Obamacare train pulls safely into the station

[billyerock1991]

Oh yes...and LL that is the greed of the PRIVIDERS and NOT insurance companies.

Did I mention that I work for a non-profit?

None of that matters. Why did you say it?

Because the truth is this...you simply have NO idea about anything you type.

You are a parrot, no more, no less.

Antares will tell you he works for BCBS 24/7 .... how he know how bad the ACA is ... the funny part here is, Antares's is here all the time ... that would make one believe, the fact that he works for BCBS, Antares's is a paid poster ... the other day he also told me, to try and justify his knowledge of the ACA said he does, I can't remember how many hours it was that he processes people through the ACA ... which that would require him to be their 24 hours a day from the numbers he was telling us ... I came to the conclusion Antares is a liar and a paid poster For BCBS ...so you're right he has no value here at all ...

 

[billyerock1991]

Oh yes...and LL that is the greed of the PRIVIDERS and NOT insurance companies.

Did I mention that I work for a non-profit?

None of that matters. Why did you say it?

that's what antares likes to do... say shit like it has value ... it doesn't ...you know it and the people who have gone to through ACA web site knows ... Antares is full of shit and so is wet cryer who said his doubled ... if you ask them did they go through the ACA web site, they will tell you know they didn't ...they will tell you they went direct to their provider... their provider will quote your cost with out any kind of subsidy they all do ... these people on the right are idiots ...

 

[billyerock1991]

Here is something I just discovered last week....and THIS is where the reform should have started.

A knee replacement in Omaha costs 25000 dollars...a knee replacement in California costs 125000......that's just wrong all the way around.

So you want price controls on healthcare to insure prices are same across the country?

I do not know what the fix is but this needs to be looked at.

when you sell a 2 bedroom house with a attached garage 750 SQ ft in and a mother in-law house of 300 SQ ft in Californioa for 750,000 dollars I would say the cost of doing any kind of business in California is costly ... you are comparing apples and oranges here ...

 

[bedowin62]

absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that; you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS

IT'S JUST A DELAY; until after the next elections


libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[CrusaderFrank]

absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that; you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS

IT'S JUST A DELAY; until after the next elections


libs are losers who lie to themselves

Greenbeard is paid to disseminate the Obama administration talking points. He feeds the "ideas" into the Prog Collective

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Antares]

Oh yes...and LL that is the greed of the PRIVIDERS and NOT insurance companies.

Did I mention that I work for a non-profit?

None of that matters. Why did you say it?

that's what antares likes to do... say shit like it has value ... it doesn't ...you know it and the people who have gone to through ACA web site knows ... Antares is full of shit and so is wet cryer who said his doubled ... if you ask them did they go through the ACA web site, they will tell you know they didn't ...they will tell you they went direct to their provider... their provider will quote your cost with out any kind of subsidy they all do ... these people on the right are idiots ...

Poor Hillbilly, still seeking relevance?

You are delusional, ALL of our agents have the subsidy checker up alongside of the quote function, ALL of our agents quote ALL plans with subsidy IF applicable.

You just aren't very intelligent hillbilly.

 

[Antares]

absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that; you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS

IT'S JUST A DELAY; until after the next elections


libs are losers who lie to themselves

Greenbeard is paid to disseminate distribute the Obama administration talking points. He feeds the "ideas" into the Prog Collective

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

Greenbeard knows this, he just can't admit it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Who is REALLY being paid, literally, and who is just being joked about?
Greenbeard?
Rightwinger?
Antares?
???

Is there a thread where these people or others can verify who is a paid poster? NOT just as a cheap slam, but actually confirmed by the posters themselves? Is that allowed here?

This is news to me that anyone is really getting paid? For propaganda, really?

(I don't know anyone who would pay me to post,
but maybe to QUIT POSTING and QUIT harassing people to mediate between all sides of every conflict. My msgs could be used instead of waterboarding to terrorize terrorists!)

absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that; you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS

IT'S JUST A DELAY; until after the next elections


libs are losers who lie to themselves

Greenbeard is paid to disseminate distribute the Obama administration talking points. He feeds the "ideas" into the Prog Collective

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Antares]

Who is REALLY being paid, literally, and who is just being joked about?
Greenbeard?
Rightwinger?
Antares?
???

Is there a thread where these people or others can verify who is a paid poster? NOT just as a cheap slam, but actually confirmed by the posters themselves? Is that allowed here?

This is news to me that anyone is really getting paid? For propaganda, really?

(I don't know anyone who would pay me to post,
but maybe to QUIT POSTING and QUIT harassing people to mediate between all sides of every conflict. My msgs could be used instead of waterboarding to terrorize terrorists!)

absolutely laughable; obama has delayed implementation of his own law for countless millions. if he had NOT done that; you would be able to see what a TRUE CATASTROPHE IT REALLY IS

IT'S JUST A DELAY; until after the next elections


libs are losers who lie to themselves

Greenbeard is paid to disseminate distribute the Obama administration talking points. He feeds the "ideas" into the Prog Collective

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

Billy came late to the Party and missed where I had said in the very beginning of all of these discussions that I was an agent for BCBS...so one day when I said it again he decided that I was a "paid poster", he's been riding that horse ever since.

I am a direct employee of BCBS Nebraska, I work for them as a Regional Sales Representative.

 

[emilynghiem]

Billy came late to the Party and missed where I had said in the very beginning of all of these discussions that I was an agent for BCBS...so one day when I said it again he decided that I was a "paid poster", he's been riding that horse ever since.

I am a direct employee of BCBS Nebraska, I work for them as a Regional Sales Representative.

Thanks, Antares.

Would you be open to the idea of separating these federal mandates and insurance policies by party, so people can negotiate the system of their choice WITHOUT releasing personal medical info or data to federal govt (if they don't believe in managing their insurance on that level) but would be okay with privatizing it through their party or some more local system?

It seems to me there is enough support for "Singlepayer" through the Greens and Democrats that the Democrat Party could collectively negotiate exchange rates directly with insurance companies, and not necessarily "mandate" this system for the whole public under threat of penalty for not participating under those rules and regulations.

Am I the only prochoice Democrat who believes that if you are going to change the federal system to this degree then the public should AGREE to it, instead of being divided by party?

and if it is divided by party, then why not set up separate programs by party?
the parties already manage their own primaries, and local/state/national conventions.
So why can't the party structure and representation/voting be applied to setting up health care systems that the members ACTUALLY AGREE to follow and fund because they BELIEVE in that approach.

Is it really that impossible to set up by party instead of fighting over one policy for all?

 

[Antares]

Billy came late to the Party and missed where I had said in the very beginning of all of these discussions that I was an agent for BCBS...so one day when I said it again he decided that I was a "paid poster", he's been riding that horse ever since.

I am a direct employee of BCBS Nebraska, I work for them as a Regional Sales Representative.

Thanks, Antares.

Would you be open to the idea of separating these federal mandates and insurance policies by party, so people can negotiate the system of their choice WITHOUT releasing personal medical info or data to federal govt (if they don't believe in managing their insurance on that level) but would be okay with privatizing it through their party or some more local system?

It seems to me there is enough support for "Singlepayer" through the Greens and Democrats that the Democrat Party could collectively negotiate exchange rates directly with insurance companies, and not necessarily "mandate" this system for the whole public under threat of penalty for not participating under those rules and regulations.

Am I the only prochoice Democrat who believes that if you are going to change the federal system to this degree then the public should AGREE to it, instead of being divided by party?

and if it is divided by party, then why not set up separate programs by party?
the parties already manage their own primaries, and local/state/national conventions.
So why can't the party structure and representation/voting be applied to setting up health care systems that the members ACTUALLY AGREE to follow and fund because they BELIEVE in that approach.

Is it really that impossible to set up by party instead of fighting over one policy for all?

In theory there should be no issue with doing that, but this really isn't about making things better, that should be obvious in the way that the law has been handled just since Jan 1.

It is about a group of people that have decided that THEY know what is best for EVERYONE else, it's also about control.

 

[dblack]

Billy came late to the Party and missed where I had said in the very beginning of all of these discussions that I was an agent for BCBS...so one day when I said it again he decided that I was a "paid poster", he's been riding that horse ever since.

I am a direct employee of BCBS Nebraska, I work for them as a Regional Sales Representative.

Thanks, Antares.

Would you be open to the idea of separating these federal mandates and insurance policies by party, so people can negotiate the system of their choice WITHOUT releasing personal medical info or data to federal govt (if they don't believe in managing their insurance on that level) but would be okay with privatizing it through their party or some more local system?

It seems to me there is enough support for "Singlepayer" through the Greens and Democrats that the Democrat Party could collectively negotiate exchange rates directly with insurance companies, and not necessarily "mandate" this system for the whole public under threat of penalty for not participating under those rules and regulations.

Am I the only prochoice Democrat who believes that if you are going to change the federal system to this degree then the public should AGREE to it, instead of being divided by party?

and if it is divided by party, then why not set up separate programs by party?
the parties already manage their own primaries, and local/state/national conventions.
So why can't the party structure and representation/voting be applied to setting up health care systems that the members ACTUALLY AGREE to follow and fund because they BELIEVE in that approach.

Is it really that impossible to set up by party instead of fighting over one policy for all?

Of course it's not impossible. And I fully agree that people should be free to decide for themselves how they want to finance their health care. But surely you see that this approach runs counter to ACA in every way. From the perspective of its advocates, your suggestion is worse than repeal and replace - it's essentially just 'repeal', and let people (via party affiliation) figure it out for themselves. I'm all for that, but I doubt you'll find much support from Democrats - or most Republicans for that matter. For them, centralized control is the point.

 

[emilynghiem]

Of course it's not impossible. And I fully agree that people should be free to decide for themselves how they want to finance their health care. But surely you see that this approach runs counter to ACA in every way. From the perspective of its advocates, your suggestion is worse than repeal and replace - it's essentially just 'repeal', and let people (via party affiliation) figure it out for themselves. I'm all for that, but I doubt you'll find much support from Democrats - or most Republicans for that matter. For them, centralized control is the point.

No, it's saying to keep the ACA structured as is, but hold Democrats to it; not anyone else who never agreed to be under those mandates.

And to expand the "exemptions or options" to allow the other parties to form a system that would qualify.

So it still allows people to use the given ACA structures and exchanges,
but shifts the financial and management responsibility over to the Democrat
leaders, party and members who advocated for it.

In order to keep it intact for those who benefit from it.

So if Obama wants to change it, he and the other Democrats can do so at will (as they are already doing now),
since it is their system and not bound by the Constitution to follow all the rules and procedures required federally (that it already violated anyway).

 

[emilynghiem]

In theory there should be no issue with doing that, but this really isn't about making things better, that should be obvious in the way that the law has been handled just since Jan 1.

It is about a group of people that have decided that THEY know what is best for EVERYONE else, it's also about control.

Yes, so give them that control --> FULL control and responsibility for the system they set up.
I have no problem with that. I am even willing to work with the President and Democrat Party to set up better means of funding more health care coverage by reforming the prison and immigration system at the same time, using the same system of enrollment of participants.

This mass enrollment already being orchestrated by party anyway.
People are going through their party reps to sign up for this enrollment program.
So why not shift it all by party, and not fight over the terms that parties
agree to democratically as organized by like approaches they believe in for health care?

 

[Antares]

In theory there should be no issue with doing that, but this really isn't about making things better, that should be obvious in the way that the law has been handled just since Jan 1.

It is about a group of people that have decided that THEY know what is best for EVERYONE else, it's also about control.

Yes, so give them that control --> FULL control and responsibility for the system they set up.
I have no problem with that. I am even willing to work with the President and Democrat Party to set up better means of funding more health care coverage by reforming the prison and immigration system at the same time, using the same system of enrollment of participants.

This mass enrollment already being orchestrated by party anyway.
People are going through their party reps to sign up for this enrollment program.
So why not shift it all by party, and not fight over the terms that parties
agree to democratically as organized by like approaches they believe in for health care?

What do you mean "people are going through their party reps"?

 

[dblack]

In order to keep it intact for those who benefit from it.

But the whole point, fully acknowledged by those who passed the bill, is to force those who don't benefit from it "into the pool". What you're advocating is, essentially, just repealing the mandate. Which, again, I'm totally in favor of. But few in Congress are. Even most of the Republicans who claim to be against the mandate simply want to replace it with an equivalent tax incentive.

 

[bluesman]

In order to keep it intact for those who benefit from it.

But the whole point, fully acknowledged by those who passed the bill, is to force those who don't benefit from it "into the pool". What you're advocating is, essentially, just repealing the mandate. Which, again, I'm totally in favor of. But few in Congress are. Even most of the Republicans who claim to be against the mandate simply want to replace it with an equivalent tax incentive.

That may be your interpretation but it isn't factual. The whole point is that everyone have health insurance and therefore less free loaders. The other "whole point" is that poor people have access to the health care system.

 

[dblack]

In order to keep it intact for those who benefit from it.

But the whole point, fully acknowledged by those who passed the bill, is to force those who don't benefit from it "into the pool". What you're advocating is, essentially, just repealing the mandate. Which, again, I'm totally in favor of. But few in Congress are. Even most of the Republicans who claim to be against the mandate simply want to replace it with an equivalent tax incentive.

That may be your interpretation but it isn't factual. The whole point is that everyone have health insurance and therefore less free loaders. The other "whole point" is that poor people have access to the health care system.

Really? You'd with OK with dropping the mandate then?

 

[Rozman]

Getting people who didn't have insurance is a good thing.....(but is that what happened?)
Messing with people who had insurance is even better....

This message is brought to you by the Democrat party....

 

[bluesman]

But the whole point, fully acknowledged by those who passed the bill, is to force those who don't benefit from it "into the pool". What you're advocating is, essentially, just repealing the mandate. Which, again, I'm totally in favor of. But few in Congress are. Even most of the Republicans who claim to be against the mandate simply want to replace it with an equivalent tax incentive.

That may be your interpretation but it isn't factual. The whole point is that everyone have health insurance and therefore less free loaders. The other "whole point" is that poor people have access to the health care system.

Really? You'd with OK with dropping the mandate then?

You are not making sense. First you say that the people who passed the bill would agree with your spin. Then you don't seem to understand that without a mandate, then people who "opt out" will still be taken to the emergency room if they have a car accident or a heart attack. Who do you think should pay for their "free treatment"?