# Like obamacare?   read this



## Redfish (Oct 15, 2015)

actual experience with obozocare is nothing like what they told you it would be.

Halfway Through My Obamacare Pregnancy


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 15, 2015)

If her insurance is paying less than 1 percent of her shit, why does she have insurance?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 15, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> If her insurance is paying less than 1 percent of her shit, why does she have insurance?



  So she can pay for the less fortunate who actually pay nothing....what a deal!


----------



## Redfish (Oct 15, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > If her insurance is paying less than 1 percent of her shit, why does she have insurance?
> ...


 

exactly.   obozocare was a fix for a problem that did not exist.  no one was denied healthcare before ACA,  no one was turned away.    Yes, if you had no insurance you had to use the ER.  BFD, it was free and sometimes getting something free isn't as convenient as paying for it.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Oct 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



  Just another form of control....nothing more.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> actual experience with obozocare is nothing like what they told you it would be.
> 
> Halfway Through My Obamacare Pregnancy



Another fool who believes "Obamacare is a government-run insurance company."


----------



## TNHarley (Oct 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > actual experience with obozocare is nothing like what they told you it would be.
> ...


 It isn't far off if you think about it.
I remember back when that there was a published article about how there were only 5 insurance companies posed to make a shitload of money off this. Which would explain the massive amounts of HUMANA commercials and insurance lobbyists involved. Plus, now the government is regulating 20% of the economy. IE healthcare


----------



## Old Yeller (Oct 15, 2015)

Yep, when your deductible goes up to $3K/yr.  you can no longer use the insurance you are required to buy unless you have major health issue.   Normal working stiff never reach $3K/yr.,  all out of pocket now.  CASH to DR. to get better deal.  no insurance paperwork for minor crap.  ahhh.........families with kids.  wow.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 15, 2015)

num_nut said:


> Yep, when your deductible goes up to $3K/yr.  you can no longer use the insurance you are required to buy unless you have major health issue.   Normal working stiff never reach $3K/yr.,  all out of pocket now.  CASH to DR. to get better deal.  no insurance paperwork for minor crap.  ahhh.........families with kids.  wow.



You're describing what was a reality for many working families prior to the PPACA, which is why millions had no insurance at all.

There are people right here in this forum and the Obamacare forum who still don't understand how to choose an insurance plan that works for them.  Expand that to the whole country, and you have people taking bad advice from their friends or some blog they found or simply blundering along grabbing a plan without reading the details.

That last bit amazes me.  Would you buy a car or a house without reading terms before you sign?  But you'll do that with your health?  That makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## Greenbeard (Oct 15, 2015)

Redfish said:


> actual experience with obozocare is nothing like what they told you it would be.
> 
> Halfway Through My Obamacare Pregnancy



Obamacare didn't invent hospitals and doctors making decisions on behalf of patients and sending the bill later. 

What _does_ seem to have changed under it is that now people like this woman actually care what things cost (she's quoting actual prices!), what procedures/services are actually necessary, and want "the chance to make an informed decision." That's a big pretty big shift in how consumers view health care and it's kind of a big deal. (And it's one care providers haven't quite caught up to yet.)

Market dynamics and such.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> num_nut said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, when your deductible goes up to $3K/yr.  you can no longer use the insurance you are required to buy unless you have major health issue.   Normal working stiff never reach $3K/yr.,  all out of pocket now.  CASH to DR. to get better deal.  no insurance paperwork for minor crap.  ahhh.........families with kids.  wow.
> ...


 

before ACA people with no insurance received treatment.   no one in the USA was denied medical care before ACA.  NO ONE!

It was a fix for a problem that did not exist and it has made everything worse in the medical field.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > actual experience with obozocare is nothing like what they told you it would be.
> ...


 

No, its the government running the insurance companies.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 16, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



No, it's not that, either.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

Thats exactly what it is.   The govt is dictating what coverages can/must be offered, what premiums can be charged, who gets subsidies, and who gets it "free".   Its step one to single payer socialized medicine.   If you think thats good, ask a brit or a canadian.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> actual experience with obozocare is nothing like what they told you it would be.
> 
> Halfway Through My Obamacare Pregnancy


Wow.  The fact that she was not complaining about her coverage just went right the fuck over your head.Did you read her other article, linked in this one?  Do you know why she is on the ACA plan?  She explained:  "We have both struck out on our own: Two years ago, to become a full-time freelance writer and editor, in my case, and one year ago, to pursue a different and far less lucrative career passion, in his. Though we were afraid of trying to make these new career paths work in New York City and raise a child at the same time, we were bolstered by our faith in each other, the savings we had managed to accumulate over 10 years of frugal living, and the idea that neither of us wanted to wake up at age 45 and wonder why we felt unfulfilled. And, perhaps most importantly, we were bolstered by Obamacare."  Before, "My husband was was a corporate lawyer at a Manhattan firm with a view of the Statue of Liberty out of his office window. I worked in development at a half-century-old non-profit. Both of us enjoyed benefit packages that included health insurance."  The existence of the ACA allowed this couple to actually go out and work for themselves; to start businesses.  So, halfway through her pregnancy she has paid a whopping $1,228.00.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 17, 2015)

TNHarley said:


> If her insurance is paying less than 1 percent of her shit, why does she have insurance?


It is not only paying for 1% of her shit.   Do you pay for car insurance?  Are you hoping to get in an accident so that you actually get something for all of that money you are paying?  People have insurance to pay for things that they do not expect will happen.  You have fire insurance in case your house catches on fire.  If it does not, do you consider the insurance company to have ripped you off?


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 17, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > actual experience with obozocare is nothing like what they told you it would be.
> ...


It is odd that conservatives complain the most about the fact that people actually have to contribute to the cost of their healthcare.  They are being held accountable for the decisions they make.   According to conservatives, making people pay for the care they received would allow the market to bring down costs.  Now that that is happening because people are expected to contribute more to their care, they complain.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You did not read the article.  She does not say that any of the care she received is mandated by the ACA.  Good thing she didn't say that, because none of the care she described is mandated by the ACA.  She was referring to the lack of transperancy from the PRIVATE insurance company through which she has coverage and the PRIVATE hospital and PRIVATE doctors who treat her.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > num_nut said:
> ...


And who paid for that treatment?


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

the people who paid for insurance,  just like now.   Only difference is that the ones paying are paying more.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



If you mean "the PPACA is telling insurers they can no longer cap benefits or exclude would-be applicants for preexisting conditions," you're correct.

Those are to the benefit of the patient.  Yanno, Americans.  Why do you hate Americans?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> the people who paid for insurance,  just like now.   Only difference is that the ones paying are paying more.



Myth.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

those are the only good provisions of the ACA law.   Those two changes could have been done with a one page bill that would have received unanimous approval in both houses. 

The rest of the 2000 pages made everything worse.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > the people who paid for insurance,  just like now.   Only difference is that the ones paying are paying more.
> ...


 

Nope, its fact.   before obozocare no one in the USA was denied medical care.  NO ONE.  even those here illegally.   After obozocare everyone that is paying for insurance is paying more, and those getting it free are still getting it free.  

ACA was a fix for a problem that did not exist.  It was nothing but a major government takeover of a large part of the american economy.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> those are the only good provisions of the ACA law.   Those two changes could have been done with a one page bill that would have received unanimous approval in both houses.
> 
> The rest of the 2000 pages made everything worse.



(A) It's 906 pages
(B) Can you think of any bill enacted into law that's only one page?  I'd love to see it
(C) "Approved by both houses"?  No.  It was the constant demands of the GOP that pecked at this thing constantly in an effort to kill it.  Even after it was passed they tried to kill it 50+ times.  I'd welcome you to convince me they'd have approved any health reform of any kind (I mean, this one was built on Romneycare) as long as Obama was in office

Please make your case.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Nope, its fact.   before obozocare no one in the USA was denied medical care.



Not sure what this new entity is you're talking about, but I'd like to see you prove that prior to the PPACA no one in the U.S. was denied medical care.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > those are the only good provisions of the ACA law.   Those two changes could have been done with a one page bill that would have received unanimous approval in both houses.
> ...


 

It was written by dem staffers in a sealed room, it was passed by dems only using reconciliation which had never been used before for something so significant, the vote was forced before anyone had a chance to read it,  the public was not allowed to know what it contained before the vote.   It was democrat corruption at its worst.

before the vote, no floor discussion was allowed, no GOP amendments were allowed to be brought to the floor.   It was terrible legislation passed in the worst possible way.

Romneycare applied to one state where only 3% of the people were uninsured.  it is not a valid comparison and you fricken well know it.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, its fact.   before obozocare no one in the USA was denied medical care.
> ...


 

Its not my job to prove a negative.   The burden of proof is on you.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, its fact.   before obozocare no one in the USA was denied medical care.
> ...


 

Hospitals could not turn anyone away before ACA.   Yeah, they had to use the ER rather than a doctors office.  BFD,  when you get something free it may be a little inconvenient.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Granted.  But patients were denied coverage for preexisting conditions, and insurers placed caps on coverage for chronic and/or expensive conditions.

"Oh, you have cancer?  Treatment will cost $100,000?  Sucks to be you."


----------



## Greenbeard (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> It was written by dem staffers in a sealed room, it was passed by dems only using reconciliation which had never been used before for something so significant, the vote was forced before anyone had a chance to read it,  the public was not allowed to know what it contained before the vote.   It was democrat corruption at its worst.
> 
> before the vote, no floor discussion was allowed, no GOP amendments were allowed to be brought to the floor.   It was terrible legislation passed in the worst possible way.



This is absurd revisionist history. 

The provisions of that legislation were debated publicly for nine months--Congressional town halls, Presidential town halls, TV, newspapers, the internet, you name it. This was _the_ topic of discussion nationally for the entire second half of 2009 and and the first quarter of 2010. It was by far the most publicly scrutinized legislation in my lifetime. Did you somehow miss this enormous national discussion that enveloped the country six years ago?

And the Senate didn't pass the ACA via reconciliation (the ACA passed with a filibuster-proof 60 votes), it passed subsequent financial tweaks to the ACA using reconciliation. And that was after nearly a month of floor debate in the Senate.

Here's John McCain on the process in the Senate:



> SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): I would like to make sure that my colleagues and especially those who were not here in 2009 understand that there are many of us who are opposed to Obamacare, as it's called, the Affordable Care Act, and the opposition that we mounted in 2009, it's a matter of record that, to start with, the Senate Finance Committee considered the Affordable Care Act over several weeks and approved the bill on October 13 of 2009.
> 
> At that time, members of the Finance Committee submitted 564 amendments, 135 amendments were considered, 79 roll call votes taken, 41 amendments were adopted. Then the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved the Affordable Care Act by 13-10 after a month-long debate. 500 amendments were considered, more than 160 Republican amendments were accepted.
> 
> And then it came to the floor of the Senate, and the Affordable Care Act was on the floor for 25 straight days, including weekends between Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2009. 506 amendments were filed, 228 of which were Republican. 34 roll call votes were held. Most roll call votes resulted in party-line votes, including a motion which I had to commit the bill to the Finance Committee for a rewrite.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

being denied insurance is not being denied treatment.  MD Anderson treats cancer patients whether they have insurance or not,  so does Ochsner, Cleveland clinic, and Mayo clinic, Shriners, St.Jude, etc.   Sure, they try to collect, but they realize that you can't get blood from a turnip and they don't take people to court. 

You are parroting a false narrative.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > It was written by dem staffers in a sealed room, it was passed by dems only using reconciliation which had never been used before for something so significant, the vote was forced before anyone had a chance to read it,  the public was not allowed to know what it contained before the vote.   It was democrat corruption at its worst.
> ...


 

Not true,  the subject of national health care was debated for months and years.  The actual ACA bill had zero debate, no open forums, no floor debate in either house, no public readings, no postings on c-span (as obama promised).   It was written in a sealed room and passed by dems only.  In order to get by the 60 vote senate requirement they used reconciliation provisions that had never before been allowed for something of this magnitude.  

It was terrible legislation passed in a corrupt way.   Deal with that reality.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


how would you know? anecdotal evidence? Puhleeease.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


link? kthanks


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

premiums are higher, deductibles are higher, people are forced to buy coverage that they don't want or need.  Its been in the news for years,  do you live under a rock?


----------



## Redfish (Oct 17, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

link to what?   do you have proof that anyone in the USA was denied medical care before obozocare?   Note, having to go to the ER or a free clinic is not being denied care,  having to apply for charitible financial help after treatment is not being denied care.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


IOW's - you miss the insurance that was there, that is, until you actually needed it?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


So your solution is "defraud hospitals."  Gotcha.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 17, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


So you're just basically covering your ears and saying nya nya nyah!!! 

AGAIN:from Greenbeards link:



> At that time, members of the Finance Committee submitted 564 amendments, 135 amendments were considered, 79 roll call votes taken, 41 amendments were adopted. Then the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved the Affordable Care Act by 13-10 after a month-long debate. 500 amendments were considered, more than 160 Republican amendments were accepted.
> 
> And then it came to the floor of the Senate, and the Affordable Care Act was on the floor for 25 straight days, including weekends between Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2009. 506 amendments were filed, 228 of which were Republican. 34 roll call votes were held. Most roll call votes resulted in party-line votes, including a motion which I had to commit the bill to the Finance Committee for a rewrite.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

of course not.  What is being done under ACA is exactly the same as what was being done before ACA,  those who pay for coverage are paying for the ones who do not pay.   If you are getting obamacare free or heavily subsidized and I am paying full premium, then I am actually paying your premium or subsidy. 

Its no different than what was going on before.   Except that now we also have to pay for a huge govt beaurocracy to administer this POS law.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 18, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


 

I don't know who greenbeards is, but what he/she/it said is not what actually happened.   But you libs live in fantasy land so I guess you will continue to buy the fraud that has been rammed up our collective asses.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 18, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


 

total bullshit.   the so-called minimum standards require a 65 year old woman and a single male to pay for maternity care.


----------



## Greenbeard (Oct 18, 2015)

Redfish said:


> I don't know who greenbeards is, but what he/she/it said is not what actually happened.   But you libs live in fantasy land so I guess you will continue to buy the fraud that has been rammed up our collective asses.



He was actually quoting McCain's description of what happened. Which happens to be correct. The Senate floor debate over the ACA went on for weeks (in Nov-Dec 2009). This is after weeks and weeks of televised committee markups and debate.

You can still watch highlights from the floor debate on C-Span. Here you go, dozens and dozens of hours of televised floor debate for your viewing pleasure:

November 20, 2009: The Senate began debate on comprehensive health care reform legislation.

November 21, 2009: The Senate continued a second day of debate on health care reform legislation. They voted 60-39 to move forward with further debate on the bill.

November 30, 2009: The Senate debated health care reform. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) warned Senators to expect daily votes on the bill, plus evening and weekend sessions. 

December 1, 2009: The Senate continued a second day of debate on H.R. 3590, the $848B plan to expand health insurance coverage. Among amendments debated today is one by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) to ensure access to preventive screening for women. More amendments are expected today.

December 2, 2009: The Senate continued debate on Senator Barbara Mikulski’s (D-MD) amendment ensuring access to preventive services for women and Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) Motion to Commit on Medicare. The Senators are taking up H.R. 3590, the $848B plan to expand health insurance coverage.

December 3, 2009:  Senate debate continues on H.R. 3590, the $848B plan to expand health insurance coverage. Senators will begin voting on amendments submitted by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) around 11:45am ET. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) is expected to introduce an amendment restricting abortion funding. Senator McCain’s (R-AZ) motion to send the health care bill back to the Finance Committee was defeated 42 - 58.

December 4, 2009: The Senate proceeded with debate on amendments to H.R. 3590, the health care bill. Yesterday, the Senate passed an amendment providing preventive health services for women and another guaranteeing Medicare benefits. Debate on the bill continued over the weekend. 

December 5, 2009: Senate proceeded with debate on amendments to health care legislation. Two amendments considered included a proposal from Senator Lincoln on limiting executive compensation for health insurance companies. The Senate voted 41 to 53 against the motion by Senator Johanns to send the bill back to the Finance Committee to remove cuts in payments to home health agencies.

December 6, 2009:  The Senate reconvened in a special weekend session. Members continued debate on amendments, including a proposal from Senator Lincoln (D-AR) on limiting executive compensation for health insurance companies, and Senator Ensign’s (R-NV) amendment regarding attorney fees.  Later, both amendments failed to pass. The amendment on attorney fees submitted by Senator Ensign (R-NV) failed by a vote of 32 - 66. Amendments require at least 60 votes to pass. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) also announced that an abortion amendment will be taken up tomorrow.

December 7, 2009: The U.S. Senate began the second week and eighth day of health care legislation. They began by considering amendments from Senators Gregg and Pryor. Senator Gregg’s bars the use of any Medicare rate increases from anything other than Medicare. Senator Pryor’s requires Health and Human Services to survey those taking part in the health insurance exchange creating the bill.

December 8, 2009:  Day 9 of the Senate health care reform debate. Senators discuss an amendment, submitted by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), restricting the use of federal funds for abortions and Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) motion to commit on Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. The Nelson Amendment failed on a vote of 54 to 45. The Senate also took up Senator Dorgan’s prescription drug re-importation amendment. In addition, the Senate reached an agreement on health care legislation that would no longer include a new government-run insurance program, or “public option.”

December 9, 2009:  On day 10 of debate on health care reform, senators took up an amendment on drug importation and more debate on a motion to send the bill back to the Finance Committee. 

December 10, 2009: Health care debate continues.

December 12, 2009: The Senate convened, with an omnibus bill cloture vote and then continued with health care reform legislation.

December 13, 2009:  In a rare Sunday session the Senate took a final vote on the $447 billion FY 2010 omnibus spending bill. After the vote, members continued to debate health care legislation. 

December 14, 2009: The Senate resumed consideration of health care legislation. Several amendments were considered, including one to allow citizens to buy prescription drugs from other countries and bring them into the U.S. Others deal with tax provisions. Senators have been waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to come up with cost estimates for a plan to replace the public option in the bill.

December 15, 2009: Senators planned to finish debate on several amendments and motions dealing with buying prescription from other countries and middle class taxes. 

December 16, 2009: The Senate held its 15th day of health care debate. Senator Bernie Sanders entered an amendment for a single-payer system by expanding Medicare to everyone. Senator Coburn requested that the over 700 pages of the Sanders Amendment be read aloud. Eventually Senator Sanders withdrew his amendment, although his right to do so was contested. Work began on Defense appropriations legislation.

December 17, 2009: Throughout the day, Senators may continue to speak on health care legislation and the Senate is expected to return to the debate after voting on the defense bill. 

December 19, 2009: The Senate voted on fiscal year 2010 defense spending and thereafter resumed debate on health care legislation. This is the 17th day of health care debate.

December 21, 2009: The Senate continued debate on health care legislation.

December 22, 2009: The Senate approved Majority Leader Reid’s Managers Amendment with a vote of 60-39.

December 23, 2009: Vote to waive Corker point of order on unfunded mandates passed by a vote of 55 - 44. The Senate is now holding a series of votes, including adoption of the Majority Leader’s substitute amendment and a vote to limit debate on the bill. 

December 24, 2009: The Senate passed the $871 billion health care bill, H.R. 3590, by a vote of 60 to 39. Senator Bunning (R-KY) was the only Senator not voting.


----------



## Greenbeard (Oct 18, 2015)

Redfish said:


> total bullshit.   the so-called minimum standards require a 65 year old woman and a single male to pay for maternity care.



A 65-year-old would be on Medicare.

And if you're unclear on the role a man plays in making a baby, I won't ruin the surprise for you. But spoiler alert: a stork dropping off a baby with mom is not how procreation actually works.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 18, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > total bullshit.   the so-called minimum standards require a 65 year old woman and a single male to pay for maternity care.
> ...


 

OK, substitute a 60 year old woman.   I do understand human reproduction quite well, much better than you if you think a male can give birth.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 18, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know who greenbeards is, but what he/she/it said is not what actually happened.   But you libs live in fantasy land so I guess you will continue to buy the fraud that has been rammed up our collective asses.
> ...


 

None of that debate was on the actual bill that was passed by the dems in congress.  There was zero debate on the actual bill that was passed. 

Nice try, but you FAIL


----------



## Greenbeard (Oct 18, 2015)

Redfish said:


> None of that debate was on the actual bill that was passed by the dems in congress.  There was zero debate on the actual bill that was passed.
> 
> Nice try, but you FAIL



The bill they debated for three weeks on the floor was H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Signed by the President the following March.

Stop being willfully stupid.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 18, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


he seems to know A LOT more about the PPACA than you do.  I have yet to see you supply one single scintilla of a source to back up your partisan blathering


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 18, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > total bullshit.   the so-called minimum standards require a 65 year old woman and a single male to pay for maternity care.
> ...


redfish is so easy to catch BS'ing. All you have to do is read what he types


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 18, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


STILL no links? Lazy or.....


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 18, 2015)

To reiterate. Partisan, low-info, hacks are complaining because:


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No, taxpayers paid and they paid much more then than they are paying now.  There are at least ten million more people with insurance, some who get those premiums subsidized.  The insurance companies now pay for the care they receive.  And it is absolutely not true that people who needed medical care were not denied before.  The only time a hospital is required to provide treatment is when the patient shows up in active labor or in a condition that requires immediate treatment to prevent death.  A person with a treatable illness like diabetes, kidney failure, heart disease, was denied treatment until such time as their condition became life threatening.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Ask a Canadian?  Someone did.  They asked several thousand.

OTTAWA, Canada — In a last-ditch effort to convince Canadians that their public health care system should be privatized, Canadian Medical Association (CMA) President Robert Ouellet has promised to “pull out all the stops” during the association’s annual meeting next week. Trouble is, Ouellet’s mission to lead the change to privatization is exactly the opposite of what 86 percent of Canadians want.

A new poll conducted by the Toronto-based Nanos Research points to overwhelming support — 86.2 percent — for strengthening public health care rather than expanding for-profit services.

“With more than 8 in 10 Canadians supporting public solutions to make public health care stronger, there is compelling evidence that Canadians across all demographics would prefer a public over a for-profit health care system,” said Nik Nanos, president of Nanos Research.
New poll shows Canadians overwhelmingly support public health care | Physicians for a National Health Program

Brits?  Also satisfied.  
It turns out the British National Health Service (NHS) — a system free at the point of service and funded by tax money — is pretty popular, despite the frequent controversy in the tabloids (one recent Daily Mail headline, "Thousands Dying Of Thirst On NHS").

An impressive 61% of respondents said they were "satisfied" with the socialized health care system, according to a British Social Attitudes survey released today.

To give you an idea of how that stacks against the U.S. health care system, take a look at a comparative study that appeared in the Health Affairs journal earlier this year. Using patient satisfaction surveys from 11 different countries, the authors found that just 28.9% of U.S. citizens felt that their health care system "works pretty well, and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better." The figure for the United Kingdom was 61.3% — almost exactly the BSA result.

British Satisfied With NHS - Business Insider


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Those two provisions could not have happened without comprehensive reform.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Completely and utterly false.  

*President Obama Not Only Used Republican Ideas, He Used Republican Bills To Create Obamacare*
For his signature piece of legislation, Obamacare, President Obama took whole sections from other pieces of legislation. Not only legislation, but according to a study released last September, he used whole sections of legislation proposed by the Republican Party.

Before anyone gets shocked, realize that it is common on Capital Hill for passages of failed bills to be recycled into newer bills over the years.When the study went over the American Care Act, also known as Obamacare, the study found that a sizable portion was written by Republicans. 
GOP Did Contribute To Obamacare, Study Finds – Turns Out They Wrote A Large Portion


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Because Fox Asked, Here Are Examples Of People Who Were Denied Health Care


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Being denied insurance results in being denied healthcare.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Premiums are higher, but they have gone up at a slower rate than before the law.  Deductibles are higher.  That is one the main factors for slowing the growth of health care cost.  The Republicans have long argued that if people had to pay for their own healthcare, they would make more economical decisions, which would slow the growth of cost.  They were right.  Why do you oppose people actually having to pay something towards their healthcare?  Why should they not have to share in the expense of their health care?


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You don't  get charitable care if you are not extremely poor.  The majority of people helped by the ACA would not have qualified for charity care or free clinics.  They were lower middle class, working families whose jobs did not include healthcare and who could not afford to pay for health insurance.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


And yet, the care is being provided at less cost.  Imagine that.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > TNHarley said:
> ...



Obamacare does several things:


It is a massive tax-increase
It is a way to control gun ownership
It is a way to rob insurance companies
It benefits the poor while screwing the middle-class

The same assholes that negotiated with Iran and  refused to fight ISIS are running the stupid thing. No surprise  the roll out was a total disaster.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Much as they did before the ACA.  You really do not understand what group health insurance is, do you?  How it works?  How it is cheaper to provide the same coverage for a large group of people than to provide a bunch of customized plans for each individual?


----------



## Redfish (Oct 19, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

do you just make this stuff up as you type?   Nothing in your post is true.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 19, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

not in the USA pre-obozocare.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 19, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


 

LOL, you fricken moron.  I understand the concept of insurance better than you ever will.   I also understand the concepts of freedom and socialism better than you ever will.

But rant on,  you just make a bigger fool of yourself with each new post.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 19, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

No its not,  are you completely mentally incompetent?


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > No, taxpayers paid and they paid much more then than they are paying now.  There are at least ten million more people with insurance, some who get those premiums subsidized.  The insurance companies now pay for the care they receive.  And it is absolutely not true that people who needed medical care were not denied before.  The only time a hospital is required to provide treatment is when the patient shows up in active labor or in a condition that requires immediate treatment to prevent death.  A person with a treatable illness like diabetes, kidney failure, heart disease, was denied treatment until such time as their condition became life threatening.
> ...


...said the guy who hasn't provided sourcing. Save it hack boi


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Health care inflation ( the rate at which health care costs rise) is lower now than at any time in the last 55 years.  The ACA is helping to lower the deficit.  The cost of expanding coverage is less than the cost of continuing to simply pay for the uninsured.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Do you understand what I wrote?  That is is less expensive, per person,  to insure under a group health plan where all of the coverage is the same than to provide coverage to the same number of people with different types of coverage for each person? It you think that a healthcare plan where most people are covered by a private insurance company to whom they or their employer pay premiums is socialist, you are a fucking moron.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Sure it did. If you don't have health insurance, you cannot see a doctor unless you pay.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 19, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Here is that list, again:  Because Fox Asked, Here Are Examples Of People Who Were Denied Health Care
More proof of what I claimed.  Where is your proof?
Dying for Coverage: The Deadly Consequences of Being Uninsured

Uninsured adults are at least 25 percent more likely to die prematurely than adults who have private insurance. See state-level breakdowns of the 26,100 people between the ages of 25 and 64 who died prematurely due to a lack of health insurance in 2010.

Also, learn why health insurance is so important. For example, the uninsured:


are less likely to have a usual source of care outside of the emergency room
often go without screenings and preventive care
often delay or go without needed medical care
pay more for medical care
- See more at: Dying for Coverage: The Deadly Consequences of Being Uninsured


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

OMG,   right out of the dem/lib book of lies.   The facts prove you wrong, but you libs have never been interested in facts.  

So lets say that you have an great new obozocare insurance plan.   you are paying $1000/month and have a $3000 deductible.   Do you comprehend what that means?   It means that you have to pay $15000 out of your pocket before the insurance pays the first penny.   Sorry, dude, but thats not insurance.  Thats you being raped by the government and the insurance industry.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 
That only works if everyone in the group is PAYING into the group plan.   If some are getting it free or heavily subsidized then those paying are paying for the ones getting it free.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

NO, thats a lie.   No one was turned away from a hospital if they needed medical care,  no one was turned away from a free clinic if they needed medical care.   There was no healthcare crisis in the USA.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

That has been posted before,  and refuted.   Its simply not true.  Those stats include self induced drug deaths, suicides, murders, and car accidents.  

You are being played.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You do not pay for a whole litany of preventive measures and your co-pay to see a physician applies to the deductible.  You do not pay, in full, for every physician visit until your deductible is reached.  The average deductible under health insurance plans that are not subject to the ACA, you know, the 80% of private insurance that is not sold on the exchanges, has risen at the same rate the last three years as before the ACA went into effect.   

"American workers saw their out-of-pocket medical costs jump again this year as the average deductible for an employer-provided health plan surged nearly 9 percent in 2015 to more than $1,000, a major new survey of employers shows.

The annual increase, though lower than in previous years, far outpaced wage growth and overall inflation and marked the continuation of a trend that in just a few years has dramatically shifted health care costs to workers.

Over the past decade, the average deductible that workers must pay for medical care before insurance kicks in has more than tripled, from $303 in 2006 to $1,077 today, according to the report by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust."
Health care deductible costs continue to rise for workers

The vast majority of folks covered by private insurance are covered by employer based plans.  The average out of pocket cost is $1000.00 annually.  You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


We were talking about whether mandating the same coverage cost more or less.  Odd that you don't even have a clue about what is being discussed.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Congrats on the most idiotic post of the month.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

If your employer is subsidizing your health insurance, good for you.   He is probably reducing your raises or other benefits to cover his additional costs for insurance.

I fully understand how deductibles work.   If your deductible is $1000 (which is very low under ACA) then you pay your premiums plus $1000 each year.  That total is your out of pocket cost.   Unless you are getting your ACA policy free or heavily subsidized,  you are paying more now for less coverage than before ACA.   That is simply a fact. 

If you're getting it free, of course you like it,  someone else is paying your premium.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

funny how libs consider that truth to be idiotic.   must be that defective liberal gene (DRD4, look it up)


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

Look fool, I fully understand the concept of group insurance and spreading the risk.   Probably much better than you do.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Like most Americans, I have coverage through employment.  It has not affected our raises.  And the ACA has not affected the premiums employers pay because 98% or so of employer based health plans already provided the minimum mandated coverage.  What freaks you assholes out is how well the law is working; how it is covering millions who were not; how it is slowing the growth of health care costs; how it is helping to reduce the deficit and how it has created hundreds of thousands of jobs.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...





Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


If you understand it, then you are a liar, trying to mislead people.  That is, after all, the only tactic you fucks used to defeat the ACA.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


And your link proves what you say?


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

that is simply not true.  If it was working I would be the first one to admit it.  But its not working.   Those hit hardest are the self employed or those whose employers do not offer health plans.    Those people are paying much higher premiums, higher deductibles and have less coverage than they had before.  They are forced to pay for coverages that they do not want and do not need.   You seem to think thats a good thing, but its not when you are the one paying.

you may think your employer is not adjusting your other benefits to cover his additional healthcare insurance costs, but I guarantee you that he is.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

there are two good things in the ACA law
1. insurance companies must take people with pre-existing conditions
2. policies cannot include a lifetime maximum payment.

those two changes could have been made with a one page bill.   Instead we got a monstrosity that is making billions for the insurance companies at the expense of average tax paying americans.

Again,  for those getting it free, its great.  for everyone else, it sucks.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


No,  You would never admit that anything by this President was working.  The self employed are the ones who benefit the most.  They can now afford health insurance because they are part of a large pool.  And, in addition to working for someone else, I have my own business and I do pay employer premiums.  They have risen slightly.  And, once again, your comment about paying for coverage they don't need reveals your utter ignorance about how group health insurance coverage works.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


You made that asinine comment earlier.  Those two things were the most expensive of the reforms.  Without the individual mandate and the rest of the changes, those reforms, standing alone, would have trashed the health insurance system.  You would have mandated coverages without having anything in place to pay for them.  Typically of your ilk, you are all for the added benefit but don't want to pay for it.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

here is a cite for you Obamacare: Before and After - Discover the Networks

and a pertinent quote since I am sure you won't bother to read it.


*Healthcare Expenditures in the United States
** During the months and years just prior to the March 23, 2010 passage of the ACA, claims about the “skyrocketing costs” of American healthcare were ubiquitous in the media.
*** But in fact, from a historical perspective, healthcare spending in the U.S. was increasing more slowly than it had at any time in half a century.

*** During the years 2000 through 2010—the decade just prior to the beginning of the ACA's implementation—Americans' total expenditures on physicians and related clinical services grew at the following rates: 7.0% in 2000; 8.6% in 2001; 8.0% in 2002; 8.0% in 2003; 6.9% in 2004; 6.0% in 2005; 5.2% in 2006; 5.2% in 2007; 5.4% in 2008; 3.3% in 2009; and 2.5% in 2010.

*** By way of comparison, total healthcare spending in the U.S. grew by 10.3% in the year 1970, and by 13% in 1980.
*** Critics of health insurance companies have routinely accused these firms of greed and price-gouging:
*** In a July 2009 press conference, President Barack Obama said: "There have been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits, right now. At a time when everybody's getting hammered, they're making record profits, and premiums are going up."

*** A few days later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused insuerers of being "immoral," and called them "the villains" in the healthcare reform battle.
*** In reality, each dollar of revenue that health insurance companies take in, includes just 2.2 cents of profit. [TAO: Loc. 2079-80]


----------



## Care4all (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Group insurance policies through employers ALREADY COVERED PREGNANCY, pre-existing illnesses and birth control....BEFORE O Care.

That's a fact.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

wrong again.   the most expensive part of it is paying for the huge new govt beaurocracy that is required to administer it.

I am quite sure that a 27 year old just out of college and struggling to make ends meet will agree with you when he/she gets a tax bill for 3K or so as a penalty for not buying something they don't want or need.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

Some did,  many allowed you to opt out of maternity coverage if you did not need it.   only a very few covered birth control (pills, etc). 

but as I said to the other liberfool,   people with employer provided insurance are not the major victims of this fiasco government takeover,   self employed and young people are the ones hurt the most.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Right.  Those who were without insurance are harmed by now having access to insurance.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

And they will thank you when they fall of that cliff they were climbing and get the $50,000 bill for the care they were provided that is not covered cause you are the moron that told them they did not need coverage.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


He cares little for facts.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Those unable to get individual insurance are being HELPED, the MOST.....not hurt the most.  They are getting subsidies to help them purchase it, and if they are low income, they get additional help with the ACA's Cost Sharing Reduction plan....that reduces out of pocket costs and eliminates (or reduces greatly) deductibles.

The people hurt the MOST are the poorest among us in the Republican States that did not expand Medicaid coverage.....and you can thank Republicans in State legislatures and Republican Governors for that harm.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


And how have healthcare expenditure increased since the ACA was passed?


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Absolutely false.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


 

nothing has changed for those people,  they were getting free treatment before ACA and are getting free treatment after ACA.   Its the people who are paying who are being financially impacted.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

nope, sorry absolutely true.   sorry if the truth offends you, but it is what it is.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

who do you think is paying for the govt beaurocrats who are running it?   You and me, dude.   also paying are the people whose premiums and deductibles are higher.

but if you are getting it free, its great,  I understand that.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


 

LOL,  total bullshit.   did you get that from kos or huffpuffpost?


----------



## Care4all (Oct 20, 2015)

Most of the uninsured were not getting free medical treatment before the ACA....they were being billed for any emergency care they got, and ultimately, filing bankruptcy...


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> who do you think is paying for the govt beaurocrats who are running it?



Running what?  The health exchange websites?  You'll need to be more specific.



Redfish said:


> You and me, dude.   also paying are the people whose premiums and deductibles are higher.



It sounds as if you're really suffering.  Can you detail exactly how much the PPACA is affecting your financial stability?



Redfish said:


> but if you are getting it free, its great,  I understand that.



So you're suggesting he's simultaneously paying for it and getting it free? 

The silly assumption that anyone who can cite facts instead of relying on blogs and drama is "getting it free" is just that...silly.  There's no basis for it except the drama you people create around it because you can't handle the truth.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I don't read kos or the huffington post....I have informed myself on the Bill itself....and the exchange.

Where does your bull crud info come from, FOX or CNS or WND or the rightwing blogosphere?


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


They were not getting free treatment.  They were only getting treatment when their conditions became life threatening and they went to the ER.  You keep repeating the same lie.  You disregard the proof I have provided of people not getting treated but offer no proof of your own.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I get it in exchange for the work I perform, like most Americans.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> NO, thats a lie.   No one was turned away from a hospital if they needed medical care,  no one was turned away from a free clinic if they needed medical care.  * There was no healthcare crisis in the USA*.


ROFLMAO @everybody


Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com

PLEASE STOP!!!


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


rw hate media must've told him different lol. Redfish


----------



## Care4all (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


If you've gotten your health insurance through your employer, it was those working folks that were not able to get insurance, that was paying for a portion of YOUR INSURANCE the past 40 years...through the tax write off, the tax expenditure, what your employer was given as a tax write off for what he pays for your health care....

So all of those people who were working but, uninsured helped pay through their higher taxes, for YOUR BENEFIT of health insurance, health insurance they were never able to get.

YOU having to pay a little for their health insurance now, is LONG PAST DUE.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Your website offers no authority for its claims and cites only to books and blogs by Betsy MCCaughey, a notorius liar about the ACA, and others from the far right who opposed it.  You offer no objective facts from organizations that study health care like the Kaiser Foundation or others.  Nothing but warmed over right wing lies.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Did they pay for any of it?  Do you have proof that they paid if you say yes?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



You assume they paid taxes while uninsured.  You don't take into account that those of us who were covered were paying taxes, too.  

You seem to have forgotten all of those without coverage that went to the ER for care they didn't pay for costs the rest of us more.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Care4all said:


> If you've gotten your health insurance through your employer, it was those working folks that were not able to get insurance, that was paying for a portion of YOUR INSURANCE the past 40 years...through the tax write off, the tax expenditure, what your employer was given as a tax write off for what he pays for your health care....
> 
> So all of those people who were working but, uninsured helped pay through their higher taxes, for YOUR BENEFIT of health insurance, health insurance they were never able to get.
> 
> YOU having to pay a little for their health insurance now, is LONG PAST DUE.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > who do you think is paying for the govt beaurocrats who are running it?   You and me, dude.   also paying are the people whose premiums and deductibles are higher.
> ...


That's our  Redfish


----------



## Care4all (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


Hello?  anybody in there?
Why do you think they had to later declare bankruptcy?  They paid as much as they possibly could, even put the bills on their credit cards to spread out what was due, until they finally could not pay a dime more, to anyone...they went bankrupt.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> You seem to have forgotten all of those without coverage that went to the ER for care they didn't pay for costs the rest of us more.



Five minutes ago you were demanding proof that they didn't pay.  You seem to have forgotten what you were whining about.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to have forgotten all of those without coverage that went to the ER for care they didn't pay for costs the rest of us more.
> ...



You seem to have forgotten that no one owes another person a damn thing including food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc.  You still believe they do.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Non sequitur.  Do you believe people without insurance used to show up at the ER without the ability to pay or don't you?


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


I  did not say they paid for the ER treatment.  They did not.  That was part of the problem; people going to the ER and getting treatment and then not paying for it, even when they could.  But, other than at the ER, uninsured could not get treatment.  Contrary to the lies of Redfish, millions of


Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


That is your perverted moral code.  Most Americans feel differently.  You really have no clue what makes this nation great, do you? Perhaps you ought to consider becoming a Christian.  That might awaken you to the obligation we have to our fellow man.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I believe if you think someone without coverage should be treated you pay their bill.  

To your question, unless they can pay or you're willing to do it for them, no.  It really doesn't matter what I think should happen, I based my response on what IS happening.  Because they do and don't pay, the rest of us pay more.  Care4All made the comment that those who didn't have coverage paid the taxes that allowed the rest of us to be covered.  Seems Care4All forgot about those who go to the ER without coverage, have to be seen, then because they don't pay, others pay more.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Having people forced into bankruptcy because of medical bills makes our great nation less desirable for a foreign business to choose to locate here or be competitive on the world stage dummy


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



I was about to agree with your post, except for that last bit.  Have you seen the tripe some of  the "Christians" on this board post?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Most bleeding hearts feel differently.  Strange thing is instead of meeting the needs they say is a moral thing to do, they see how much they can get the government to force others to pay.  

As a Christian, I know I have an obligation to help others as I see the need.  What I don't have the obligation of doing is helping when you think you make that determination.  I don't have an obligation to do things YOUR way and nothing in God's word says so.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



I, as a Christian, don't have an obligation to do things the way you think I should.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> To your question, unless they can pay or you're willing to do it for them, no.



And yet they did, for decades, overburdening hospitals (driving some into shutting down), costing you more in higher medical bills.

The PPACA has reduced that number drastically, and you're whining about it.  Non compos mentis.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > To your question, unless they can pay or you're willing to do it for them, no.
> ...



Now were paying the taxes that fund the subsidies they get.  It doesn't which pocket it comes out of if it still comes out.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


You're the kind of Christian who'd ask Jesus for his green card.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I'm the kind that looks at the words of Jesus and doesn't see anything that says you get to determine for me how I do things.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



At the same rate?  Dubious.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Forcing one group to constantly support another group is making our nation less great.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...





Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


But, as an American, you have an obligation to do things according to our laws.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Like I've said before, it doesn't matter if it's $1 or $1000, that you think it's your place to determine that for anyone else is the problem.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Especially Matthew 22:40, Matthew 7:1-3, and Matthew 25:40, huh?


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I was being sarcastic.  I figured he was one of those "Christians".


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Were you under the impression that I was in Congress?  No wonder you're confused.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> I was being sarcastic.  I figured he was one of those "Christians".


Ah, got it!


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



As an American, the leeches have an obligation to do for themselves what they should be doing for themselves.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You vote for those who make those decisions.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



You mean one of those who follows the teachings of Christ not what you want them to say?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


So when Daddy Employer tells you he's no longer providing group insurance, you'll be happy to pay your own way for a change.  Bravo!

(Now make the speech about "health insurance is part of my compensation plan."  Pretty words, but it still means you're leeching off the system.)


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



As a bleeding heart, you have the responsibility to do what you say needs to be done without expecting others to be forced to do it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Especially Matthew 22:40, Matthew 7:1-3, and Matthew 25:40, huh?


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



I actually do something for that compensation.  What does someone getting it for nothing do for theirs.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Twisting God's word?  

Matthew 25:40 doesn't say you get to make that determination for anyone else.  Your problem is you choose to do things a certain way and expect others to do it the same way.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Matthew 25:40 doesn't say you get to make that determination for anyone else.



I'm not interpreting the text.  You seem to be under the impression that there's an "I DON'T WANNA!!111" exemption somewhere.  As a "good Christian," maybe you can explain where in the text it can be found.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew 25:40 doesn't say you get to make that determination for anyone else.
> ...



There's not a "You get to decide for me" part and that's what you're doing.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



No.  I'm reading your words and they're saying "I DON'T WANNA AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!11"  I've had more reasonable conversations with a four-year-old.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



You're reading into.  My words are it's not your place to make that determination for anyone but yourself.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Seriously, just cut and paste "I DON'T WANNA AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!!!11"  Save yourself some time.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Listen to what is said rather than the mumbling you hear with your head stuck up your ass.

It's you that says I don't want to.  If people like you who said others should be provided things would do it yourself like you say it should be done, this conversation wouldn't occur.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

It's Matthew 19:21 that's the real killer, huh?


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


What is it with your obsession with heads and asses?  You seem to cannot get this picture of things stuck up your ass out of your head.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


No, the hypocritical asshole kind.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



Nothing hypocritical about following the teaching of Christ the way they are written.  For those who twist them (i.e. - you), the Bible speaks of that.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



If you won't put yours there, I won't anything about you doing it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I've cited them, not twisted them.  If you see that as a threat, that's on you.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


I have no intention of putting my head anywhere near your ass.  You gonna have to find someone else to help you live out your sexual fantasies.


----------



## paddymurphy (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


Christ did not write anything.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


Hey, one thing at a time.  I want to see how Conservative65 explains that "Sell all you have and give to the poor" means the other guy, not him.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



I want you to explain why, when the rich young ruler, didn't do that Jesus didn't use the government to force it from him.  You seem to think that Jesus taught that it was OK for the government to force it from people.  He didn't.  The word sell says a lot.  It means the person that has it doing so voluntarily not having it taken through a mandate by the government.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



I didn't say mine.  I say get it out of your own.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...



As predicted.  "Not me, Jesus!  The other guy!"

Jesus probably recognized that the rich kid had more of a moral center than Martin Shkreli, the Waltons, or you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



As predicted, you can't provide anything showing where Jesus used the government to force it from anyone.  

Interesting how you define morals based on your twisting of God's word.  God's word speaks to how people like you will be dealt with and it isn't pretty.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Jesus returns to Earth and knocks on Conservative65's door.

Conservative65 Stands His Ground and draws down on the interloper, because the beard and the sandals can only mean he's some homeless guy, right?

Then the "homeless guy" starts to glow, and Conservative65 puts his weapon back in his pants.

Conservative65: Sorry, Lord.  Didn't know it was you.  Come in.  Would you like some lemonade?

Jesus: What I'd like, my son, is for you to explain to me why you haven't sold all your goods and given to the poor as I instructed you.

Conservative65: Humina, humina, humina...you know, I was going to, but I got busy schooling the unworthy on USMB and I -

Jesus: My son, that is not acceptable.

Conservative65: Hey, y'know what?  I'm just a working stiff.  Why don't you go after the rich people first?  Camel, needle, all that good stuff - why single me out?

Jesus: Oh, _now_ you want the top 1% and the corporations to pay their fair share.  And if they don't?  Change the laws to require them (translation: Use the government to force them) to do so?  Is that what you're suggesting?

Conservative65: I'll be in the kitchen making lemonade...


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

Dot Com said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > NO, thats a lie.   No one was turned away from a hospital if they needed medical care,  no one was turned away from a free clinic if they needed medical care.  * There was no healthcare crisis in the USA*.
> ...


 

If you read that closely you will see that what it really says is that 60% of the people who file bankruptcy have unpaid medical bills as part of their filing.   Most of the bad debt is credit cards, car payments, and mortgage defaults.  

No where does that say that anyone ever filed bankruptcy solely due to medical bills. 

but keep up the lies


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


 

congratulations,  you just qualified as a marxist collectivist.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 20, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

of course they did, and they got treated.   whats your point?


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 20, 2015)

Redfish said:


> of course they did, and they got treated.   whats your point?


That you don't know or refuse to acknowledge what happened next.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > of course they did, and they got treated.   whats your point?
> ...


 

Its simple.   First the hospital tries to collect from them by sending a bill, then if the person cannot pay they submit it to one of the many charties that help cover indigent medical costs,  then they submit it to medicaid which usually pays,  then if no payment is received they write off the charge as an uncollectable account.  

The people and insurance companies that pay are charged more to cover the ones who can't or won't pay.  Exactly the same as under obozocare.  EXCEPT, now we also have to pay for a huge new inefficient govt beaurocracy to administer this POS law.

As I have said many times,  there was no healthcare crisis in the USA,  NO ONE was refused treatment before ACA.  NO ONE, even people in this country illegally.

ACA was not  an attempt to fix medical care,  it was a successful coup to take over 1/3 of our economy in violation of the constitution.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 21, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



Excellent summation.  Thank you!


----------



## Care4all (Oct 21, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


In addition to this summation is the Hospital tries to get the patient to put the charges on a credit card, and usually under duress from the emergency situation, the patient's spouse hands over a credit card or if not on a credit card, the hospital turns it over to a collection agency that the Hospital has sold the debt to, at a discount....  yes, they sell their debt, when possible....and these credit collection agencies then come after the patient with a vengeance...or the credit card company comes after the patient with a vengeance, and thus what leads to the filing of bankruptcy.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 22, 2015)

Care4all said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


 

nice try, but untrue.   you cannot show one case of a person filing bankruptcy solely due to medical bills.   The cite that was presented earlier only said that medical bills are included in most bankruptcy filings,  not that medical bills alone were the basis of a bankruptcy filing. 

your credit card scenario is also bullshit,   a huge hospital charge on a credit card that was already at its limit would be rejected by the card company.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

Redfish said:


> you cannot show one case of a person filing bankruptcy solely due to medical bills.



Just one?






How many more would you like?

Now, make sure to say "Harvard University?  Obviously a lie" without making any attempt to provide contradictory data.  That's always good for a laugh.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 22, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > you cannot show one case of a person filing bankruptcy solely due to medical bills.
> ...


 

I would like to see the source data used for that study.   I would bet that they weasel worded the "conclusions" and that the facts show that medical bills were included in those 1800 bankruptcies but that not one of them was filed solely because of medical bills.

Remember,  figures don't lie, but liars figure.

as to Harvard,  I have an MBA from Harvard so I know exactly where that college stands politically


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf


----------



## Redfish (Oct 22, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf


 

from your cite;
*"BACKGROUND:*
Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of
all bankruptcies."


do you understand the difference between "contributed to" and "caused".   ?  

thanks for making my point.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf
> ...



I do.   When you can find data that break that down further, please do so.  Until then, you're just tap-dancing.


----------



## Redfish (Oct 22, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


 

nope, you made the claim that many bankrupcies were caused by unpaid medical bills,  your own cite disproves that claim.  

So,  I win,  you lose.     now lets move on.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 22, 2015)

Redfish said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...


If that's what you need, then we can expect the same devotion to fact going forward.  Valuable.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 30, 2016)

Screenings for HIV and Hepatitis B were free (to me) while an examination of my Vitamin D levels cost $252, of which I must pay $214.20—that’s a lot of money to be told I should buy a $6 bottle of pills that, odds are, I needed to buy anyway, since pretty much everyone is Vitamin D deficient these days.

From the OP:

You can't make this stuff up.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 30, 2016)

Dot Com said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Bulls**t meme.

Notice there was never any discussion of "junk plans" until the country turned on our Bastard In Chief.

It's no surprise that Dotty can't do better than this.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (May 20, 2016)

TNHarley said:


> If her insurance is paying less than 1 percent of her shit, why does she have insurance?



So the Obummer administration can count her as a "success".


----------

