, often with accute problems that could have been addressed earlier in a doctor's office. They're also more likely than both the privately insured and the uninsured to have late-stage cancer at first diagnosis.
After they've been diagnosed, it's also difficult for Medicaid patients to find qualified surgeons who will treat them. A University of Virginia study found that Medicaid patients were about twice as likely as the privately insured to die in the hospital after surgery. Even the uninsured were more likely to make it out of the hospital alive than Medicaid patients.
Despite the program's failings, in 2014 Obamacare will add millions of new patients to the program's rolls. "All too often, people who claim to care for the poor say, 'I'm going to give you a card that says you have health insurance and my work is done,'" says Roy. "But the hard part is making sure that person gets treated."
Obamacare was designed to expand Medicaid by about 17 million enrollees by 2021, but it likely won't meet that goal because the Supreme Court ruled that states don't have to participate in this component of the law in order to keep current levels of funding. So far, the governors of 19 states have come out against expanding Medicaid in their states.
So what's the best way to provide quality health care to the poor without spending more money that we don't have? Roy says the federal government should take the same money it spends on Medicaid and block grant it to the states so they can experiment with health care plans in which the patient is in control.
"Let them spend it on the doctor of their choice," says Roy. "Let people take the money and get the bureaucrats out of the way, and you'll find there's suddenly a lot more efficiency in the way people actually get health care."
Eck believes charity care could be a big part of the solution, if only the government made it easier for doctors to volunteer their time. She has worked with state Sen. Robert Singer (R-N.J.), who has co-sponsored a bill in New Jersey that would allow the state to cover physicians for malpractice in their private practices as a way of compensating them for volunteering. The bill is currently awaiting consideration by the state senate's health care committee.
"Every doctor I talk to says, 'I would do that in a heartbeat,'" says Eck.
In the meantime, when Obamacare takes full effect next year, charitable clinics like Eck's will be more essential than ever to pick up the slack for a social safety net that's already not working.
"I've been doing this for nine years," says Eck, "and I can honestly say that I come away feeling good that I was able to make a difference."
[video=youtube;Cmr1HFzFGuI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Cmr1HFzFGuI[/video]
How Medicaid and Obamacare Hurt the Poor - and How to Fix Them - Reason.com


----------



## Swiper (May 2, 2013)

start at 30 seconds.


----------



## irish_2003 (May 3, 2013)

harry reid is now asking for a bailout for obamacare? yep it's working alright...it's working on bankrupting a once great nation


----------



## Swiper (May 3, 2013)

*Employers Slash Workers? Hours To Avoid Obamacare Costs*

May 2, 2013
Many part-timers are facing a double whammy from President Obama's Affordable Care Act.
The law requires large employers offering health insurance to include part-time employees working 30 hours a week or more. But rather than provide healthcare to more workers, a growing number of employers are cutting back employee hours instead.
The result: Not only will these workers earn less money, but they'll also miss out on health insurance at work.
Consider the city of Long Beach. It is limiting most of its 1,600 part-time employees to fewer than 27 hours a week, on average. City officials say that without cutting payroll hours, new health benefits would cost up to $2 million more next year, and that extra expense would trigger layoffs and cutbacks in city services.
Employers Slash Workers


----------



## jay_steel (May 3, 2013)

jldam1tz said:


> What about many states making you have car insurance??



also you are driving on public roads that are funded by the state and federal gov't. Of course they can say if your car is on our road it must be insured.


----------



## jay_steel (May 3, 2013)

I have all ready accepted the fact that the economy will not get better, we spend money that we dont have an not one has a solution to resolve this issue. My advice to every one is to pay off all your debt, own property, buy guns and ammo and learn to be resourceful. Learn to utilize your own resources. Not saying were going revolution style were we have nothing, but do not be surprised if consumable items get so expensive that it breaks the bank, like food, gas, and clothes in an attempt to pay off the gov't debt. Live resourceful with no debt that is not important and you will be fine.


----------

