GOP may "leverage" debt ceiling against de-funding Obamacare

I would not object if the tea party types were given the opportunity to opt out of the insurance coverage requirments, if , at the same time, congress and the states eliminated madatory treatment by hospitals in emergencies, as well as Medicaid, and dozens of other free health coverage grant programs that are currently funded by taxpayers.

Done...

The very day AFTER we bar all Illegal Aliens from receiving such services...

Get the 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens out of the Emegency Rooms et all and much of the problem of overextended and poorly-reimbursed Emergency Care vanishes...

Let's make sure that we cut off services for OUTSIDERS before we begin cutting off services for OUR OWN PEOPLE...
 
Last edited:
I would not object if the tea party types were given the opportunity to opt out of the insurance coverage requirments, if , at the same time, congress and the states eliminated madatory treatment by hospitals in emergencies, as well as Medicaid, and dozens of other free health coverage grant programs that are currently funded by taxpayers.

Yep. If EMTALA is really the problem, then we should address EMTALA. Using it as an excuse to take over health care is a con.
 
Get the 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens out of the Emegency Rooms et all and much of the problem of overextended and poorly-reimbursed Emergency Care flies out the window...



Oh, I don't think so, Condor. I used to process claims for Charity Hospital in New Orleans, which is a town with virtually no industry other than tourism and restaurants, niether of which provide health insurance for their employees. Over 60% of the residents of the city had no health insurance, and they were NOT illegal aliens.
 
In the case of ACA, it certainly is .....

Then why are we still talking? ;)

<snicker>

There are always ways to skin ANY cat, and, if they want it badly enough, the GOP can probably find a way to torpedo ObamaCare...

The question is: DO they want it badly enough?

The supplemental question is: Do they have the BALLS do do it?

At first glance, the answer to both questions seems to be "No".

Pity... they have a unique and signal opportunity to do what is right for The People.

And they may very well end-up not doing a damned thing about it.

Exactly. I'm reasonably sure that party leadership has no genuine interest in repealing Obamacare. They just want to call it something different. But I think many voters ARE genuine in their opposition, and if the Republicans dismiss them once again, they'll pay for it. They know this, but it might not be enough. We'll see.
 
Keeping in mind the title of this thread: GOP may "leverage" debt ceiling against de-funding Obamacare

It is astounding that tea baggers don't understand the difference between a vote for spending and a vote not to pay for what they voted to spend.

But then, these bird brains supported Bush and Republicans in the destruction of the U.S. economy.

what is astounding is that you do not comprehend that REPUBLICANS DID NOT VOTE TO SPEND MONEY ON OBAMACARE. The ACA bill was passed on a dems only vote with no dissenting views or ideas being allowed to be discussed, no republican amendments allowed to be discussed or voted on.

the dems own this crappy bill 100%---------except the ones who have been granted exemptions, or congress, or the administration, or some unions.

This is the worst legislation in the history of this nation, passed under the worst president in the history of this nation.
 
I would not object if the tea party types were given the opportunity to opt out of the insurance coverage requirments, if , at the same time, congress and the states eliminated madatory treatment by hospitals in emergencies, as well as Medicaid, and dozens of other free health coverage grant programs that are currently funded by taxpayers.

Yep. If EMTALA is really the problem, then we should address EMTALA. Using it as an excuse to take over health care is a con.

EMTALA is only a tiny portion of the Free health care provided to uninsureds in this country.
 
I would not object if the tea party types were given the opportunity to opt out of the insurance coverage requirments, if , at the same time, congress and the states eliminated madatory treatment by hospitals in emergencies, as well as Medicaid, and dozens of other free health coverage grant programs that are currently funded by taxpayers.

Yep. If EMTALA is really the problem, then we should address EMTALA. Using it as an excuse to take over health care is a con.

EMTALA is only a tiny portion of the Free health care provided to uninsureds in this country.

Right. And all of these 'cost' us, in one form or another. If we aren't willing to accept the unintended consequences of these policies, we should change them. Again, we should fix the problems we have before creating more.
 
Yep. If EMTALA is really the problem, then we should address EMTALA. Using it as an excuse to take over health care is a con.

EMTALA is only a tiny portion of the Free health care provided to uninsureds in this country.

Right. And all of these 'cost' us, in one form or another. If we aren't willing to accept the unintended consequences of these policies, we should change them. Again, we should fix the problems we have before creating more.



ACA does, in fact, solve this problem, by making free health care at taxpayers expense unnecessary.
 
Get the 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens out of the Emegency Rooms et all and much of the problem of overextended and poorly-reimbursed Emergency Care flies out the window...



Oh, I don't think so, Condor. I used to process claims for Charity Hospital in New Orleans, which is a town with virtually no industry other than tourism and restaurants, niether of which provide health insurance for their employees. Over 60% of the residents of the city had no health insurance, and they were NOT illegal aliens.

you obviously don't know much about NOLA. no industry? what is Avondale shipyard, what is bollinger shipyard, what is Shaw Group, what is Boh brothers, what is trinity shipyard, what are the barge companies, what are the cruise ships, what is the port.

I question your 60% claim as well. most restaurants do not provide health insurance, but that does not mean that restaurant employees do not buy their own. City employees have insurance, the trash collection companies provide insurance, the companies I listed provide insurance.

It could be that 60% of the patients at Charity don't have insurance because thats where the gunshot victims are sent. But 60% of the residents? I think not.
 
EMTALA is only a tiny portion of the Free health care provided to uninsureds in this country.

Right. And all of these 'cost' us, in one form or another. If we aren't willing to accept the unintended consequences of these policies, we should change them. Again, we should fix the problems we have before creating more.



ACA does, in fact, solve this problem, by making free health care at taxpayers expense unnecessary.

are you crazy? the people getting it free today will be getting it free under obozocare, and we will be paying for it just like we are today. But, we will also be paying for a huge beaurocracy to push paper and delay getting needed treatment.

you fools have no idea what you are cheering for.
 
Get the 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens out of the Emegency Rooms et all and much of the problem of overextended and poorly-reimbursed Emergency Care flies out the window...



Oh, I don't think so, Condor. I used to process claims for Charity Hospital in New Orleans, which is a town with virtually no industry other than tourism and restaurants, niether of which provide health insurance for their employees. Over 60% of the residents of the city had no health insurance, and they were NOT illegal aliens.

Yeah, Vandal, sorry to be argumentative on this one, but I DO think so...

NOLA has a meager 5% Hispanic population demographic, and is stereotypically understood to be one of the poorest cities in the United States, even prior to the Katrina disaster...

And, although NOLA may have a somewhat higher percentage of low-paid service industry jobs than your average American city, I doubt that your demographic for Illegal Aliens is skewed more than a couple of percentage points outside the Average, or that it is very far outside the Normal relationship between the size of the legal Hispanic population and the size of the Illegal community...

If your claims processing experience was for Medicaid Billing at the Metropolitan or County or State level, then I might be a bit more inclined to concede primacy of experience, but I can't bring myself to do it in this case...

Try Los Angeles, or Chicago, or New York, or Pheonix, or Dallas, or the like, and I think you'll come up with a slightly different perspective, vis a vis NOLA...

I have some fairly substantive Medicaid claims-processing credentials myself, on the oversight level, but I'll table that for some other conversation, unless they're needed...
 
Get the 12,000,000 Illegal Aliens out of the Emegency Rooms et all and much of the problem of overextended and poorly-reimbursed Emergency Care flies out the window...



Oh, I don't think so, Condor. I used to process claims for Charity Hospital in New Orleans, which is a town with virtually no industry other than tourism and restaurants, niether of which provide health insurance for their employees. Over 60% of the residents of the city had no health insurance, and they were NOT illegal aliens.

you obviously don't know much about NOLA. no industry? what is Avondale shipyard, what is bollinger shipyard, what is Shaw Group, what is Boh brothers, what is trinity shipyard, what are the barge companies, what are the cruise ships, what is the port.

I question your 60% claim as well. most restaurants do not provide health insurance, but that does not mean that restaurant employees do not buy their own. City employees have insurance, the trash collection companies provide insurance, the companies I listed provide insurance.

It could be that 60% of the patients at Charity don't have insurance because thats where the gunshot victims are sent. But 60% of the residents? I think not.

I stand corrected. 60% of Charity Hospital patients (the hospital that was chosen to take the president to in an emergency, should it happen while he was in New Orleans) had no insurance. i was in charge of writting these bills off as "uncollectable". Charity, which never reopened after katrina, served the inner city of NOLA. Health insurance reimbursement made up less than 45% of our revenues. Patient reibursement was less than 7%. The rest was provided by various levels of government agencies, all of which was funded by taxes. We estimated before Katrina that less than 2% of our patients were illegal aliens.
 
Last edited:
That's what gets me about the apologists on this thread. If opposition to ACA is so inconsequential, why are you all trying so hard to squelch it?

Because you need to be convinced that your opposition is inconsequential.
 
. The kinds of fundamental changes implemented by ACA, by Constitutional design, require more than a simple majority.

That isn't what the Supreme Court thinks.

I'm aware of that. Roberts fucked us. And we're clearly losing this battle - so far. But we haven't given up yet. That's really what this thread has become - establishment stoolies trying to shut down dissent and 'dismiss' those of us refusing to acquiesce.

Sure dat.

Oh, grow up, please.

We are making sure the far right reactionaries realize that, yes, they have lost, and, no, they have no chance of stopping, and, yes, they will be severely punished politically if they try to burn down the house because they can't stop it.
 
Last edited:
1) The GOP has never threatened to shut down the government to defund Obamacare. In fact, they've been quite clear that they will fund everything but Obamacare.

2) The GOP will never leverage the debt ceiling into defunding Obamacare. Why? Because it involves using wise political negotation skills and they don't have the political will do to what is right.
 
EMTALA is only a tiny portion of the Free health care provided to uninsureds in this country.

Right. And all of these 'cost' us, in one form or another. If we aren't willing to accept the unintended consequences of these policies, we should change them. Again, we should fix the problems we have before creating more.



ACA does, in fact, solve this problem, by making free health care at taxpayers expense unnecessary.

Well, obviously that's where the disagreement lies. I think it explodes the problem a hundred fold by going off the deep-end, indulging exactly the impulses that painted us into this corner in the first place. You're essentially saying that, because government interference in the health care market is causing problems, we need a lot more government interference in the health care market. That makes no sense.
 
Right. And all of these 'cost' us, in one form or another. If we aren't willing to accept the unintended consequences of these policies, we should change them. Again, we should fix the problems we have before creating more.



ACA does, in fact, solve this problem, by making free health care at taxpayers expense unnecessary.

are you crazy? the people getting it free today will be getting it free under obozocare, and we will be paying for it just like we are today. But, we will also be paying for a huge beaurocracy to push paper and delay getting needed treatment.

you fools have no idea what you are cheering for.

That's the entire point of ACA. It doesn't resolve anything other the authoritarian desire to control our health care with government.
 
What painted us into this corner was corporate greed and Dem and Pub politicians facilitating private industry greed at the expense of health and the public health.

Can't go back and fix that now.
 

Forum List

Back
Top