(05-11-2014 09:58 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  In regard to it being a wealth redistribution program and vote buying scheme? Yes.

That sums up a large portion of the populace.

Dawg, is living in a Zero inspired fantasy world.

This from a person that blames an entire religion for the actions of a small group of extremists.

(05-11-2014 10:01 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Community Centers Warn That Poor Won’t Keep Paying Obamacare Premiums

Quote:While the Obamacare debate has so far focused on who’s paid their first premium, a better question may be who can afford to keep paying for health insurance month after month.

Christine Wagner, the executive director of a Catholic health care community center in New York called the St. Joseph Neighborhood Center, warns that many low-income people that have signed up won’t be able to keep up paying for their health insurance.

“We’ve waited the 90 days, 120 days, and we’re seeing the reproductions of people who bought new policies, but haven’t been able to maintain them,” Wagner told WXXI News. “So, we’re seeing the unfolding of some of the consequences of some of these new policies that people actually weren’t able to maintain.”

WXXI notes that Wagner supports Obamacare but is looking for improvements to the current law.

Wagner told WXXI that around 200 clients of St. Joseph enrolled in the exchange, but some can’t afford to keep paying the premiums. Others, Wagner said, opted not to sign up because even with federal subsidies, health plans were too expensive.

The complaint is not exclusive to Wagner’s clinic: an April tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation determined that the top reason that people are remaining uninsured is the cost. Thirty-nine percent of uninsured respondents told Kaiser that they couldn’t afford health insurance.

The current set-up of the health care law means that St. Joseph’s and doctors across the country will have to take on the cost of caring for those who stop paying their premiums themselves.

Obamacare grants all enrollees a 90-day grace period after a premium payment is missed before their insurer is allowed to cancel the coverage. For the first 30 days, the insurance company is required to cover any care the customer receives; but for the final 6o days before the policy is canceled, doctors will be required to eat the cost of any health care services they provide.

(05-11-2014 09:18 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 08:46 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 05:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 03:16 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Do you realize that Medicaid isn't insurance? It's more government welfare. It's not a person signing up for a plan with a private insurer via any exchange. It's the Feds giving states more welfare money for a few years then pulling the rug out from under them. Not to mention that Medicaid patients waste more money in ER visits, few docs take it because they actually lose money by seeing Medicaid patients, and they only pay for a certain amount of visits each year.

So yeah, more Medicaid is great!!!

It is a lot better than having nothing for the individual that has it. It is a lot better than serving the indigent for the hospitals and clinics. Our rural hospitals are suffering greatly from the refusal of our state to expand Medicaid. It is a tremendous boost to local economies. What makes you think the feds will "pull the rug out from under" the states? The General Assembly can expand with a provision that if that did happen they would no longer provide expanded Medicaid. It is as simple as including it in the bill but the NCGA wouldn't do that.

But to describe it as insurance is untrue. It's health care welfare, not health insurance, and a snippy attitude comes with Medicaid.

Why are you so obsessed with terminology? It enables low income people to get some health care, it doesn't matter what you call it.

(05-11-2014 09:58 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:41 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:23 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  In regard to it being a wealth redistribution program and vote buying scheme? Yes.

That sums up a large portion of the populace.

Dawg, is living in a Zero inspired fantasy world.

This from a person that blames an entire religion for the actions of a small group of extremists.

(05-11-2014 09:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:36 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:25 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:21 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:18 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Last week we had BCBS cancel an employees coverage. The lazy MOFO only has to pay 36 dollars per month for both him and his wife after his welfare handout and company HC bonus. He was too fcking sorry to pay even that and BCBS cancelled his policy. What is the law going to do with people like this? (and I expect there are many). The point is...there are people out there that really don't value insurance as important to them.

We will send out the anything but trustworthy IRS after him, his heirs and his family.

You think he cares? They will waste more money going after him than it is worth. We have a TON of these people in America. They just don't care. This is one of the inherent flaws of the ACA. It counted on people actually caring.

The IRS will simply withhold it from his refund if he has one. He is just a dumbazz and, yes there are a lot of them out there. It will be a lesson learned the hard way if he or his wife get diagnosed with a major health issue and he racks up bills from now to the end of the year. People like this somehow tend to live a charmed life, until they don't.

He will do the same thing he did before. He can't be denied Health Care because he does not have health insurance. He knows it.

(05-11-2014 02:59 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:18 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 08:46 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 05:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 03:16 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Do you realize that Medicaid isn't insurance? It's more government welfare. It's not a person signing up for a plan with a private insurer via any exchange. It's the Feds giving states more welfare money for a few years then pulling the rug out from under them. Not to mention that Medicaid patients waste more money in ER visits, few docs take it because they actually lose money by seeing Medicaid patients, and they only pay for a certain amount of visits each year.

So yeah, more Medicaid is great!!!

It is a lot better than having nothing for the individual that has it. It is a lot better than serving the indigent for the hospitals and clinics. Our rural hospitals are suffering greatly from the refusal of our state to expand Medicaid. It is a tremendous boost to local economies. What makes you think the feds will "pull the rug out from under" the states? The General Assembly can expand with a provision that if that did happen they would no longer provide expanded Medicaid. It is as simple as including it in the bill but the NCGA wouldn't do that.

But to describe it as insurance is untrue. It's health care welfare, not health insurance, and a snippy attitude comes with Medicaid.

Why are you so obsessed with terminology? It enables low income people to get some health care, it doesn't matter what you call it.

Because words matter, that's why. Medicaid patients act like they deserve special treatment because they "have insurance." Not in my office. They are the last patients to be seen, and the ones that complain louder wait longer. We see paying customers first. We see self pay patients before the medicaids.

(05-11-2014 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 02:59 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:18 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 08:46 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 05:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  It is a lot better than having nothing for the individual that has it. It is a lot better than serving the indigent for the hospitals and clinics. Our rural hospitals are suffering greatly from the refusal of our state to expand Medicaid. It is a tremendous boost to local economies. What makes you think the feds will "pull the rug out from under" the states? The General Assembly can expand with a provision that if that did happen they would no longer provide expanded Medicaid. It is as simple as including it in the bill but the NCGA wouldn't do that.

But to describe it as insurance is untrue. It's health care welfare, not health insurance, and a snippy attitude comes with Medicaid.

Why are you so obsessed with terminology? It enables low income people to get some health care, it doesn't matter what you call it.

Because words matter, that's why. Medicaid patients act like they deserve special treatment because they "have insurance." Not in my office. They are the last patients to be seen, and the ones that complain louder wait longer. We see paying customers first. We see self pay patients before the medicaids.

They certainly don't deserve special treatment but I think it should be equally true that they don't deserve second class treatment.

(05-11-2014 10:01 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Community Centers Warn That Poor Won’t Keep Paying Obamacare Premiums

Quote:While the Obamacare debate has so far focused on who’s paid their first premium, a better question may be who can afford to keep paying for health insurance month after month.

Christine Wagner, the executive director of a Catholic health care community center in New York called the St. Joseph Neighborhood Center, warns that many low-income people that have signed up won’t be able to keep up paying for their health insurance.

“We’ve waited the 90 days, 120 days, and we’re seeing the reproductions of people who bought new policies, but haven’t been able to maintain them,” Wagner told WXXI News. “So, we’re seeing the unfolding of some of the consequences of some of these new policies that people actually weren’t able to maintain.”

WXXI notes that Wagner supports Obamacare but is looking for improvements to the current law.

Wagner told WXXI that around 200 clients of St. Joseph enrolled in the exchange, but some can’t afford to keep paying the premiums. Others, Wagner said, opted not to sign up because even with federal subsidies, health plans were too expensive.

The complaint is not exclusive to Wagner’s clinic: an April tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation determined that the top reason that people are remaining uninsured is the cost. Thirty-nine percent of uninsured respondents told Kaiser that they couldn’t afford health insurance.

The current set-up of the health care law means that St. Joseph’s and doctors across the country will have to take on the cost of caring for those who stop paying their premiums themselves.

Obamacare grants all enrollees a 90-day grace period after a premium payment is missed before their insurer is allowed to cancel the coverage. For the first 30 days, the insurance company is required to cover any care the customer receives; but for the final 6o days before the policy is canceled, doctors will be required to eat the cost of any health care services they provide.

(05-11-2014 07:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 02:59 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 09:18 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 08:46 PM)dfarr Wrote:  But to describe it as insurance is untrue. It's health care welfare, not health insurance, and a snippy attitude comes with Medicaid.

Why are you so obsessed with terminology? It enables low income people to get some health care, it doesn't matter what you call it.

Because words matter, that's why. Medicaid patients act like they deserve special treatment because they "have insurance." Not in my office. They are the last patients to be seen, and the ones that complain louder wait longer. We see paying customers first. We see self pay patients before the medicaids.

They certainly don't deserve special treatment but I think it should be equally true that they don't deserve second class treatment.

Why not? Why shouldn't freeloaders have to wait?

(05-11-2014 08:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I don't know, maybe the Hippocratic Oath, human decency, your Christian faith, the golden rule?

(05-11-2014 08:36 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 08:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I don't know, maybe the Hippocratic Oath, human decency, your Christian faith, the golden rule?

There you crazy libs go again, downplaying religion/morality at every turn, until there comes a time that a moral argument can be used to justifly an overreach of the government.

Quote:And we have created a generational recipient class, fostered a counterproductive belief in victimization, and shattered the family structure.

(05-10-2014 02:29 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 01:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 01:40 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 01:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 01:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You saying it is so in print doesn't make it true. The 8.14 million does not include people that simply placed it in a cart. It is people that checked out. It is correct that some people went through the process twice and will only pay one premium. Those are the double counts and they are included when subtracting those that don't pay their first premium ( aprox. 1.1 million) from those that signed up (8.14 million).

How many didn't previously have insurance? Wasn't that the point of this entire debacle, to insure the uninsured? Good grief, man.

You keep changing the question, but I'll answer that one too. Overall we are looking at a reduction of the uninsured of about 9-11 million based on the most recent surveys from Gallop and Rand. That isn't including children, just adults.

And now you change the answer. A reduction of the uninsured. Uhhh, okay. Medicaid? People aging up to medicare? All those are counted as ACA "accompllishments" now?

What constitutes a "reduction of the uninsured"? People without insurance dropping dead? Moving back to Mexico? What does that number even mean?

How many now have insurance that previously didn't. That's the true measure.

Expanded Medicaid is a key part of the ACA. Medicare is not included. Most surveys are 18-64 year olds, not the under 18 or the over 64s. Rand says 9.3 million and Gallop says 13 million adults under 65 are insured now that were not insured before. If you include children and Medicaid "woodworkers" then the number would be higher. Also illegal immigrants without insurance are included in the total number of uninsured but are not eligible for Medicaid or QHPs.

(05-11-2014 08:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 07:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  They certainly don't deserve special treatment but I think it should be equally true that they don't deserve second class treatment.

Why not? Why shouldn't freeloaders have to wait?

I don't know, maybe the Hippocratic Oath, human decency, your Christian faith, the golden rule?

(05-11-2014 09:14 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 12:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  The States that have fallen for this ponzi scheme will see a very short term "benefit" of federal dollars. But, guess what, sportsfans? The fed is broke. As in effin broke. As in Detroit broke, or better, Uncle Eddie broke.

So guess what? After a few short, sweetened years the Feds will pull out like a Frat boy on a coyote morning Sunday. Then it's just another unfunded mandate that will fall to the residents of that State. IOW's, taxes go up. WAAAY up.

All to "cover" an additional 2 million or so. Good idea.

It's meant to break the back of our health delivery system, folks. Let's just see it for what it is. Redisdribution, yet again.

So it is a massive conspiracy?

(05-11-2014 08:36 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 08:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I don't know, maybe the Hippocratic Oath, human decency, your Christian faith, the golden rule?

There you crazy libs go again, downplaying religion/morality at every turn, until there comes a time that a moral argument can be used to justifly an overreach of the government.

Laws and Morals are not, and should not, be the same thing. People should have the right to actually not give a damn, as long as their indifference does not infringe on my rights (or wallet). You guys try so hard to do things that make you feel good about advancing the human condition, claim moral superiority in your INTENT, and are willing to destroy productive lives/jobs in the name of your perceived social progress.

And we have created a generational recipient class, fostered a counterproductive belief in victimization, and shattered the family structure. I, for one, and sick of these feel good schemes and look forward to the day that a little hunger in the belly and a little shame and embarrassment are just the motivations needed to start making better life choices.

(05-11-2014 10:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 08:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 07:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  They certainly don't deserve special treatment but I think it should be equally true that they don't deserve second class treatment.

Why not? Why shouldn't freeloaders have to wait?

I don't know, maybe the Hippocratic Oath, human decency, your Christian faith, the golden rule?

None of which suggest in any way that freeloaders should be served ahead of paying customers. Should they be served? Absolutely. But somebody has to come first, and somebody has to come last. And paying customers before freeloaders is as fair as any other standard, and fairer than most.

If the argument were different, if the question were whether they should be served at all, then those things that you cite enter in. But that's not the question here.

(05-11-2014 10:15 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 02:29 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 01:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 01:40 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 01:26 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  How many didn't previously have insurance? Wasn't that the point of this entire debacle, to insure the uninsured? Good grief, man.

You keep changing the question, but I'll answer that one too. Overall we are looking at a reduction of the uninsured of about 9-11 million based on the most recent surveys from Gallop and Rand. That isn't including children, just adults.

And now you change the answer. A reduction of the uninsured. Uhhh, okay. Medicaid? People aging up to medicare? All those are counted as ACA "accompllishments" now?

What constitutes a "reduction of the uninsured"? People without insurance dropping dead? Moving back to Mexico? What does that number even mean?

How many now have insurance that previously didn't. That's the true measure.

Expanded Medicaid is a key part of the ACA. Medicare is not included. Most surveys are 18-64 year olds, not the under 18 or the over 64s. Rand says 9.3 million and Gallop says 13 million adults under 65 are insured now that were not insured before. If you include children and Medicaid "woodworkers" then the number would be higher. Also illegal immigrants without insurance are included in the total number of uninsured but are not eligible for Medicaid or QHPs.

You're an idiot if you think Medicaid in turn gets you healthcare.

How old are you like 17?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(05-12-2014 06:05 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 10:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 08:20 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 07:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 07:08 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  They certainly don't deserve special treatment but I think it should be equally true that they don't deserve second class treatment.

Why not? Why shouldn't freeloaders have to wait?

I don't know, maybe the Hippocratic Oath, human decency, your Christian faith, the golden rule?

None of which suggest in any way that freeloaders should be served ahead of paying customers. Should they be served? Absolutely. But somebody has to come first, and somebody has to come last. And paying customers before freeloaders is as fair as any other standard, and fairer than most.
If the argument were different, if the question were whether they should be served at all, then those things that you cite enter in. But that's not the question here.

I would think a medical facility would serve their clients based on appointment times or when they checked in at the front desk if appointments weren't needed. Of course in an ER situation I always thought it was using the triage principal. It wouldn't seem to me, "how are you going to take care of the bill" should have anything to do with sorting out the order a person was treated.

(05-12-2014 06:09 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You need to explain yourself on this one. How exactly does Medicaid not = health care coverage ? Why exactly do you feel the need to call me an idiot when you need to make a point? That seems more like the response of a young immature person than anything I might post.