(05-10-2014 11:25 AM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  Just like election day. One Democrat; multiple votes.

In many cases They aren't even registered to vote. With No ID required Whos to know Whom They say They are. They take the Dems payment and name to use and vote. Many times. Amazing how some Democratic precincts show more voters voted than have residents living in that precinct.

You're wasting your time with dawgitall. He's a good person but he's fallen for this scheme hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter that you've got hard numbers right in front of him. He's much too short sighted to see the big picture of what will happen.

There is fixing to be millions of more sign-ups...

as soon as the next round of cancellations happen.

(05-12-2014 08:29 AM)Paul M Wrote:  There is fixing to be millions of more sign-ups...

as soon as the next round of cancellations happen.

In which case liberals will celebrate.

(05-12-2014 08:24 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You're wasting your time with dawgitall. He's a good person but he's fallen for this scheme hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter that you've got hard numbers right in front of him. He's much too short sighted to see the big picture of what will happen.

The problem I have is that those opposed to the ACA tend to not have the "hard numbers" in front of them. They tend to speak much more based on their feeling and much less on the data and often take skewed numbers (67% is a good example) and run with it when an objective look shows them to be misleading or out and out false. I would much rather discuss it without being belittled or insulted but some tend to resort to that tactic whenever they can't seem to produce any other argument.

I'm sorry, but there is no way dawgitall isn't paid by this administration to advertise the good things for obamacare, whatever that may be. It's like he's got biometrics on his computer that alert him anytime "ACA," "Obamacare," "Healthcare," or any other such word associated with obamacare is typed out on this forum.

(05-12-2014 08:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:24 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You're wasting your time with dawgitall. He's a good person but he's fallen for this scheme hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter that you've got hard numbers right in front of him. He's much too short sighted to see the big picture of what will happen.

The problem I have is that those opposed to the ACA tend to not have the "hard numbers" in front of them. They tend to speak much more based on their feeling and much less on the data and often take skewed numbers (67% is a good example) and run with it when an objective look shows them to be misleading or out and out false. I would much rather discuss it without being belittled or insulted but some tend to resort to that tactic whenever they can't seem to produce any other argument.

(05-12-2014 08:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:24 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You're wasting your time with dawgitall. He's a good person but he's fallen for this scheme hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter that you've got hard numbers right in front of him. He's much too short sighted to see the big picture of what will happen.

The problem I have is that those opposed to the ACA tend to not have the "hard numbers" in front of them. They tend to speak much more based on their feeling and much less on the data and often take skewed numbers (67% is a good example) and run with it when an objective look shows them to be misleading or out and out false. I would much rather discuss it without being belittled or insulted but some tend to resort to that tactic whenever they can't seem to produce any other argument.

wow. I'm blown away that you'd accuse others of posting based on their feelings. do you even bother to read some of the data other people are posting. how is your data any better?

(05-12-2014 08:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:24 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You're wasting your time with dawgitall. He's a good person but he's fallen for this scheme hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter that you've got hard numbers right in front of him. He's much too short sighted to see the big picture of what will happen.

The problem I have is that those opposed to the ACA tend to not have the "hard numbers" in front of them. They tend to speak much more based on their feeling and much less on the data and often take skewed numbers (67% is a good example) and run with it when an objective look shows them to be misleading or out and out false. I would much rather discuss it without being belittled or insulted but some tend to resort to that tactic whenever they can't seem to produce any other argument.

wow. I'm blown away that you'd accuse others of posting based on their feelings. do you even bother to read some of the data other people are posting. how is your data any better?

Because his data came from a liberal blog that gets his numbers from the MSM.

(05-12-2014 08:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:24 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You're wasting your time with dawgitall. He's a good person but he's fallen for this scheme hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter that you've got hard numbers right in front of him. He's much too short sighted to see the big picture of what will happen.

The problem I have is that those opposed to the ACA tend to not have the "hard numbers" in front of them. They tend to speak much more based on their feeling and much less on the data and often take skewed numbers (67% is a good example) and run with it when an objective look shows them to be misleading or out and out false. I would much rather discuss it without being belittled or insulted but some tend to resort to that tactic whenever they can't seem to produce any other argument.

wow. I'm blown away that you'd accuse others of posting based on their feelings. do you even bother to read some of the data other people are posting. how is your data any better?

Most offer no data at all, just opposition to the ACA at all costs, regardless of the facts. I do read the data others post and often comment on it. Some is good information while other information is twisted to fit the needed narrative.

(05-12-2014 10:00 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:58 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:24 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  You're wasting your time with dawgitall. He's a good person but he's fallen for this scheme hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter that you've got hard numbers right in front of him. He's much too short sighted to see the big picture of what will happen.

The problem I have is that those opposed to the ACA tend to not have the "hard numbers" in front of them. They tend to speak much more based on their feeling and much less on the data and often take skewed numbers (67% is a good example) and run with it when an objective look shows them to be misleading or out and out false. I would much rather discuss it without being belittled or insulted but some tend to resort to that tactic whenever they can't seem to produce any other argument.

wow. I'm blown away that you'd accuse others of posting based on their feelings. do you even bother to read some of the data other people are posting. how is your data any better?

Because his data came from a liberal blog that gets his numbers from the MSM.

I do get a lot of information from acasignups.net and the guy that puts that together is a progressive. His information has proved to be very objective and his projections have been very accurate. I get information from other sources as well. The insurance industry has been fairly forthcoming in providing data and Rand, Gallop, Kaiser and McK. organizations have offered some good insight into the evolving status of the ACA and how it is affecting people.

(05-12-2014 08:38 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but there is no way dawgitall isn't paid by this administration to advertise the good things for obamacare, whatever that may be. It's like he's got biometrics on his computer that alert him anytime "ACA," "Obamacare," "Healthcare," or any other such word associated with obamacare is typed out on this forum.

It is an interesting subject to me and I have been a supporter of the ACA since it's debate on capital hill. That is why I tend to post on it so much. Plus everyone else on here is so dead set against it and often post things that aren't true, so I have a tendency to push back.

(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:  

(05-11-2014 02:59 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

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

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

So while you get to be justly compensated for whatever field you're employed in, those in the medical community should work for peanuts solely out of the goodness of their own hearts?

Maybe if the government forgive all their students loans, provided some malpractice protection or creating some form of tax break (all things ACA could have done, but didn't), then maybe the low compensation from Medicaid would be justly offset. As it stands, paying customers have options and without them, those few physicians that see Medicaid/Medicare patients would eventually go out of business.

(05-12-2014 12:01 PM)vandiver49 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:  

(05-11-2014 02:59 PM)dfarr Wrote:  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?

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

So while you get to be justly compensated for whatever field you're employed in, those in the medical community should work for peanuts solely out of the goodness of their own hearts?

Maybe if the government forgive all their students loans, provided some malpractice protection or creating some form of tax break (all things ACA could have done, but didn't), then maybe the low compensation from Medicaid would be justly offset. As it stands, paying customers have options and without them, those few physicians that see Medicaid/Medicare patients would eventually go out of business.

Exactly. Why does a Teacher, lets say, expect to be paid for summers off on a 12 month contract, yet expect a Doctor to work for free because of "human decency"?

If you like your Doctor... I did. Very much so. He was starting out at about the same time I decided to seek out my first "personal Doctor", someone I'd stay with for some time. Our kids ended up on the same swim teams, same lacrosse teams stuff like that.

First the sign was posted in their practice, "As of XXXXX, XX, XXXX" We will no longer be accepting any more Medicaid patience. Okay, fine, I've got my own very expensive "Cadillac" plan, no problem (unless you, too, believe I'm a liar).

Then it was "The practice will be transitioning" no big deal, I'm still good, right? Yea, for the time being. Shortly thereafter "we are going all Concierge" for a pretty serious penny, just for me. Not the rest of the family. Their practice took it on the chin for so long and it was only getting worse. So they had a choice, go this route or close up shop. He's got 4 kids all looking at College here soon.

So, guess what? Can't keep my Doctor... and as of Jan 1 this year, not my plan either. It's non-compliant as it doesn't afford me mammograms or something.

This whole thing was and is built on a pile of lies a mile thick and its only going to get worse.

Now, as if that's not bad enough, it seems the do-gooders want the Doctors to work for free. Or next to free. out of the goodness of their hearts. Who else does that? Anyone not named Mother Theresa?

The land of swirl pops and pixie dust, the socialist utopia. No thanks.

My prediction....

No matter the party, the next president will get the credit for "fixing" the problem of Obamacare. It'll be politically advantageous in 2017 to gut and replace the ACA. I think much of the 2016 Presidential election will focus on what to do with the failure of the ACA.

Don't think for a second that Hillary Clinton wouldn't engineer a sweeping reform to ACA. She couldn't care less about President Obama's legacy. It'll be 2017 and she'll be focused on HER time in the spotlight.

(05-12-2014 11:08 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:38 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but there is no way dawgitall isn't paid by this administration to advertise the good things for obamacare, whatever that may be. It's like he's got biometrics on his computer that alert him anytime "ACA," "Obamacare," "Healthcare," or any other such word associated with obamacare is typed out on this forum.

It is an interesting subject to me and I have been a supporter of the ACA since it's debate on capital hill. That is why I tend to post on it so much. Plus everyone else on here is so dead set against it and often post things that aren't true, so I have a tendency to push back.

And so you understand the pushback you get from people on here because you are also posting things that aren't true. Most people have given up on you as hopelessly lost. Too much kool-aid.

(05-12-2014 12:01 PM)vandiver49 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:  

(05-11-2014 02:59 PM)dfarr Wrote:  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?

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

So while you get to be justly compensated for whatever field you're employed in, those in the medical community should work for peanuts solely out of the goodness of their own hearts?

Maybe if the government forgive all their students loans, provided some malpractice protection or creating some form of tax break (all things ACA could have done, but didn't), then maybe the low compensation from Medicaid would be justly offset. As it stands, paying customers have options and without them, those few physicians that see Medicaid/Medicare patients would eventually go out of business.

The yearly "docfix" is ridiculous and should have been properly dealt with years ago. It looked like they were finally going to take care of it this year but the deal fell through.

(05-12-2014 01:47 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 12:01 PM)vandiver49 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?

So while you get to be justly compensated for whatever field you're employed in, those in the medical community should work for peanuts solely out of the goodness of their own hearts?

Maybe if the government forgive all their students loans, provided some malpractice protection or creating some form of tax break (all things ACA could have done, but didn't), then maybe the low compensation from Medicaid would be justly offset. As it stands, paying customers have options and without them, those few physicians that see Medicaid/Medicare patients would eventually go out of business.

Exactly. Why does a Teacher, lets say, expect to be paid for summers off on a 12 month contract, yet expect a Doctor to work for free because of "human decency"?

If you like your Doctor... I did. Very much so. He was starting out at about the same time I decided to seek out my first "personal Doctor", someone I'd stay with for some time. Our kids ended up on the same swim teams, same lacrosse teams stuff like that.

First the sign was posted in their practice, "As of XXXXX, XX, XXXX" We will no longer be accepting any more Medicaid patience. Okay, fine, I've got my own very expensive "Cadillac" plan, no problem (unless you, too, believe I'm a liar).

Then it was "The practice will be transitioning" no big deal, I'm still good, right? Yea, for the time being. Shortly thereafter "we are going all Concierge" for a pretty serious penny, just for me. Not the rest of the family. Their practice took it on the chin for so long and it was only getting worse. So they had a choice, go this route or close up shop. He's got 4 kids all looking at College here soon.

So, guess what? Can't keep my Doctor... and as of Jan 1 this year, not my plan either. It's non-compliant as it doesn't afford me mammograms or something.

This whole thing was and is built on a pile of lies a mile thick and its only going to get worse.

Now, as if that's not bad enough, it seems the do-gooders want the Doctors to work for free. Or next to free. out of the goodness of their hearts. Who else does that? Anyone not named Mother Theresa?

The land of swirl pops and pixie dust, the socialist utopia. No thanks.

Teachers are paid for 10 months, not 12.

(05-12-2014 02:55 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 11:08 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-12-2014 08:38 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  I'm sorry, but there is no way dawgitall isn't paid by this administration to advertise the good things for obamacare, whatever that may be. It's like he's got biometrics on his computer that alert him anytime "ACA," "Obamacare," "Healthcare," or any other such word associated with obamacare is typed out on this forum.

It is an interesting subject to me and I have been a supporter of the ACA since it's debate on capital hill. That is why I tend to post on it so much. Plus everyone else on here is so dead set against it and often post things that aren't true, so I have a tendency to push back.

And so you understand the pushback you get from people on here because you are also posting things that aren't true. Most people have given up on you as hopelessly lost. Too much kool-aid.

I'll be more than happy to retract anything I have posted as a fact that you can show to be incorrect.

(05-12-2014 12:01 PM)vandiver49 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:  

(05-11-2014 02:59 PM)dfarr Wrote:  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?

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

So while you get to be justly compensated for whatever field you're employed in, those in the medical community should work for peanuts solely out of the goodness of their own hearts?

Maybe if the government forgive all their students loans, provided some malpractice protection or creating some form of tax break (all things ACA could have done, but didn't), then maybe the low compensation from Medicaid would be justly offset. As it stands, paying customers have options and without them, those few physicians that see Medicaid/Medicare patients would eventually go out of business.

You might want to go back and read through the previous posts. I wasn't arguing about doctors that don't except Medicaid patients. That is a different topic all together. I was commenting on statements made by others that work in some capacity at a health care facility that excepts Medicaid patients. They were saying that they disliked the attitudes they saw from patients that were on Medicaid and thus pushed them to the end of the line when it came to being seen.