Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

64% now in favor of Obamacare--Bloomberg poll

Obamacare Health Care Poll 2014

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 03:00 PM

http://www.bloomberg...rns-bright.html

Quote

President Barack Obama’s health-care law is becoming more entrenched, with 64 percent of Americans now supporting it outright or backing small changes.

Quote

Fifty-one percent of Americans favor retaining the Affordable Care Act with “small modifications,” while 13 percent would leave the law intact and 34 percent would repeal it. That’s the highest level of public acceptance for the law yet in the Bloomberg poll.

Quote


Through March 1, 4.2 million Americans had enrolled in health plans via the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchanges, the government said this week.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#2 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 05:02 PM

Now if only those numbers told how many people actually PAID money. As for 64 percent approving of Obamacare...I have no clue who the hell they polled? The DNC? that's about the only way I see them getting those type of numbers...but, then again, this administration has made fudging numbers a art form.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#3 Balderdash

Balderdash
  • Islander
  • 5,729 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 07:53 PM

View PostLord of the Sword, on 13 March 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

Now if only those numbers told how many people actually PAID money. As for 64 percent approving of Obamacare...I have no clue who the hell they polled? The DNC? that's about the only way I see them getting those type of numbers...but, then again, this administration has made fudging numbers a art form.

The PAID the money thing is an empty GOP driven meme and has no meaning.  As for the rest, meh.  :p

Another Democrat leaning Independent that has to search for truth because it can't be found on Fox News OR MSNBC.



"Being gay is not a Western invention, it is a human reality"  by HRC


#4 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 13 March 2014 - 11:58 PM

View PostBalderdash, on 13 March 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:


The PAID the money thing is an empty GOP driven meme and has no meaning.  As for the rest, meh.  :p

How is how many actually PAID a empty issue. The whole survival of this disaster is how many young and healthy pay double their share. So how is this an empty point? And God forbid if the taxpayers have to bailout the insurance companies, because not enough people paid into it. If THAT happens, Democrats had been find a very BIG rock to hide under.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#5 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 05:28 AM

Quote

LoTS]How is how many actually PAID a empty issue.

In the other thread where you repeated this hot Fox News/GOP talking point, I quoted an article stating that four major insurers said 80-85% had paid through February. Considering the fairly rapid rate of sign-ups each week since the first of the year, that ain't too bad.

Quote

The whole survival of this disaster is how many young and healthy pay double their share

What does that even mean? Double their share of what? They're buying insurance. If they are young and healthy and make less than 45,000, some or most of their premiums are subsidized. Some young people are getting insurance for amazingly low premiums. Some are not. It all depends on where they live (how many insurers are participating in their state's exchange) and how much they make.

Insurers always depend on the young and healthy. Insurers are gamblers. They bet that more of the money they collect on premiums will stay in their pockets than go out to pay the medical bills of those they insure. They always need young and healthy people to be part of the pool. This is not an effect of Obamacare. This is an effect of insurance.

Quote

And God forbid if the taxpayers have to bailout the insurance companies, because not enough people paid into it.

What? Where do you get this stuff? Obamacare--which is the conservative's long-held package of insurance reforms--is already something of an insurance company bailout. We're not having a single-payer (government-provided) system--which works everywhere else to lower health care costs and make it accessible to everyone--precisely so that we can preserve our private insurance companies. They and the medical industry in the U.S. have been greedily pricing themselves out of range of more and more Americans so that insurance and therefore access to health care has become something of a luxury in this country--which is kind of nuts. But socialism. So our answer is this managed-market model, which helps to rein in the insurance companies (no more denials for pre-existing conditions, no more lifetime limits, no more bogus insurance with yearly out-of-pocket deductibles so high you pay for false security, etc.). In return, the insurers get larger, healthier risk pools thanks to the mandate.


Quote


If THAT happens, Democrats had been find a very BIG rock to hide under.

Dems lost a seat this past week in FL because of Obamacare. This is what you keep hearing on Fox News. Do they also tell you that a Republican has held that seat for about 60 years and that the Democrat came closer to taking it (within 2%) than any other Dem has in those 60 years?

Of course not. Those facts work against the little bandwagon they keep trying to build.

In the end, reality will have more say so than conservative propaganda will. It always does. Reality may end up showing that Obamacare is a disaster, but thus far nothing supports that view. It may, but it is too soon to declare this a disaster based on a handful of right wing ads using trumped-up charges that always fall apart on examination.

Edited by Spectacles, 14 March 2014 - 05:32 AM.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#6 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 09:11 AM

Interesting, isn't it, how "share" becomes meaningless when you're talking about the wealthy and taxes.  Everybody else....
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#7 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 10:00 AM

View PostSpectacles, on 14 March 2014 - 05:28 AM, said:

In the end, reality will have more say so than conservative propaganda will. It always does. Reality may end up showing that Obamacare is a disaster, but thus far nothing supports that view. It may, but it is too soon to declare this a disaster based on a handful of right wing ads using trumped-up charges that always fall apart on examination.

Guess we will see how reality looks after the mid terms.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#8 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 11:52 AM

Spectacles:

Quote

Insurers always depend on the young and healthy. Insurers are gamblers. They bet that more of the money they collect on premiums will stay in their pockets than go out to pay the medical bills of those they insure. They always need young and healthy people to be part of the pool. This is not an effect of Obamacare. This is an effect of insurance.

Mark: So Obama is forcing us to do business with gamblers?  Having to build such a huge bureaucracy from scratch, including the infrastructure (land, buildings, equipment, experts, more experts. unelected officials controlling things that our taxes pay for, not to mention a Presidentially appointed chief)....all these things and more are necessary to make this monster breath. This program is probably costing trillions of dollars more than a revamping of programs already in-place. I'd rather see a restructuring of those current programs, AND new laws prohibiting insurance and pharmaceautical companies from gouging customers! Why should a shot, an X-ray, and 3 hours of mostly unattended minutes sitting in an ER cost over $2000? Read the price per item in a hosptal setting, and ask one of the knowledgable staff WHY that mostly cheap stuff costs so much. They'll usually respond to by blaming insurance and pharmaceuatical companies.

Here's a quote from a friend of mine on Facebook who owns her own small business..."Trying to find "affordable" healthcare thru Obamacare. It is illusive and to no avail. I am lost, dazed, confused, can't seem to find the right person to talk to, getting mixed messages about it all. However, I have formed an opinion that i'm quite sure of.......It is all a big pile of dung!!"
From Wikipedia...

Max Weber

The German sociologist Max Weber described many ideal-typical forms of public administration, government, and business in his 1922 work Economy and Society. His critical study of the bureaucratisation of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work.[14][42] It was Weber who began the studies of bureaucracy and whose works led to the popularization of this term.[43] Many aspects of modern public administration go back to him, and a classic, hierarchically organized civil service of the Continental type is called "Weberian civil service".[44] As the most efficient and rational way of organizing, bureaucratization for Weber was the key part of the rational-legal authority, and furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoing rationalization of the Western society.[14][42] Although he is not necessarily an admirer of bureaucracy, Weber does argue that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and (formally) rational way in which human activity can be organized, and that thus is indispensable to the modern world.[45]


Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally domination through knowledge
— Max Weber[14]

Weber listed several precondititions for the emergence of bureaucracy.[46] The growth in space and population being administered, the growth in complexity of the administrative tasks being carried out, and the existence of a monetary economy requiring a more efficient administrative system.[46] Development of communication and transportation technologies make more efficient administration possible but also in popular demand, and democratization and rationalization of culture resulted in demands that the new system treats everybody equally.[46]

Weber's ideal-typical bureaucracy is characterized by hierarchical organization, delineated lines of authority in a fixed area of activity, action taken on the basis of and recorded in written rules, bureaucratic officials need expert training, rules are implemented by neutral officials, career advancement depends on technical qualifications judged by organization, not individuals.[14][46]  (NOTE, I underlined that bit of the article)
While recognizing bureaucracy as the most efficient form of organization, and even indispensable for the modern state, Weber also saw it as a threat to individual freedoms, and the ongoing bureaucratization as leading to a "polar night of icy darkness", in which increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in a soulless "iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control.[14][15]
Robert K. Merton

The American sociologist Robert K. Merton expanded on Weber's theories of bureaucracy in his work Social Theory and Social Structure, published in 1957. While Merton agreed with certain aspects of Weber's analysis, he also considered the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, which he attributed to a "trained incapacity" resulting from "overconformity." He saw bureaucrats as more likely to defend their own entrenched interests than to act to benefit the organization as a whole. He also believed bureaucrats took pride in their craft, which led them to resist changes in established routines. Merton also noted that bureaucrats emphasized formality over interpersonal relationships, and had been trained to ignore the special circumstances of particular cases, causing them to come across as "arrogant" and "haughty."[21]


I agree quite a bit with Robert K. Merton. I think taking something that should be very personal and individualized for each of us (our own private healthcare), and putting a monsterous bureuacracy in charge of it is a TERRIBLE idea in our current society...that is, a society whose privacy has been increasingly invaded by our governmental agencies, a society whose government is so money-driven, and power-mad. Placing our most sensitive private data into the hands of people (who by Spectacles own definition) are "gamblers"...well, Obamacare is just rigging the game for those gamblers, isn't it? They'll have access to all data regarding our the history of our health, the probability that we'll inherit genetically transferred diseases from our ancestors, and the current specifics of our health. They'll know which of us is a "bad choice" to gamble with, and in turn charge that person more money than they should probably logically be charged. It IS a soulless iron cage...and as we've seen in America's history, once a program of this magnitude is started up, it has little chance of stopping, cause guess what? Stopping such a program once started would probably cost more than the initial start up costs!!! The Feds will have us in a vice grip for sure.

I'm all for bureaucracy within certain areas of our government...where things can be maintained logically, by the numbers, and run by the right specialists. It helps keeps costs of certain areas of our infrastructure more efficient, and cost effective. However, maintaining buildings, roads, farms, food and electrical grids is a far cry from personal healthcare, and forcing individuals to buy the insurance for "their own good". Who is Obama, or our Federal government to tell me what is good for my healthcare needs? Right now...they (our government) are nobody to me. I've lost the concept of what our government is and bearly remember what I think it SHOULD be. Our political corruption in American is at an all-time high, yet we think THEY are somehow going to be our saviors in the realm of our personal healthcare?????  They allow tobacco companies to sell us poison, keep alcohol legal to keep us under their ether, and in the process millions of Americans die each year from one side-effect or another from the consumption of alcohol! Yeah, they really know what is best for us all don't they?  

Edited by Mark, 14 March 2014 - 12:00 PM.

Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#9 FarscapeOne

FarscapeOne
  • Islander
  • 3,905 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 12:32 PM

I have to agree with Mark on everything he said.

Getting Obamacare started cost so much that it will be virtually impossible to get rid of it.  It's like at Publix... when they changed to the computer automatically ordering the shelves... to this day, about 9 years later, there are STILL massive screwups with orders.  And I'm not talking about 2 or 3 stores.  When I had my Nestle route, EVERY store I ever worked and many others that I still had connections to had the same issues.  But they spent so much money on the AR (Automatic Replenishment) that they just kept it and are still working out bugs on something that shouldn't have been introduced to begin with.

And I also agree with Mark that they are not the best judges for what is good for my health.  The best example of this?  Allowing cigarettes to be legal.  Do they not realize how much that industry costs EVERYONE when it comes to health care?  The millions who get cancer because of it, and the many others who get cancer and never puffed a single cigarette in their life but because so many people around them smoke it is very difficult to escape from the secondhand effects?  As far as I'm concerned, the government has no right to tell me what is and isn't in my best interest when it comes to my health care.

#10 Omega

Omega

    Maktel shcree lotak meta setak Oz!

  • Moderator
  • 4,028 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 12:41 PM

I disagree with the analogy of insurance as gambling. LIFE is gambling. Insurance is hedging your bets.

#11 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 01:11 PM

Quote

Mark: So Obama is forcing us to do business with gamblers?  

Pretty much. He at first proposed a public option but abandoned it for fear someone would call him a socialist. Imagine that. :)

I was furious when the public option was dropped. But this is what we have. It's better than what we had before--which was that we were almost totally at the mercy of insurers. Now, at least, some consumer protections are in place.

Quote

Having to build such a huge bureaucracy from scratch, including the infrastructure (land, buildings, equipment, experts, more experts. unelected officials controlling things that our taxes pay for, not to mention a Presidentially appointed chief)....all these things and more are necessary to make this monster breath.

There is an Obamacare building? Really? Where? And who is the Presidentially appointed chief? Of what? Who are the unelected officials controlling what our tax monies are paying for?

And I'll stop here because I'm lost....
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#12 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 09:08 PM

View PostSpectacles, on 14 March 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

Quote

Mark: So Obama is forcing us to do business with gamblers?  

Pretty much. He at first proposed a public option but abandoned it for fear someone would call him a socialist. Imagine that. :)

I was furious when the public option was dropped. But this is what we have. It's better than what we had before--which was that we were almost totally at the mercy of insurers. Now, at least, some consumer protections are in place.

Quote

Having to build such a huge bureaucracy from scratch, including the infrastructure (land, buildings, equipment, experts, more experts. unelected officials controlling things that our taxes pay for, not to mention a Presidentially appointed chief)....all these things and more are necessary to make this monster breath.

There is an Obamacare building? Really? Where? And who is the Presidentially appointed chief? Of what? Who are the unelected officials controlling what our tax monies are paying for?

And I'll stop here because I'm lost....

Mark: Regarding the proposal that Obama hire a CEO type to run this healthcare system .... http://www.reuters.c...E9BS04Y20131229. I didn't know this was a new concept...I seem to remember reading that tidbit somewhere in some official government document.

As for the infrastructure...surely nobody would be stupid enough to put the entire healthcare system of the United States of America in only it's cyber-infrastructure? Have you seen what happens in a Wal-Mart when their computers crash, and all the cash registers won't function? Not being able to buy something is inconvenient...but not being able to get healthcare for a similar reason could be fatal.
So, what if some hackers get pissed about Obamacare, deploy their super cyber-kung fu, and our healthcare system goes down the drain? Or worse yet, a nuclear attack, or solar storm causes an EMP strong enough to destroy our electronics. Again, no healthcare system for the people, even if some huge calamity has taken place and millions are injured and in dire need of medical attention!
Allowing the Federal Data Hub to so freely access and manipulate this healthcare plan is asking for disaster. Trying to supply the growing millions of Americans with some nationally required healthcare plan also has the appearance of standing under Niagara falls with a bucket, hoping to catch all drops of water.

Entire ecosystems and many species have been wiped out because mankind through it's government and government run bureaucracies, seem to think it can possibly know everything and be all powerful if given enough resources and funding. For instance, the ancient Paddlefish that once was abundant in Caddo, Lake, in Texas, was nearly rendered extinct because our Army Corp. of Engineers decided to divert water from the natural lake with a dam, or something to that affect. The Paddlefish, it turns out, took subtle cues from the differences in water flow in the lake as an indicator for it to breed. After the dam was built and extra water flow diverted, the Paddlefish completely stopped breeding!

Trying to macro-manage a micro-environment is something for supreme deities, not human-beings who think they are!  Real life is a jungle. Jungles cannot be efficiently managed for the safety and benefit of millions of it's inhabitants by some Tarzan, looking down from a tree and yodeling to the villages of the jungle when he senses danger. He could not hope to protect us all from the wilds of this jungle just because he knows how to swing from vines, and has a knack for commuinicating with all the jungle's critters (that's an analogy of our current transportation system, and internet connectivity). Why am I using this ridiculous analogy, anyway? Because in my mind, Obamacare is a ridiculous concept that quite frankly Americans may be hundreds or even many hundreds of years away from being able to successfully deploy with economic success. It could also be that far away from being publicly accepted by everyone. It's also dealing with something that is much more personal to us all than our mere income statements and credit card transactions being viewed by tens of angencies who employ many thousands of people to watch those things, and make certain the data rings true to real life. It's more complex than the IRS' database on American taxpayers' incomes. It deals with more subjective elements, and isn't so fact-based as basic math and checking income statements with real life hard copies of actual transactions, and receipts.

The writers of Star Trek also gave the same grandios ideology where people of the future don't lack for healthcare, or material wants. Humans supposedly only exist to better themselves and explore the universe. Well, that's find and dandy...but it's also fiction. Written by human fiction writers' with ideals of a better future for mankind. However, even those those ideas and ideals are set hundreds of years in Earth's future. We just aren't ready!

But what do I know? Pehaps Obamacare will work, and it will eventually help us and our economy. We may have to give up our cell phones to afford :sarcasm: it, but...  
Again, what do I know? Why should my negative opinion of Obamacare, and American in general be correct, when thousands of people hum alonge everyday with their eyes looking at some damned text message on their cell phones, not seeming to notice how knee-deep in problems America really is. For everyone's sake...I hope my accessment of these things are way out of line, and over-reactive.
Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#13 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 09:00 AM

Mark, Obamacare is a series of regulations, not an actual thing to be housed in a building. All of the insurance companies still exist. There is no competing government product.

The federal website--which is used only in states where Republican governors refused to set up state sites--merely puts insurers and uninsured people in contact--and calculates any subsidies the person is eligible for if he makes less that 45000 a year.  That's it for the website. The administration of claims and so forth--the nuts and bolts of insuring people--remain in the domain of the same old insurers: Blue Cross, Aetna, etc.

The new regulations imposed by Obamacare are these:

insurers cannot deny coverage to applicants who have pre-existing conditions

insurers cannot stop paying medical bills of the really ill because they hit their "lifetime limit"

insurers have to provide no-co-pay physicals and other preventive care services: mammograms, etc.

insurers cannot have you pay more than 6,350 a year in out-of-pocket costs (coinsurance, deductibles, copayments, etc.) Before, most policies did not have such limits or set them much higher. Most of us don't pay $6000 in out-of-pocket costs (copays on prescriptions and office visits, etc.)  during a regular year, so it's hard to consider the benefit of this. Here's a good article on out-of-pocket costs before and after ACA:

http://healthinsuran...y-To-Beware.htm

Most of us did not know how at-risk we were should we suffer a catastrophic illness or accident. But those little loopholes that the insurance companies exploited for years bankrupted many an insurance-holder who suffered from a serious illness/accident.

The ACA closes those loopholes. We are all protected now from the largest cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.: serious illness or accident. And most of those who had to declare bankruptcy due to high medical bills actually had insurance.  That can't really happen now.

And there are more. All of them protect people who have insurance from being ripped off.

That's it.

Now, I agree that "affordable" is very much in the eye--and budget--of the beholder. I worry about people who make more than 45000 a year--but not a whole lot more-- and are therefore ineligible for subsidies. Adding the equivalent of a new car payment to a budget that stretches only from month-to-month already is a hardship.

Apparently, a lot of people in the individual market are getting some real bargains. Some are getting screwed. Again, it all depends on where you live and how much you make.

I would have much preferred a Medicare-for-all buy-in. It would have been simpler and much cheaper for everyone. But socialism. So....at least we have consumer protections now so that we can't be denied insurance or cut off from it when we need it--and we can't get billed for $100,000 that our "insurance" won't cover.

When people rail against Obamacare, they forget all of that. All they recall are the latest horror story ad, which usually does not hold up to scrutiny. This is how the GOP has been getting us to vote against our interests for the past 30 years: rile us up against boogeymen so that we're blind to the real benefits of something they don't like because.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#14 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:02 AM

View PostSpectacles, on 15 March 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

Mark, Obamacare is a series of regulations, not an actual thing to be housed in a building. All of the insurance companies still exist. There is no competing government product.

This is a frustratingly common happenstance among folks who live in places where the anti-Obamacare fervor is high.  People are very upset about something it turns out they have been pretty startlingly misinformed about and the result is people end up re-fighting off-the-point battles over the existence of entitlements and regulatory apparatuses that were settled many decades ago… Which is exactly what people like the Koch brothers want, because if we're talking about Obamacare as it actually exists, people are apt to like it - as the poll results show. Just as they like medicare. Just as they like social security. Of course, the same sorts of battles were fought over them, as well, with the same ol' time revival-style doom-and-gloom scenarios… bankrolled by the same sorts of people, too.

The truth is that both healthcare itself and health insurance are highly-regulated industries - and they need to be. Public health is not one of those sectors that can or should be left to do its own thing.

As for the "Obamacare building" - Mark, Obamacare is run out of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division within the Department of Health and Human Services, a cabinet level agency of the executive branch. They have many, many buildings. :)

Edited by BklnScott, 15 March 2014 - 10:04 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#15 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:02 AM

Spectacles:

Quote

The ACA closes those loopholes. We are all protected now from the largest cause of bankruptcy in the U.S.: serious illness or accident. And most of those who had to declare bankruptcy due to high medical bills actually had insurance.  That can't really happen now.

And there are more. All of them protect people who have insurance from being ripped off.

Mark: Oh, I agree some of the concepts could potentially be beneficial. And I rarely listen to the propaganda one party uses against the other. I find it a useless activity that wastes my time, unless I become amused at absurdities. Instead, I try to base my opinions based on whatever facts I can obtain through the haze of spin doctors, and my own personal experiences. Mostly though, I rely on my knowledge of American history, human history, and human nature when attempting to form my opinions on major or radical social changes within our society.

History is filled with violence and rebellion when the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few. (I try to focus on past democratic governments because they are a better parallel with the U.S., but similarities exist in other historical forms of government as well). Often times, the minority who ends up getting the raw deals,  rise up, and often team up with like-minded individuals who are against the establishement. Sometimes in history, the minority defeats the majority through violence...as the U.S. did with England during the Revolutionary War. If the minority fails to win a rebellion or war for something they feel strongly enough about, they can end up turning into terrorists. So many people seem to have a hard time distinguishing between terrorists, and freedom fighters. A clue...terrorists target innocent bystanders...a true freedom fighter would not. It's beneficial for fighters in any war of oppression to gather strength through befriending and recruiting average people, not kill them. Take the historical example of Spartacus' rebellion against Roman oppression, and mistreatment. They found other oppressed and disgruntled people in their marches through Italy, and the relatively minor slave revolt became a full scale military campaign.

So, which of these new rules protects us from pharmaceutical companies making record profit margins each year, while they're ripping us off, and holding many people's lives hostage in return for their product?
Do any of these new laws limit price gouging by pharmaceutical companies, or does the new system just assure that we won't have to individually pay out-of-pocket over a certain amount? Until the government forces big pharm to limit their ridiculous prices, the new system would have to somehow pay the difference between out-of-pocket expense, and actual expense. In my experience, that means having to draw on more taxes...which doesn't help us in the long term. And why do we continue to allow big pharm to peddle their expensive, long-winded television messages (with all the horrible disclaimers) to the general public, and not just to the doctors who are the ultimate decision-makers when considering it's possible benefits for their patients? It's just forcing people who know little or nothing about how these chemicals react in our bodies, and how they blend with the other chemicals we injest, to pester their doctors and bend their ears for the pharmaceutical companies' ultimate benefit.

It seems okay for pharms to give us something, for say, arthritis, that could cause some other terrible condition, or even death...as long as they place all those danged disclaimers in their ads! Hey, if it could kill me or give me something worse than I already suffer from...I don't want it! If these new drugs are potentially more hazardous than our current condition, we probably shouldn't be using them, or allowing the big pharm ads to promote their use to every age group watching those ads, should we? :shrug:

Edited by Mark, 15 March 2014 - 10:21 AM.

Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#16 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:12 AM

Scott:

Quote

Just as they like medicare. Just as they like social security. But make no mistake, the same sorts of battles were fought over them, as well… bankrolled by the same sorts of people, too.

Mark: It wasn't ever a case of liking medicare or social security for me...it was the proported inefficiencies and wastes withing the beauracracies, and the reports of so many supposedly high-level knowledgable people within our government that warned social secuity wasn't sustainable in it's current form, and had many believing they'd end up losing all the money they'd spent their lifetimes putting into the system designed for "their own future benefit". I don't know if the alarming accusations about SS are true or not...I just know that failure ISN'T an option for millions of Americans now reliant on the system.

Edited by Mark, 15 March 2014 - 10:16 AM.

Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#17 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:39 AM

Social security is not going to fail. My belief is that we are actually moving swiftly toward a twist in the traditional "must cut social security" discourse. The twist would be, "Hey! What would happen if we don't cut social security, but instead FULLY fund it?"  

Nuts, right?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#18 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 12:15 AM

Mark: Obama's Social Security 2015 budget proposal.

The grey areas I highlighted in the pages are points of concern. Reviewing current beneficiaries to check up on their condition I can completely understand. Perhaps some of them have "gotten better". However, "establishing a dependable source of mandatory funding in 2016 for Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) and SSI Redeterminations, which ensure that only those elegible for benefits continue to receive them", along with the following sentence claiming the Federal Government could save an estimated $35 billion over 10 years through this proposal and reduce the current backlog of 1.3 million overdue CDRs, has all the appearances of the Fed anticipating dropping many benificiaries benefits.
If they haven't yet checked up on these people's conditions, how are they predetermining saving $35 billion over 10 years? They couldn't possible "know" how much they're going to save until the CDRs and SSI Redeterminations have been completed, could they? :glare: This has the earmarks of perparing the public in advance for their intention to massively cut current benefits for those currently receiving them! I don't think this is just me being paranoid.

In the second grey highlighted area, I noticed how they plan to eleminate "aggressive Social Security claiming strategies, which allow upper-income beneficiaries to manipulate the timing of collection of Social Security benifits in order to maximize delayed retirement credits". Those "claiming strategies" were written by the government for a reason, I think. It gave incentives for people to continue working as long as possible, and as a reward, they would receive higher benifits after retiring. Is the government now not intending to keep it's promise that was written in law? Would they really dip so low as to encourage people to retire earlier? It's been proven that people who continue to stay active in their workplace longer enjoy better mental and physical health. People who retire early apparently lose a lot of their purpose in life. Sedentary physical stumuli along with lack of using their brains everyday the way they would in the workplace supposedly lead to illnesses that negatively affect their lifespan expectations. So, the money the government plans to save by changing the current SS law for those people will probably be lost (and then some) by the future medical needs of those people. Funny how the everything seems to revolve around the medical industry, isn't it?
I'd be interested to hear Orpheus' take on this.
Attached File  Social Security 2015 Budget Proposal pg.1.jpg   128.71K   8 downloadsAttached File  Social Security 2015 Budget Proposal pg.2.jpg   254.28K   7 downloads

Edited by Mark, 16 March 2014 - 12:15 AM.

Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#19 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 16 March 2014 - 06:07 AM

More about the "aggressive social security delay strategies" here:

http://www.investmen.../FREE/140309935

The incentive to continue working would remain intact. What would change are certain strategies employed primarily by financial advisers to maximize social security streams while arranging their clients' portfolios. Much more at the link, including the rationale.

Regarding disability reviews, as the piece you posted points out, there is a backlog of 1.3 million overdue continuing disability reviews. They're making the argument that doing the continuing disability reviews--which are not new but which have been so underfunded as to be non-existent in many cases--would save money. It would.

I'm sure most of us know people who are disabled by choice. I have an old FB friend who is on disability for prostate cancer, which he carries on about endlessly. I've known two men who dealt with prostate cancer and didn't miss a beat. His disability is largely in his head.

I have another friend who has been on disability since she was in her late 30s for "a work injury." She can stand on one leg and raise the other straight up in a yoga pose. She can walk miles and miles. She is the fittest fifty-something person I know. But she is terribly poor because, in her head, she is disabled. She's a very smart person who could have done a lot with her life, but she fell into the trap of being "disabled" twenty years ago and has not wanted to give up her paltry guaranteed income. Plus, she's been out of the work force for so long that it's hard for her to get back in.

She's had no continuing disability review, not in 20 years. Perhaps if she had, perhaps if she had had to re-enter the workforce when she was healed from her injury 20 years ago, her life would be better today. Perhaps not. But I can tell you that it is painful to see a person so bright hanging on so fiercely to $850 a month, which is all she gets. And I've seen her exaggerate in her mind every ache and pain to feel justified.

I agree with you that work is good. I think people should work as much as they can and as long as they can. And I'm sure that most people on disability would agree, that if they had their druthers, they'd be in the workforce.

There are some, though, who do game the system. It makes sense to review the cases of people on long-term disability to make sure that they really are disabled. That's what they are supposed to do, but apparently have not been doing, not nearly enough if there is a 1.3 million backlog.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Obamacare, Health Care, Poll, 2014

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users