Affordable Care Act "obamacare", on track to meet enrollee goal

camaro68ss



so who's allowing theses evil corporations to redistribute wealth for these banker bailouts? lets see, the government allows this.

Let me see, who pays for the politicians political campaings? so what do you expect?

And the the rich get tax handouts every year which is what I am speaking to.

Much of the policy the government adopts is formulated by the private sector, and policy aimed to benefit the general public is usually regulation which is opposed by certain people consistently as being communist or anti free market. The actions of government are symbolic of interests who fund the politicians. But in cases where the public interest is being looked after, it is often true that the private sector opposes the policy because it might impact profitability.

So you do realize that the conservative position is geared to oppose anything that can impact the supply side of economics/ corporations.

In short, you recognize that the government is in it for the corporations, but you don't realize that the ideology you prefer is the group that consistently aligns with the private sector even when it is against the interests of the public at large.

your answer to all questions, the government, allows the corporations to take tax payer money to bailout there fat cat friends. your government prints billions of dollars a month to give to bankers to keep banks afloat.

the root of all evil, government! how come the savoir and anointed one, Obama, doesn't give any of that printed money to the poor instead of his banker friends? this is just a hypothetical question because we all know, or I think we all know, that this would cause instant inflation. but it sure looks like Obama is practicing trickle down economics hahahaha. Its not working to well.

Obama has tried on several occasions to extend unemployment and snap benefits AKA the poor, but the Republicans opposed it and would rather give that money back in tax returns to wealthy people so they can hire more people. So infact, Obama has tried to give money to the poor on several occasions.Republicans LITERALLY want to give money to the bankers in the form of tax returns in the hopes that bankers will hire the lazy poor.

if its still not clear to you, this two party system is just one party.

edit on 1-4-2014 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

If its not clear to you, modern Republican policy are more geared to benefit the wealthy because they believe they will employ the poor yet some how I don't think you guys get it. It is in the books and speeches, takers and makers; and Republicans are for makers, banks, big oil, big everything private. Yet, you wonder why policies are geared to favor the people who can afford lobbyists, anything that the elite/rich oppose is deemed regulation or too liberal.

If you are thinking man, a real thinking man, you have a logical problem on your hands.

spurgeonatorsrevenge

Bilk22

spurgeonatorsrevenge

neo96
reply to post by Bilk22

 

I feel the numbers are much more bleak than they would dare tell us.

Yep if they really were what they sold themselves as 'The most transparent administration in US history'.

We would know the real numbers.

How many enrolled.
How many paid.
How many did not previously didn't 'have' insurance.
How many people signed up with 'prexisiting' conditions.

They are full of crap.

Defending the indefensible.

The ACA is pure fascism, and they don't care.

edit on 1-4-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

The Insurance companies are Nazis, they need to be put down in their place.

Opt in Universal Healthcare, then YOU are free to buy private insurance and I am free to pay for my medicare, both are happy.

This nation is not capable of maintaining universal HC. It works in much smaller, less populated and more homogenous places. It won't work here. How well does our huge megalithic government run anything but the military? How well do they run Medicaid or Medicare? How well do they run our school system? This nation used to be good at industry and they ruined that too. Why do you want them screwing with HC? The poor had options. Why screw it for everyone else who either had employer coverage or self-payers? You want guaranteed insurance for pre-existing conditions? I'm fine with that. Make a law that no one can be "discriminated" against. We already have those laws. Use it to enforce HC coverage.

You are speculating because you don't like the idea. As you said, this country ACTUALLY runs the military and we are safe from other governments (at least lol)

So I disagree with you in many ways.

First of all, Medicare simply remits payment, they do not provide healthcare, they negotiate reimbursement rates and they are account holders, that is about all they do essentially.

Second, Noridian is the private company that administers the program www.noridianmedicare.com...

Thrid, Doctors provide the healthcare and then they send the claim to Noridian.

Noridian processes the claim and if it approved, the doctors receives a check and an EOB.

The check is taken to the bank and the funds are disbursed from the governments account.

THAT IS the MEDICARE system in a nutshell.

Now I would much rather trust this government with another bank account than I would with nukes. I would imagine since people fear the government so much, actual dangerous things would scare people more than being the trustee to a fund.

So in your world all doctors will be employed by the federal government? If not, how is this different than the way medicare works? You do realize that the ACA can be very much more restrictive down the road, in how it's implemented? It's an open-ended proposition and as such, the government can do as they wish with our HC. Though you may be able to afford to pay out of pocket for a procedure, they may deem that illegal. They may say doctors cannot receive payment from individuals and only from the "central government". Man I can't believe we're in this place and time

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

You see, THAT is the truth, even though it is ugly and by my standards, unchristian.

A lot of people aren't Christian.
If charity is a Christian attribute, I suggest that all govt charity programs be stopped. There must be a clean line drawn between church and state.

Could you imagine if a politician said:' I oppose Obamacare because I am against lazy ass people seeing doctors when they haven't worked for it".

There are people that would vote for such a person.

Bilk22

So in your world all doctors will be employed by the federal government? If not, how is this different than the way medicare works? You do realize that the ACA can be very much more restrictive down the road, in how it's implemented? It's an open-ended proposition and as such, the government can do as they wish with our HC. Though you may be able to afford to pay out of pocket for a procedure, they may deem that illegal. They may say doctors cannot receive payment from individuals and only from the "central government". Man I can't believe we're in this place and time

No, in my world there would be a public option and the private market, people can opt into the public system or opt out.

You realize that your private policy can be more restrictive down the road??? I mean that is a vague statement because it applies to Medicare and BlueCross alike. Also, the implementation of healthcare is the DOCTOR, the administrator is the the insurance company/ Medicare... Furthermore, in the future the policy itself is terms of the policy, not Obamacare. Obamacare constitutes the guidelines that must be met in order to SELL the policy. Your concept of it is not accurate as it pertains to the legal framework of Insurance. Policies can't MEET or EXCEED Finally, the government has been regulating health insurance since it was invented, in many cases the benefits to you the consumer are far better than pre ACA.

And for the sake of argument, the government could of deemed out of pocket illegal yesterday, ten years ago, twenty years ago. My point is that has not been proposed or if it has I would like to see a link because that IS crazy!

The GOAL should not be to insure those who do not have it. The GOAL should be affordable healthcare for all. What you are looking at are socialist tactics.

Healthcare should be affordable whether you make 17k a year or 170k a year. A million a year. If you work hard why should you be burdened by some who do not want to? Not all...some.

There are hardworking single parents with 3 kids who need affordable care just like there are hardworking middle class families who could use a break. WHY NOT FOR ALL!!!

Because the government does not want it for all. They want to control the choice that we all make. What we eat...drive..buy...watch...and where we go to get help for health...

butcherguy
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

You see, THAT is the truth, even though it is ugly and by my standards, unchristian.

A lot of people aren't Christian.
If charity is a Christian attribute, I suggest that all govt charity programs be stopped. There must be a clean line drawn between church and state.

Jesus didn't not apply terms to his good will towards men, he did not demand money for the suffering he combated, he did it because it was right. Furthermore, Jesus did not distinguish between how help is provided for the needy, NEVER.

Could you imagine if a politician said:' I oppose Obamacare because I am against lazy ass people seeing doctors when they haven't worked for it".

There are people that would vote for such a person.


I know, but you guys wouldn't break 20% nationally if you ran on the truth about conservatism, it is much more effective to run on the lies about liberalism.

matafuchs
The GOAL should not be to insure those who do not have it. The GOAL should be affordable healthcare for all. What you are looking at are socialist tactics.

Healthcare should be affordable whether you make 17k a year or 170k a year. A million a year. If you work hard why should you be burdened by some who do not want to? Not all...some.

There are hardworking single parents with 3 kids who need affordable care just like there are hardworking middle class families who could use a break. WHY NOT FOR ALL!!!

Because the government does not want it for all. They want to control the choice that we all make. What we eat...drive..buy...watch...and where we go to get help for health...

Actually you are conflating the government with corporations... The government does not spend billions advertising poison food, the corporations do. The government does not spend billions manufacturing and DESIGNING cars, the corporations do. The government doesn't sell products, the corporations do. Private individuals bankroll what we watch, not the government.

In every case I have proven that the corporations are much more involved in trying to control your choices day to day.

And lets be honest, when you say the government does not want it for all, you are speaking to conservatives in government to be clear.

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

I know, but you guys wouldn't break 20% nationally if you ran on the truth about conservatism, it is much more effective to run on the lies about liberalism.

What lies about liberalism ?

Like how the ACA is the antithesis of liberalism.

Once upon a time 'liberalism' meant freedom from government

Where todays meaning forcing people to buy corporate products.

Like Health insurance.

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge


LOL are you serious?

Who oversees all those corporations and regulates them? Who gives them "tax" breaks? Bailouts? Favors? Yet makes laws they all have to follow? Unless enough money is involved of course.



They have a finger in ever imaginable pie, and now with the healthcare, they are just showing how much control they really want.

Or should I say, can just take, whenever they want.

neo96
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

I know, but you guys wouldn't break 20% nationally if you ran on the truth about conservatism, it is much more effective to run on the lies about liberalism.

What lies about liberalism ?

Like how the ACA is the antithesis of liberalism.

Once upon a time 'liberalism' meant freedom from government

Where todays meaning forcing people to buy corporate products.

Like Health insurance.

Uh, that liberals want to enslave humanity.

That liberals necessarily want a big government.

That liberals don't care about people, that they just want votes in exchange for handouts.

There is a huge list and I am certain you are more familiar with it than me.

I know it may not click with you, but I am actually motivated by altruism and individualism, I just allow BOTH to influence me, while I suspect that you are diametrically opposed to altruism.

And like I said, if you don't want people to be forced to buy health insurance, than join me in seeking an opt in public option.
Obamacare will be gone, you can get your corporate insurance and I can get my death panels.

That is the best option IMO.

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge



Altruism begins, and ends in the home.

Not in the halls of Capitol Shill.

chiefsmom
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

LOL are you serious?

Who oversees all those corporations and regulates them? Who gives them "tax" breaks? Bailouts? Favors? Yet makes laws they all have to follow? Unless enough money is involved of course.

Well lets think about this.

Individuals and boards oversee the corporations and they are self regulating. As I am sure your are aware, a government agent does not sit in and influence corporate policy. Corporations are required to follow laws that are commonly referred to as regulation, but I am sure that you follow laws yourself everyday. Does a government agent follow you around and make sure you follow regulations? Now do you see the inaccuracy of your perspective?

And if you notice, government policy is made by politicians, these politicians are funded by corporations in the first place, so the agenda is that of the corporation and the politician, not the "government". The government is a tool, not an outcome, and the outcome is usually manipulated by corporations, unions, and other groups.

neo96
reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

 

Altruism begins, and ends in the home.

Not in the halls of Capitol Shill.

Usually people who receive altruistic acts are not able to afford Shills, the only people who can afford shills are rich people who can hire lobbyists and the like.

So if you don't want shills on the hill, don't side with the rich. Politicians who believe in altruism will act FOR the people who are unable to buy shills in the first place.

So in my opinion altruism would fix your shill problem more than making more billionaires, who in turn hire more shills and grow government.

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge


For someone claiming to 'care' about their fellow man so much.

They would not be on this site arguing over rich people.

They would be knocking on their next door neighbors door at this minute

Asking them if they needed help.

And giving that help.

Instead of hiding behind government, and crying about the rich.

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge


You do know what a lobbyist is, right? It is the person who PAYS the government to do what Big Business wants.

The issue is that when there is a right wing in office, it is to create jobs and money to big business in the form usually of tax cuts. When there is a left wing in office, it is to promote welfare and give money to big business with subsidies. They both do the same thing.

reply to post by beezzer


Wabbit, how did you get out of the frying pan lol. No, what you will find is the seven million were previously not insured. Seven million out of the forty million is a good start. The only people effected were the ones without insurance, and the few that had policy cancelled because it did not meet standards and had to be rewritten. What most of those folks did not tell you unless they went back and followed up was that their policies really did not go away. They just got better because they were forced to cover things they should have been all along.

Look, seriously folks, we are really stupid in the eyes of the whole world to still be arguing about healthcare for everyone. It is the stupidest thing to be arguing about. Of course every citizen should have healthcare. Everyone on the planet should have access to a doctor and the care that they need.

What idiot would argue against that. Oh, we should just let the ebola out of Africa into the rest of the world. If there was better and or healthcare for those people there we might not have to worry about that issue.

I just think it is really idiotic of us as human species not to provide health care for everyone, period.

Good to chat with ya again wwwwwaaaaaabbbbbiiiitttt.

The Bot

reply to post by dlbott

the few that had policy cancelled because it did not meet standards and had to be rewritten.

Since most of the implementation has been delayed, we have yet to see how many people have their policies 'rewritten'. (If your like you policy, you can keep it... period)

They just got better because they were forced to cover things they should have been all along.

Yes. Forced. Sweet... forced to have an insurance policy that covers pregnancy when you are a 60 year old woman. Yes, that makes sense... a better plan. OK.

reply to post by spurgeonatorsrevenge

I know, but you guys wouldn't break 20% nationally if you ran on the truth about conservatism, it is much more effective to run on the lies about liberalism.

Your pigeonholing me as a conservative is inaccurate.

dlbott
reply to post by beezzer

 

The Bot

edit on 1-4-2014 by dlbott because: (no reason given)

But it is NOT healthcare for everyone. Far from it. Your W2 in 2012 and in 2013 had a box called 12dd...it allowed the government to collect the 'common rates' based on salaries of what people are paying. If the PPACA is so good healthcare should be half of what it was, affordable to all and should not include a penalty if you choose not to enroll.

As far as policies, I can tell you for a fact that 90% of the people I have talked to got new policies. They were designed for change. It is business. I do not blame them for wanting to make a buck but I blame the government for allowing it and helping it to happen.

As far as pre-existing conditions. It means you can get coverage but it does NOT mean it will cover your condition. It is a big of a joke as flood insurance. You have to have it but if it happens good luck with a payout.

The idea is good..the execution sucks...and the end result is costly to us ALL>