How the Affordable Care Act benefits you

[Riot]

All you have to do is click. No math. Even Dell can do it

http://www.barackobama.com/health-care

[lord007]

Originally Posted by Riot

All you have to do is click. No math. Even Dell can do it

http://www.barackobama.com/health-care

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...loyer-coverage...Sounds like a plan....suck it up you Fn moonbat

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by lord007

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...loyer-coverage...Sounds like a plan....suck it up you Fn moonbat

Lord007 there is no way Obama would lie to us - besides it's all free just as Deb-o-Deb

[Riot]

Originally Posted by lord007

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...loyer-coverage...Sounds like a plan....suck it up you Fn moonbat

Read the second and third paragraph, you Fn moronic douche. Oh, yeah: and the fourth paragraph.

My god. Teh stupid. It hurts. People who can't read past a headline.

Obamacare now estimated to cost $50 billion less over 10 years? Sounds great! Anybody not being insured through work due to a cheap boss who cuts them off gets insurance readily available through the exchanges? Good, too.

Thanks for posting that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by lord007

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...loyer-coverage...Sounds like a plan....suck it up you Fn moonbat

a lot of smaller companies will decide to pay the fine and dump group coverage, because it'll be cheaper that way. no surprise at all. the only surprise is that people think it won't happen. employers know that their workers will be able to get it elsewhere-so why not?
group coverage is good in that no one can be denied. but it can also be higher in cost for the youngest and healthiest employees, as they are subsidizing the overall cost-which is higher for some, lower for others. my son just experienced that-his cost was lower going on his own. for now. i told him when the ind. price exceeds the group, get in the group-if it still exists at that point.
but i'm being optimistic that the scotus will overturn what is unconstitutional. there is no way the commerce clause will be interpreted as the proper tool to force people to buy a product-even if it's 'for their own good'. who wants the govt deciding that?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

a lot of smaller companies will decide to pay the fine and dump group coverage, because it'll be cheaper that way. no surprise at all.

From the article:
" ... the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019."

group coverage is good in that no one can be denied.

Per the ACA nobody can be denied, even in private coverage. Good thing your worry will be gone due to the ACA.

but it can also be higher in cost for the youngest and healthiest employees, as they are subsidizing the overall cost-which is higher for some, lower for others.

Cost which is brought down by insurance exchanges allowing non-profits to participate.

but i'm being optimistic that the scotus will overturn what is unconstitutional. there is no way the commerce clause will be interpreted as the proper tool to force people to buy a product-even if it's 'for their own good'. who wants the govt deciding that?

The Republican Party. "Everyone must be self-responsible and purchase health insurance". It's their health plan. Similar to the one Mitt Romney instituted to great success.

You're insured, right 'Zig? You take advantage of your increased preventive care benefits yet? Pap smear? Mammogram?

20.4 million women with private insurance now can get free preventive care. That means they can get life-saving cancer screenings like mammograms and can have their contraception covered without paying a co-pay or deductible. They’re living healthier lives while saving money at the same time.

[Riot]

[Honu]

What if everyone refuses to pay the penalty? Then where does the revenue come from? I know that in this recession my partners boss has made some changes to the companies insurance program a slight increase in premiums and they dropped the life insurance policy. I also want to know if in this fabulous newly run program are people who are in very high risk jobs like me still get the shaft or will I just be considered no more of a risk than someone who pushes paper?
I guess Im one of those people who will believe it when I see it.

[ArlJim78]

there are no benefits to the bill, it's simply the worst disaster foisted on the country by democrats in half a century. none of what was said about it is true including the costs which are astronomical. it is so bad that it won't be around for long because it will collapse of its own weight.

before it has even fully been implemented the estimated costs have doubled according to the CBO. it's hysterical that someone would post statements from barackobama.com or any .gov website, as if that is anything you can rely on. it's nonsense.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Honu

What if everyone refuses to pay the penalty? Then where does the revenue come from? I know that in this recession my partners boss has made some changes to the companies insurance program a slight increase in premiums and they dropped the life insurance policy. I also want to know if in this fabulous newly run program are people who are in very high risk jobs like me still get the shaft or will I just be considered no more of a risk than someone who pushes paper?
I guess Im one of those people who will believe it when I see it.

smaller groups are expected to cut coverages. matter of fact, bcbs already doesn't offer their less than 20 emp. group plan any longer.
one of the issues with obamacare is they ran the numbers based on one million losing employee coverage, when in fact six million or more could lose it. but using the one million number kept the cost under a trillion when they passed it. of course we now see theyve increased the costs, and concede it could be still higher.
does anyone rememeber legislation before ppuca being passed with no real idea of cost? no bottom line? anyone remember any bill being explained with the words you have to pass it to see whats in it?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

there are no benefits to the bill, it's simply the worst disaster foisted on the country by democrats in half a century. none of what was said about it is true including the costs which are astronomical. it is so bad that it won't be around for long because it will collapse of its own weight.

before it has even fully been implemented the estimated costs have doubled according to the CBO. it's hysterical that someone would post statements from barackobama.com or any .gov website, as if that is anything you can rely on. it's nonsense.

wow! a rare arlington jim sighting.

it must be an election year.

[Riot]

The Executive Branch is trying to get the SCOTUS to review this right before the election.

Why is that?

Hummmmm.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

anyone remember any bill being explained with the words you have to pass it to see whats in it?

Yes. That was when three different versions were being worked on separately, in Committee, the House, and the Senate, and a final version was not yet brought up for passage.

[Riot]

Interesting comment. The oral arguments before the Supremes start a week from Monday, the 26th.

This aggregation review of previous decisions essentially says the Supremes will likely hold with the two other conservative lower court judges opinions in support of the mandate. Points out a libertarian (conservative) court view of individual responsibility supports the individual mandate, and to overturn it would go against previous court rulings on the commerce clause.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1354804.html

Neal Katyal, the former acting U.S. solicitor general, said iIn an interview with HuffPost that the government responds to this argument by saying that "everyone consumes health care in this country."

"Right now 50 million people don't have insurance, so it means that you and I essentially are paying for them," said Katyal, who defended the law in front of three appeals courts. "Congress said, 'Let's fix that system and make it so that everyone has a certain amount of insurance.'"

Next week's health care cases come from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which did not buy the government's argument. But high-profile conservative judges on two other appeals courts. Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a former Scalia law clerk, was the first among all federal judges to cross party lines to uphold the mandate. D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan-appointed greybeard of the conservative legal movement, did the same.

The challengers' "view that an individual cannot be subject to Commerce Clause regulation absent voluntary, affirmative acts that enter him or her into, or affect, the interstate market expresses a concern for individual liberty that seems more redolent of" the cramped pre-1937 view of economic regulation, wrote Silberman. That reading "has no foundation in the Commerce Clause," he concluded.

[bigrun]

Top court set to take up health care mandate.

We report, you decide..

One critic dismissed the idea this way: "If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house and that would solve the problem of homelessness." That was Obama as a presidential candidate, who was against health insurance mandates before he was for them.

To hear Republicans rail against this attack on personal freedom, you'd never know the idea came from them.

Its model was a Massachusetts law signed in 2006 by Mitt Romney, now the front-runner of the Republican presidential race, when he was governor. Another GOP hopeful, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, supported a mandate on individuals as an alternative to President Bill Clinton's health care proposal, which put the burden on employers.

All four GOP presidential candidates now promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which they call "Obamacare." Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum calls it "the death knell for freedom."

Also, because everyone needs health care sometime, if everyone purchases insurance, the price per person can be lower, with the cost of care spread out over many people.

In an Associated Press-GfK poll, 85 percent said the U.S. government should not have the power to require people to buy health insurance. When the question is worded without the specific reference to federal power, acceptance of the mandate grows a bit, but 6 in 10 are still against it.

Even among those who generally support the health care overhaul, one-third said they are against the insurance mandate.

Estimates vary widely of how many uninsured people will get insurance once it's required in January 2014.

About 4 million people would pay a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for being uninsured in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2...nd-ar-1774284/

[Riot]

One problem is that many people are woefully unawares of what is really in the bill. It's not single payer, it's not government running your healthcare. Too many rumors left over from the multiple plans that were being thrown about at the start of this. Sarah Palin's lie about "death panels" comes to mind.

The ACA has things most people support: not throwing people off insurance when you get sick, encouraging more doctors to enter the profession, encouraging preventive health care, helping your insurance premiums go down.

It's not big healthcare reform. It's little healthcare reform. It's really not even healthcare reform, as much as it is insurance company consumer protection reforms.

Why is someone against this? If you have insurance, keep it and go about your business. If you don't have insurance, you can now get it.

Note that the Republicans have just passed, or are trying to pass, multiple bills across many states mandating an invasive healthcare procedure, and mandating the recipient pay for it.

How can the very people that support mandated healthcare - the government literally forcing a medical procedure on it's citizens against their will- and a financial mandate literally forcing citizens to pay for it against their will, also be against this?

Why are citizens literally not taking arms up in the street, against their government forcing, against the patient and doctor's will, an invasive medical procedure the patient has to pay for! It's worse than Sarah Palin making raped women in Alaska pay for their rape kits. It's the government raping women with an ultrasound probe **, and then demanding the woman pay for it!

That's crazy. All the Dems want to do is leave healthcare up to the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship, but enable people to access it!

Hey, Senator Santorum - why don't you call the mandated ultrasounds, "the death knell for freedom"? If the government forced you to have a yearly colonoscopy, and made you pay for it, you'd freak out.

Obama and congressional Democrats pushed the mandate through in 2010, without Republican support, in hope of creating a fair system that ensures everyone — rich or poor, young or old — can get the health care they need. Other economically advanced countries have done it.

Doing nothing is more expensive than most people realize.

Congress found that when the uninsured go to clinics and emergency rooms, the care they can't pay for costs nearly $75 billion a year. Much of that cost is passed along and ends up adding $1,000 a year to the average family's insurance premium.

The overhaul is neither the liberal dream of a single government program supported by taxes and covering everyone nor the conservative vision of stripping away federal rules and putting free enterprise in charge.

The Obama plan relies on private companies plus lots of regulation to make sure they provide basic benefits, keep premiums reasonable, and cover the sick as well as the healthy. That's where the mandate comes in. If insurers must cover everyone, even those with existing medical conditions, healthy people have little incentive to sign up before they get sick.

Insurance companies argue that if only the sick sign up, insurers will go broke. So the law says everybody must have insurance for themselves and their children, or pay a penalty.

Also, because everyone needs health care sometime, if everyone purchases insurance, the price per person can be lower, with the cost of care spread out over many people.

** insert Dell's head exploding here, no, Dell, I am not saying this is the very same thing as sexual assault by a stranger (or friend), I'm using an appropriately defined word: if someone were to stick an object up your azz without your permission, you'd define yourself as raped, too.

[Riot]

[bigrun]

Have received this email several times in the past, thought it died out but 'they' have dragged it out again..so i'm passing it along cause i am concerned......we will all be floating in space before Christmas anyways..




Law Professor Points Out Some Interesting Facts Concerning the Presidential Election-Fiction!


Summary of the eRumor:
A forwarded email about a "Hemline" University School of Law Professor named Joseph Olson who pointed out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election and the murder rate in red and blue counties.

The Truth:
Joseph Olson is a real Professor at Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul Minnesota but he did not write this, according to his faculty bio page on the university site. Olson called it "bogus" in his disclaimer and said that the eRumor dates back to 2000 and originally was a commentary about the Bush/Gore election which quoted an 1800's Scottish philosopher Alexander Tyler

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scary Obituary.

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh ,
had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent
form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can
vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the
most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally
collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has
been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2012
It doesn't hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota ,
points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was
mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income
tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy,
with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached
the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegal's - and they vote - then we can say goodbye to the
USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at
stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom..

This is truly scary!
Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic .
Someone should point this out to Obama.
Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution.
There couldn't be more at stake than on Nov 6, 2012.

If you are as concerned as I am please pass this along.

[Riot]

“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross”.

Hello, Rick Santorum. Sarah Palin. Michelle Bachmann. Rick Perry.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross”.

Hello, Rick Santorum. Sarah Palin. Michelle Bachmann. Rick Perry.

You omitted the Freaker of the Spouse....