Call me crazy but “HHS estimated that 62 million Americans would gain mental health coverage” this will be a major expense that will push health care costs into the stratosphere. This coverage is akin to chiropractic coverage of soft tissue injury in liability cases – there are legitimate instances but extremely hard to disprove in cases of overuse and abuse.
Not sure how a mentally ill person can overuse and abuse mental health care. Too many visits to a mental health practioner? Too many Electroconvulsive Therapy (Shock) Treatments? Do you know any mentally ill people who do not have access to affordable professional mental health care? I do, and their suffering is terrible.
I’m not against “legitimate” means tested health care services. I am not questioning that you know a lot of mentally ill people who are suffering and can’t afford treatment. Most of my family and friends seem to be sane; we probably don’t run in the same circles of friends.
I am experienced in selling health insurance and processing claims. I am familiar with people with mental health problems, having worked 4 years in an adult confinement facility. Through these experiences I also know of a lot of people (patients and institutions) who abuse the system and it is naive to think that adding 62 million is not going to result in a tremendous increase in taxes.
As for the government having figured out how all this is all affordable, I’m still waiting for the sky to fall from Sequestration.
No one wants to deprive mental patients and those already ill of needed medical services, but by adding 62 million of them to the healthcare system, how can the government call this “Affordable Healthcare”? Simple math (actually simpler arithmetic) will indicate that costs will have to escalate – by a lot, too. The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act title is just more government-speak for a scheme that, with its regulations and pressure on profits, is designed to put private insurers out of business so the government can take over all healthcare, as was the idea from the get-go. Once done, it will dole benefits out according to its agenda, which will certainly involve denial of some services to some people (with no right of appeal, I’m sure) as a means of cutting the costs and giving the appearance of controlling them, while continjuing to suck money out of the economy to support a system that will be perpetually in the red. I see the whole healthcare act as simply another way for the government to gain further control over the lives of our citizens while simultaneously creating more reliance on the government for everyday needs in an unsustainable economic environment that will ultimately drive our great country into ruin.
Bob – Call me crazy, but don’t you think that when the CBO estimated how much HCR was going to cost, and how much it was going to save (as in a $200 billion reduction in the deficit over 9 years), that they included the larger number of people being given access to any kind of health care services they never had before? Do you really think they just left out a large segment of people with mental health conditions. People with those problems inordinately tax the ER services already – as much as the otherwise uninsured – I’m quite certain they were considered in the calculations.
So your argument is what exactly? That affordable health care should only exist for those who can afford to pay for it, except in limited cases of extreme circumstance? Yeah, that would be the failed system we have now. There’s a reason that every other industrialized nation in the world has nationalized health care – and despite what you’ve been told, only a handful of those countries are hemorrhaging from their health care costs. They’re also cutting tuition benefits in the UK – austerity is everywhere.
A healthier population saves money on other services (preventative care is always cheaper than treating illnesses) and is makes that population more productive. We can learn from the mistakes of other nations, and build a system that’s self-sustaining and helps people live health lives – which means they can keep working, which means they make money, which means the economy improves and can more readily sustain the services.
Rusty’s argument is paranoia from someone who has no concept of the true costs of inadequate health care, how much not having a standardized medical insurance system has taxed the poor, part-time and contract workers in this country, what socialized medicine actually is, or how many people in this country are truly suffering from an unregulated health care system, that’s all about putting private profits above the health of their customers. Stop pretending this is the beginning of Logan’s Run. There is absolutely no evidence of any of those motivations in the Patient Protection Act. There should be MORE in the bill to control what kind of profits the insurance companies can make. And they are the one’s who really have to worry about, in terms of trying to control your health care for their own profit-based reasons (and where is the right of appeal with insurance companies again?) and corporations trying to gain more control over the lives of individuals (Citizen’s United anyone?)
You’re confusing your boogeymen sweetie. We’re already in great ruin – thanks to your corporate overlords – and we have way more to fear from them than we do HCR.
More communist propaganda. Sure, let’s trust 1 bigger and bigger gov’t that will re-distribute everything fairly(?) (& efficiently?). But not the “corporate overloads” who, pay your salary for the product you produce, pay a good chunk of your medical ins costs, pay a share of taxes, etc. etc.
I truly believe the leadership (BOB) is travelling around now on the campaign trail (for what?) spreading shock & fear because he simply doesn’t know what else to do.
The bill limits the profits, but also limits invesments.
There should not be limits on how much profits the insurance company can make. Due to the split, if they took 10,000 dollars, turned it into 20,000, and took 20 percent, they would have taken your 10,000 dollars, and made it $16,000 to use on healthcare. But most of the time, if they can make more profit, they invset more of it. So then let’s say they keep 40%. They took 10,000 made it into 20,000, took $8,000. You still get $12,000 dollars for $10,000 of an investment. Then they invest the $8,000 and double that. It’s exponential.
Worth noting is that our healthcare may cost more, but consider what you are paying in versus what you get out. And consider that our style of living is the worst in the world, and our life expectancy, when you remove our abnormaly high vehicular deaths, homicides, and deaths which healthcare have nothing to do with, puts our life expectancy as TIED for the highest in the world.
I think you need to shut up. We have fatter people, people who live worse, living just as long.
More to the point: Every area, when you break down the studies is wrong. Infant mortality: Did you know that most euro nations exclude still births from their infant mortality rate? Oops, it’s a baby here, it’s not a baby there, now we have a higher infant mortality rate based on their counting. Get the point?
You need to learn how to make the methodolgy, not to follow sources.
And I’m sorry but no, the corporations are not ruining this nation.
You name me one that is, and spell out how.
Mircrosoft? Apple? Which corporation would you force out it’s BENEFITS which are generally BETTER than normal? Starbucks? They give better benefits than most small businesses and better pay.
NAME the area. NAME the how. Do it NOW. Otherwise, shut up.
I understand what you’re saying, and in theory I can see your point. However, I spent so many years working in healthcare I tend to side with the patient. It’s not easy to tell people their insurer won’t approve the medical care they need. Need, of course, is a relative term, but even I could see the need in most cases and I’m just another bean counter.
Okay, I got distracted and forgot to add my point. Limiting the profits will (hopefully) increase the amount spent on care. Fewer denials, in theory. Lots of theory going on, I know.
Making profit does not equate to siding against the patient. Some companies are bad. That’s how it goes. They have to make sure the system works. If people try to get insured for something and not pay, someone else in the system hurts. So when you say you side with the “person” I would say it’s accurate. However, doing so is siding against the “people”.
The investment limiting will not make the firm able to build more capital.
If more money can be used for investment, more money will come from that invetment for the large claims. We aren’t seeking to cover small claims. We are seeking to cover worst case scenario, the best method of which is to allow as much capital growth as possible, the only method of which is investment.
The government would take your $10,000 and would pay out more like 90% of the total, making you pay in $10,000 and get $9,000.
The only way that the government can provide care to certain people is rationing, or determining when or how people get care.
This happens in those countries. You will say that happens here and that’s the only way insurance companies can determine profits.
Wrong. Investments. They can actually pay out more than they receive. This is a fact. The government cannot.
Even if the insurance companies try to limit payments, with the laws the way they are now, they would no matter what, pay more than the government ever would, or could.
Clever, you are indeed. Not to mention just a common sense, intelligent, and well-read professional. Way to fight the good fight. Don’t be rattled by the likes of Bob. I don’t even read that guy anymore. He’ll eventually get fed up and just start calling you names. Irrational and illogical, really. You’d do yourself well to just ignore that bully, too.
Captain – I think there are two ‘bob’ posters. If you read the posts, the one who resorts to name calling and obnoxious behaviour uses language differently than the bob in this thread.
Planet, you are one to talk. Calling someone a name and making it look pretty is bullying.
Moreover, disprove the facts, not the source.
What in Bob’s post was inaccruate?
Have you looked up the methodology used for WHO? This is the only organization who has listed us as 30 something in our ranking.
Bob replies to all people. This is not a sign of a bully. It’s a sign of a pissed off person. A bully chooses who they respond to, and shapes the public to make fun of another, with labels and bigotry. I’m sorry to say, none of the Bob’s do this here.
Name calling yes, anger, yes.
But you? You have used wording stating that republicans are keeping women in the kitchen in a war against their bodies are racist and religious zealots, all the while making “jokes” to basically make it acceptable.
That is bully. A jerk has no power, a jerk is a jerk. A bully gets people to join in. That’s you.
When looking at my (this bob) responses look at who I’m responding to when I get angry.
Ron: Was stating the Catholic church had lower standards than the state, and was agreeing with someone who was blaming religion for rape and molestation. Numbers: about 3,000 versus 422,000 in one state. I call this not only bigotry, but plain out wrong.
Planet: Labels and fights regarding corporations, spreading class war.
Clever: Posts about evil corporations.
My replies, when hostile, are always to someone who while they are talking pretty, are spewing out filth. Why do I call it filth? Well, it’s insults, or about anger toward someone.
People lable the right as hate spreading people. Some are, at least they aren’t indirect, or cowards. If something is wrong, they punch you in the face, and set you straight.
I vastly prefer that to: Hey hey, lighten up, you guys are all racist and religion is horrible! Man, I hate those corporations!
What irritates me the most about obnoxious posts (and this applies to ALL of them regardless of politics) is that the streams of profanity (hidden by symbols) makes it difficult to understand. Also, I’m not partial to threats, especially from professionals.
State your case and accept that you will not agree with everyone and someone will reply stating the opposite of what you said. It isn’t the end of the world.
February 27, 2013 at 4:51 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I should note Captain:
Someone using a name does not make them wrong to do with policies.
It makes them wrong morally. Also, stating a person is irrational or illogical, is different than stating a person is basically hot headed. Bob is Hot headed.
He is by no means illogical, or irrational. You are a jerk, and talk prettier but many times are more insulting than him, and you are in fact illogical, and irrational. I can point out exactly how as well.
The WHO, divide out the methodlogy break up for how they ranked us, divide out the areas, and how the areas were weighed. As an example: How much of the weight was from infant mortality, and how was it weighed in each country? A hint: In America still births count against our deaths per thousand. In Europe, and most of the world, they don’t count the baby as an infant mortality if they are still birth. In Europe if you are 80 and have psenmonia, you are considered terminal. If you are terminal, you don’t get treatment. So, they thus do not count those people toward their results on “treated” persons. Thus, their death rate is lower. We count people from 20, to 100, and provide treatment regardless of whether they are terminal, provided the senior wants the treatment. Thus our results for the older people will be bad. Their results for older people will be lopped off their totals.
Etc etc. You have not done this math. You merely quote left leaning sources, or politifact (Still left leaning, but you refuse to accept it). Do the math. You’re not fighting a good fight if you don’t even know what the fight is about. That’s called being hot headed even if you don’t get hot headed.
In re mental health coverage. The over use will come from 2 sectors.
1st is addiction treatment. The primary reason mental health coverage was limited in the 90’s was the explosion of for profit addiction treatment centers. The standard course of inpatient treatment was “how long will your insurance cover.” The carriers were getting killed.
2nd is a broader issue. The AMA adds dozens of new mental health diagnosis every year, and the accompanying requirement for prescription meds. Around the time they got to “my teenager annoys me syndrome” the carriers decided enough was enough and capped the benefits.
Randy has it right, in spite of the “low information Obama Kool-aid drinkers” who think that the Obama ACA plan will work to the benefit of everyone.
30 States now are opting out of it because it is financialy un-sound and unworkable!
Doctors are opting our of Medicaid payment plans because they are unrealistically low!
But think about this – If this was a good plan that was workable, why wouldn’t the Obama Administration and the Democratic-ruled Congress let the people and other legislators see it and discuss it in Congress before they forced a vote on it ??? The answer is that they didn’t want anyone else to know what a peice of crap and unworkable law it is, and it turned out to be a terrible piece of power-grabbing legislation that the majoeiry of people and States are rejecting now! It is recognized by “high information” people as Obama’s attempt to force Socialism upon the people of the United States through the guise of “healthcare required for everyone or they get fined!” It truly is just a very bad law passed by Democrats to give them a method for imposinf Socialism upon the people of the U.S. It is not designed to provide better or low-cost healthcare, and will do just the opposit and the fail.
Rusty perfectly stated the true intentions of the current administration. Only a fool believes Obamacare will be cheaper than the current system. The math that makes that work has yet to be invented. By doling out 15 & 30 second sound bites, the illiterate American public believes they have grasped & understand the full extent of Obamacare. For me personally, the most shocking development is how quickly the American citizens can be duped. This transition seemingly happened overnight.
If anyone watched cnbc interview with warren buffet this morning you would have learned Americans now pay 7% more for healthcare coverage than other western countries with national health care plans covering all citizens which makes our products much more costly.At the same time do not live as long as those citizens who have national healthcre coverage.
If anyone does not see this as the extreme left wing forcing the collapse of health insurance in America and forcing a “necessary” takeover by the government, then they are as naïve as Neville Chamberlain at Munich. This is a self induced path to failure of this “affordable health insurance tax penalty law” as defined by the Supreme Court so that the Democratic Party can increase government patronage jobs that will be filled by minority voters to maintain their hold on power through a beholding electorate.
Call me crazy but “HHS estimated that 62 million Americans would gain mental health coverage” this will be a major expense that will push health care costs into the stratosphere. This coverage is akin to chiropractic coverage of soft tissue injury in liability cases – there are legitimate instances but extremely hard to disprove in cases of overuse and abuse.
Not sure how a mentally ill person can overuse and abuse mental health care. Too many visits to a mental health practioner? Too many Electroconvulsive Therapy (Shock) Treatments? Do you know any mentally ill people who do not have access to affordable professional mental health care? I do, and their suffering is terrible.
I’m not against “legitimate” means tested health care services. I am not questioning that you know a lot of mentally ill people who are suffering and can’t afford treatment. Most of my family and friends seem to be sane; we probably don’t run in the same circles of friends.
I am experienced in selling health insurance and processing claims. I am familiar with people with mental health problems, having worked 4 years in an adult confinement facility. Through these experiences I also know of a lot of people (patients and institutions) who abuse the system and it is naive to think that adding 62 million is not going to result in a tremendous increase in taxes.
As for the government having figured out how all this is all affordable, I’m still waiting for the sky to fall from Sequestration.
No one wants to deprive mental patients and those already ill of needed medical services, but by adding 62 million of them to the healthcare system, how can the government call this “Affordable Healthcare”? Simple math (actually simpler arithmetic) will indicate that costs will have to escalate – by a lot, too. The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act title is just more government-speak for a scheme that, with its regulations and pressure on profits, is designed to put private insurers out of business so the government can take over all healthcare, as was the idea from the get-go. Once done, it will dole benefits out according to its agenda, which will certainly involve denial of some services to some people (with no right of appeal, I’m sure) as a means of cutting the costs and giving the appearance of controlling them, while continjuing to suck money out of the economy to support a system that will be perpetually in the red. I see the whole healthcare act as simply another way for the government to gain further control over the lives of our citizens while simultaneously creating more reliance on the government for everyday needs in an unsustainable economic environment that will ultimately drive our great country into ruin.
YEA to bith!
Bob – Call me crazy, but don’t you think that when the CBO estimated how much HCR was going to cost, and how much it was going to save (as in a $200 billion reduction in the deficit over 9 years), that they included the larger number of people being given access to any kind of health care services they never had before? Do you really think they just left out a large segment of people with mental health conditions. People with those problems inordinately tax the ER services already – as much as the otherwise uninsured – I’m quite certain they were considered in the calculations.
So your argument is what exactly? That affordable health care should only exist for those who can afford to pay for it, except in limited cases of extreme circumstance? Yeah, that would be the failed system we have now. There’s a reason that every other industrialized nation in the world has nationalized health care – and despite what you’ve been told, only a handful of those countries are hemorrhaging from their health care costs. They’re also cutting tuition benefits in the UK – austerity is everywhere.
A healthier population saves money on other services (preventative care is always cheaper than treating illnesses) and is makes that population more productive. We can learn from the mistakes of other nations, and build a system that’s self-sustaining and helps people live health lives – which means they can keep working, which means they make money, which means the economy improves and can more readily sustain the services.
Rusty’s argument is paranoia from someone who has no concept of the true costs of inadequate health care, how much not having a standardized medical insurance system has taxed the poor, part-time and contract workers in this country, what socialized medicine actually is, or how many people in this country are truly suffering from an unregulated health care system, that’s all about putting private profits above the health of their customers. Stop pretending this is the beginning of Logan’s Run. There is absolutely no evidence of any of those motivations in the Patient Protection Act. There should be MORE in the bill to control what kind of profits the insurance companies can make. And they are the one’s who really have to worry about, in terms of trying to control your health care for their own profit-based reasons (and where is the right of appeal with insurance companies again?) and corporations trying to gain more control over the lives of individuals (Citizen’s United anyone?)
You’re confusing your boogeymen sweetie. We’re already in great ruin – thanks to your corporate overlords – and we have way more to fear from them than we do HCR.
I’m not Bob, but I’ll say it. You’re crazy.
More communist propaganda. Sure, let’s trust 1 bigger and bigger gov’t that will re-distribute everything fairly(?) (& efficiently?). But not the “corporate overloads” who, pay your salary for the product you produce, pay a good chunk of your medical ins costs, pay a share of taxes, etc. etc.
I truly believe the leadership (BOB) is travelling around now on the campaign trail (for what?) spreading shock & fear because he simply doesn’t know what else to do.
This is wrong on so many levels…
Clever:
The bill limits the profits, but also limits invesments.
There should not be limits on how much profits the insurance company can make. Due to the split, if they took 10,000 dollars, turned it into 20,000, and took 20 percent, they would have taken your 10,000 dollars, and made it $16,000 to use on healthcare. But most of the time, if they can make more profit, they invset more of it. So then let’s say they keep 40%. They took 10,000 made it into 20,000, took $8,000. You still get $12,000 dollars for $10,000 of an investment. Then they invest the $8,000 and double that. It’s exponential.
Worth noting is that our healthcare may cost more, but consider what you are paying in versus what you get out. And consider that our style of living is the worst in the world, and our life expectancy, when you remove our abnormaly high vehicular deaths, homicides, and deaths which healthcare have nothing to do with, puts our life expectancy as TIED for the highest in the world.
I think you need to shut up. We have fatter people, people who live worse, living just as long.
More to the point: Every area, when you break down the studies is wrong. Infant mortality: Did you know that most euro nations exclude still births from their infant mortality rate? Oops, it’s a baby here, it’s not a baby there, now we have a higher infant mortality rate based on their counting. Get the point?
You need to learn how to make the methodolgy, not to follow sources.
And I’m sorry but no, the corporations are not ruining this nation.
You name me one that is, and spell out how.
Mircrosoft? Apple? Which corporation would you force out it’s BENEFITS which are generally BETTER than normal? Starbucks? They give better benefits than most small businesses and better pay.
NAME the area. NAME the how. Do it NOW. Otherwise, shut up.
I understand what you’re saying, and in theory I can see your point. However, I spent so many years working in healthcare I tend to side with the patient. It’s not easy to tell people their insurer won’t approve the medical care they need. Need, of course, is a relative term, but even I could see the need in most cases and I’m just another bean counter.
Okay, I got distracted and forgot to add my point. Limiting the profits will (hopefully) increase the amount spent on care. Fewer denials, in theory. Lots of theory going on, I know.
JW:
Making profit does not equate to siding against the patient. Some companies are bad. That’s how it goes. They have to make sure the system works. If people try to get insured for something and not pay, someone else in the system hurts. So when you say you side with the “person” I would say it’s accurate. However, doing so is siding against the “people”.
The investment limiting will not make the firm able to build more capital.
If more money can be used for investment, more money will come from that invetment for the large claims. We aren’t seeking to cover small claims. We are seeking to cover worst case scenario, the best method of which is to allow as much capital growth as possible, the only method of which is investment.
Also worth noting:
The government would take your $10,000 and would pay out more like 90% of the total, making you pay in $10,000 and get $9,000.
The only way that the government can provide care to certain people is rationing, or determining when or how people get care.
This happens in those countries. You will say that happens here and that’s the only way insurance companies can determine profits.
Wrong. Investments. They can actually pay out more than they receive. This is a fact. The government cannot.
Even if the insurance companies try to limit payments, with the laws the way they are now, they would no matter what, pay more than the government ever would, or could.
Clever, you are indeed. Not to mention just a common sense, intelligent, and well-read professional. Way to fight the good fight. Don’t be rattled by the likes of Bob. I don’t even read that guy anymore. He’ll eventually get fed up and just start calling you names. Irrational and illogical, really. You’d do yourself well to just ignore that bully, too.
Captain – I think there are two ‘bob’ posters. If you read the posts, the one who resorts to name calling and obnoxious behaviour uses language differently than the bob in this thread.
You are correct on the bob posters.
Planet, you are one to talk. Calling someone a name and making it look pretty is bullying.
Moreover, disprove the facts, not the source.
What in Bob’s post was inaccruate?
Have you looked up the methodology used for WHO? This is the only organization who has listed us as 30 something in our ranking.
Bob replies to all people. This is not a sign of a bully. It’s a sign of a pissed off person. A bully chooses who they respond to, and shapes the public to make fun of another, with labels and bigotry. I’m sorry to say, none of the Bob’s do this here.
Name calling yes, anger, yes.
But you? You have used wording stating that republicans are keeping women in the kitchen in a war against their bodies are racist and religious zealots, all the while making “jokes” to basically make it acceptable.
That is bully. A jerk has no power, a jerk is a jerk. A bully gets people to join in. That’s you.
JW:
I also feel the need to point out:
When looking at my (this bob) responses look at who I’m responding to when I get angry.
Ron: Was stating the Catholic church had lower standards than the state, and was agreeing with someone who was blaming religion for rape and molestation. Numbers: about 3,000 versus 422,000 in one state. I call this not only bigotry, but plain out wrong.
Planet: Labels and fights regarding corporations, spreading class war.
Clever: Posts about evil corporations.
My replies, when hostile, are always to someone who while they are talking pretty, are spewing out filth. Why do I call it filth? Well, it’s insults, or about anger toward someone.
People lable the right as hate spreading people. Some are, at least they aren’t indirect, or cowards. If something is wrong, they punch you in the face, and set you straight.
I vastly prefer that to: Hey hey, lighten up, you guys are all racist and religion is horrible! Man, I hate those corporations!
What irritates me the most about obnoxious posts (and this applies to ALL of them regardless of politics) is that the streams of profanity (hidden by symbols) makes it difficult to understand. Also, I’m not partial to threats, especially from professionals.
State your case and accept that you will not agree with everyone and someone will reply stating the opposite of what you said. It isn’t the end of the world.
I should note Captain:
Someone using a name does not make them wrong to do with policies.
It makes them wrong morally. Also, stating a person is irrational or illogical, is different than stating a person is basically hot headed. Bob is Hot headed.
He is by no means illogical, or irrational. You are a jerk, and talk prettier but many times are more insulting than him, and you are in fact illogical, and irrational. I can point out exactly how as well.
The WHO, divide out the methodlogy break up for how they ranked us, divide out the areas, and how the areas were weighed. As an example: How much of the weight was from infant mortality, and how was it weighed in each country? A hint: In America still births count against our deaths per thousand. In Europe, and most of the world, they don’t count the baby as an infant mortality if they are still birth. In Europe if you are 80 and have psenmonia, you are considered terminal. If you are terminal, you don’t get treatment. So, they thus do not count those people toward their results on “treated” persons. Thus, their death rate is lower. We count people from 20, to 100, and provide treatment regardless of whether they are terminal, provided the senior wants the treatment. Thus our results for the older people will be bad. Their results for older people will be lopped off their totals.
Etc etc. You have not done this math. You merely quote left leaning sources, or politifact (Still left leaning, but you refuse to accept it). Do the math. You’re not fighting a good fight if you don’t even know what the fight is about. That’s called being hot headed even if you don’t get hot headed.
I can tell you I won’t use this coverage. So that number is really 61,999,999. See, saving money already.
After seeing how the gov’t handled Sandy, do you seriously want them touching your healthcare?????
In re mental health coverage. The over use will come from 2 sectors.
1st is addiction treatment. The primary reason mental health coverage was limited in the 90’s was the explosion of for profit addiction treatment centers. The standard course of inpatient treatment was “how long will your insurance cover.” The carriers were getting killed.
2nd is a broader issue. The AMA adds dozens of new mental health diagnosis every year, and the accompanying requirement for prescription meds. Around the time they got to “my teenager annoys me syndrome” the carriers decided enough was enough and capped the benefits.
Anthing that gives you a headache, anxiety attacks and feelings of nausea everytime you pay the bill can’t be “healthcare”.
Randy has it right, in spite of the “low information Obama Kool-aid drinkers” who think that the Obama ACA plan will work to the benefit of everyone.
30 States now are opting out of it because it is financialy un-sound and unworkable!
Doctors are opting our of Medicaid payment plans because they are unrealistically low!
But think about this – If this was a good plan that was workable, why wouldn’t the Obama Administration and the Democratic-ruled Congress let the people and other legislators see it and discuss it in Congress before they forced a vote on it ??? The answer is that they didn’t want anyone else to know what a peice of crap and unworkable law it is, and it turned out to be a terrible piece of power-grabbing legislation that the majoeiry of people and States are rejecting now! It is recognized by “high information” people as Obama’s attempt to force Socialism upon the people of the United States through the guise of “healthcare required for everyone or they get fined!” It truly is just a very bad law passed by Democrats to give them a method for imposinf Socialism upon the people of the U.S. It is not designed to provide better or low-cost healthcare, and will do just the opposit and the fail.
Rusty perfectly stated the true intentions of the current administration. Only a fool believes Obamacare will be cheaper than the current system. The math that makes that work has yet to be invented. By doling out 15 & 30 second sound bites, the illiterate American public believes they have grasped & understand the full extent of Obamacare. For me personally, the most shocking development is how quickly the American citizens can be duped. This transition seemingly happened overnight.
If anyone watched cnbc interview with warren buffet this morning you would have learned Americans now pay 7% more for healthcare coverage than other western countries with national health care plans covering all citizens which makes our products much more costly.At the same time do not live as long as those citizens who have national healthcre coverage.
If anyone does not see this as the extreme left wing forcing the collapse of health insurance in America and forcing a “necessary” takeover by the government, then they are as naïve as Neville Chamberlain at Munich. This is a self induced path to failure of this “affordable health insurance tax penalty law” as defined by the Supreme Court so that the Democratic Party can increase government patronage jobs that will be filled by minority voters to maintain their hold on power through a beholding electorate.