Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Fri, Mar 28, 14 at 11:21

"On Thursday, President Obama announced on a call with volunteers that the number of Americans who have enrolled in health insurance plans under Obamacare has hit six million.

With several days left to go before open enrollment ends on March 31, the administration has met its target. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that Obamacare enrollment would hit six million by the end of its enrollment period. Although the CBO initially projected a seven million enrollment figure, that number was revised down after technological issues plagued the insurance marketplaces' websites this past fall.

Just ten days ago, the Obama administration announced that enrollments had hit five million - meaning that the pace of enrollment has significantly picked up recently, and a million Americans enrolled in less than two weeks. The White House has always anticipated a last-minute surge in enrollment, since previous efforts to enroll Americans in government-run health care programs have demonstrated that people typically wait until the last minute to sign up."

More at the link, of course...

Here is a link that might be useful: 6 Mil, People... and Rising!


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Fri, Mar 28, 14 at 11:27

That's wonderful.

Now, if Maryland could get it's act together, maybe people here could actually get health insurance.

The Governor wants to run for President, and says that is a priority right now - he wants to be there before Hillary; the Lt. Governor, who was "in charge" of the health exchange is running for Governor, and says "it's not my fault it doesn't work", so basically the citizens are screwed.

At least we are offering health insurance, unlike states like Louisiana.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Fortunate are those states that thought to expand the various programs, like Medicaid, which means more people can experience actual coverage, whether they can afford it or not!

It's such a shame that some states are just walking away, leaving their own citizens out in the cold.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

This must be a very bad news day for a few select forum members.
I heard that this morning on the news as I was dressing for my day. This will help so many people who so desperately needed an affordable health care system.

Its a piece of good news! for today.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

It would be helpful, though, if the figures were out about the numbers of actually paid premiums. "Select forum members" will have that to harp on. (e.g. nikoleta - if she's still here) I read somewhere, paid premiums in California were running at 85%; assorted large insurers elsewhere at 80%. There's a slight lack of transparency with this aspect in the numbers.

Surely people who go through the exchanges, etc. to sign up realize - have it somehow made clear - if there's no premium payment, there's no insurance.



 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I nearly swerved off the road yesterday while listening to the radio in my truck. An announcement was made that the state of Tennessee was encouraging people to sign up before the deadline. It appeared to be an actually official state effort to get people to sign up. If the backwards state of Tennessee has decided to do at least some of their part, things are beginning to look up! Now if they'll only do the right (read 'good' or 'correct' in this case) thing on Medicaid, maybe this state can start moving out of the dark ages.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Tennessee may have started to move forward, but , unfortunately, neon-red Kansas is still in the dark ages--and pretending that ACA doesn't exist.

Fortunately for me, I'm already on Medicare.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Fri, Mar 28, 14 at 17:20

Virginia is trying too but only because our newly elected gov is a demo, the repubs in state office here are still fighting him. on it....idiots.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Yep, it's doing so well the deadline was extended again,"for those having problems". How many times is that now?

Sorry, the site and the sign up and the program itself are a trainwreck. I hate to think about the enactment of the actual health care. Hello VA standards for everyone.

Well, it only took you 70 years to get this far. So congratulations, libs. It still seems to me that it was awfully destructive to 30 million just to sign up 6 million. But if a majority likes it the minority can't possibly be correct. Right? By that belief, we would still say the sun goes around the earth.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Fri, Mar 28, 14 at 17:55

Well, good for Tennessee and Virginia, and their people, as far as it goes, then.

Apparently the percentage of insurance applicants who've paid their first premium well before it's due are is in line with what it's always been. I'm pretty sure DH would have waited to pay. Interest rates are so low right now it scarcely matters, but keeping the money in our own bank account as long as possible is just a habit.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I will never understand as long as I live why the opposition to single payer.

You accept it for the poor, those over 65 and vets..........why is it good for all of them but not for the rest ?

You have way too many layers of healthcare insurance and coverage. It must drive the cost of insurance companies and government agencies through the roof. Keep it simple stupid works!

You folk make health care way more complicated than it needs to be. You need to think about why, and who benefits......hint it's not the "people""


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Chase, Ive come to the sad conclusion that too many who deeply resent the poor they dont "approve" of as worthy of aid, to get anything at all that everyone else gets to have.
Including good health because of the availability of the same good health care that those who sit in judgement is able to enjoy.

I realize that sounds very mean spirited, but try as I did actually did try, I was unable to come up with different words or phrases which would better convey the same opinion Ive drawn from reading so many conservative opinions regarding the poor in this forum over the years Ive been here.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I just wish some of these nay sayers could explain exactly what denying people health care accomplishes.

I see even Wisconsin's Scott Walker is changing his tune and advocating that residents transition into marketplace plans; especially geared up to assist those they kicked out of the state's Medicaid program. Guess with a possible Presidential run (if Sheldon Adelson likes him and wants to give him money), you don't want to alienate more people than those who already think you're potentially clown car material.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

The fact is, Chase, not everyone wants or needs the same coverage, insurance is expensive and people really don't want to pay more than they need for themselves and their families. I know more than a few who run to the doctor for every sneeze and sniffle and who believe that they have a new chronic and fatal disease on a weekly basis. My late sister-in-law was an example of that. I really don't want them encouraged. And that is just the first and least of my complaints and concerns.

But we haven't gotten that far yet, have we. The proof of the pudding will be when the law is actually completely in effect. If the web site is a sample of the level of care we can expect, I think we will be very, very disappointed with what we get for our money.

I would not be surprised if this little experiment lasts less long than prohibition lasted. In the meantime it and our President are doing a lot of damage beyond health care.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

What is the "damage" being done? Specific examples? That can be verified, I mean.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

"I know more than a few who run to the doctor for every sneeze and sniffle and who believe that they have a new chronic and fatal disease on a weekly basis. My late sister-in-law was an example of that."

I cannot believe that you do not see the irony in that statement.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I know more than a few who run to the doctor for every sneeze and sniffle and who believe that they have a new chronic and fatal disease on a weekly basis. My late sister-in-law was an example of that."

I guess she really was sick.

I'm sorry for your loss.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by frank_il z5Illinois (My Page) on
Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 6:06

"I know more than a few who run to the doctor for every sneeze and sniffle and who believe that they have a new chronic and fatal disease on a weekly basis. My late sister-in-law was an example of that."

I cannot believe that you do not see the irony in that statement.

*

There is only irony in that statement if one assumes the late sister-in-law succumbed to every one of the issues she thought she had.

Otherwise, passing--which all of us do--does not negate hypochondria or the habit of going to the doctor too often.

*

I heard another instance this week of someone that can no longer see their doctor because of Obamacare, and they have cancer.

And they liked their doctor and thought they could keep their doctor.

Barry told them so.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Edited to remove post made by some else under my username.

This post was edited by momof2doxies on Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 10:57


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

"I just wish some of these nay sayers could explain exactly what denying people health care accomplishes."

Well, we all know that Republicans have been against any kind of "sharing" from the beginning, even though our system did have too many layers, and was set up to exclude those who most need the help.

I'm afraid Mylab is right... and I don't think there are words to describe it any better.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Claims


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 10:36

I read something about how many conservatives feel a real need for things to 'balance' out. Doing what you're supposed to should bring reward; not doing it, for whatever reason, shouldn't have the same result.

Most of us can accept imbalance of consequences to various degrees, realizing that anything else can never be possible in an unfair and chaotic world; but, according to this analysis, strong conservatives just can't give up on that balance they have a real emotional need for.

Then, of course, more often than not various biases, accompanied by the inevitable dishonest rationalizations, get added into the mix, distorting most arguments beyond all rationality and respectability, but I noted this point because the issue of balance usually does seem to be in there somewhere.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Could we get a source for those 6 million who lost coverage? Because I'm pretty sure that's a made up number.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

While we're waiting for that source on the 6 million who lost insurance...

Let's look at some of the benefits...

"New guidance released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Friday offers crucial protections to same-sex couples purchasing insurance coverage, including through the Marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The announcement comes on the heels of several incidences in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, where insurance companies refused to enroll same-sex spouses in the family coverage they selected through the healthcare.gov marketplace."

More at the link, of course...

Here is a link that might be useful: Insurers Required to Cover...


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

The six million who "lost" their insurance were offered compliant policies by the same companies where their previous policies were issued, and the vast majority just bought the new ones. Some went on the exchanges and found far better deals. Some were stuck with more expensive policies.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

From the link...

"The majority of the states in the U.S. where residents struggle most to afford health care and medicine - Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas - have refused to address this issue by implementing Obamacare’s optional Medicaid expansion.

According to a new report from Gallup, the people who live in Alabama are the most likely to struggle to pay for their health care needs. When Gallup collected the data in 2013, one in four Alabama residents reported there were times in the past 12 months when they didn’t have enough money to pay for health care and/or medicine for themselves or their families. West Virginia and Mississippi residents are in a very similar situation, with about 23 percent of residents reporting that they had recently faced health needs that they couldn’t afford."

Lots more at the link...

Here is a link that might be useful: Refusal to Address...


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I heard another instance this week of someone that can no longer see their doctor because of Obamacare, and they have cancer.

And they liked their doctor and thought they could keep their doctor.

That may or may not be true, but we will never know--since there is no way to verify that story you "heard."

Most of the examples anti-Obama folks have claimed turned out--when the facts were investigated--to be cases of people misunderstanding what was going on or partial stories (important facts omitted) that others blindly repeated--without really knowing what they were talking about.

I just don't believe the "I heard about a woman who . . ." followed by a vague description bristling with hostility toward ACA.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I owe this forum an apology. I did not write the post by momof2doxies on Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 9:51. A house guest did. I will now and forever log out of GW whenever I leave. I really will go back to lurking now. Linda


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Appreciate the clarification, Linda. Feel free to join us anytime you wish. : )

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Kate
RE: your post at 1300 - am absolutely with you on that, Kate.
The desire to believe the worst regarding the ACA and relating second hand ( or more) horror stories regarding experienced which even the base details cannot be confirmed is imo due to a deep desire to smear a bill that 50 times and many millions spent by conservatives could not undo.

Demi, If cancer treatment was refused to one due only to the person having ACA as their insurance as the reason, then due to the great number of cancer stricken patients, there has to be another person who experienced the same terrible thing.

Provide a link for forum reading and then we have a discussion going.

Otherwise imo its just more of those sour grapes some in here persist in chewing because they have nothing else to offer.

And lets not drag out the ole' song and dance about "shooting at your feet" - you only say that when you have no defense for your words and know it. Ive been keeping track of the times when you post that little saying, ever since I noticed your use of that statement the very first time. Years ago.
The pattern has become predictable and is transparent to anyone who followed the pattern of when it is used.

But I most certainly dont expect any link which proves your point, I doubt anyone does.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

There is no link.

The person is a friend of my best friend in Texas.

She lost her doctor.

There aren't links to human tragedy and loss.

As to what you and Dublinbay think about my veracity, I only care about the opinions of people I respect and I don't respect people who suggest I am fabricating what I say because I don't provide a link to a personal anecdote.

I am not a liar.

My friend is a not a liar.

I doubt her friend suffering from cancer is a liar.

As to what any of you think, it matters not a bit what you think.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

There is some information out there that dedicated cancer clinics are turning away Medicare patients "because of the sequester cuts". Patients can, however, seek care at hospitals that deliver chemotherapy, etc. treatments.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Anecdotes are nice, but they only speak to opinion and personal circumstance...

All that really matters are the facts... verifiable facts.

No problem, Linda... join us, if you like, for some... ahem... stimulating conversation!


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Demi, I apologize for the way I "spoke" to you in my last post. There was no viable reason for it. I could have expressed my doubts about your friend's impressions on why specifically she lost her coverage due to the existence of the ACA without getting ugly about it.

I have no excuse for my response. I offer my apology.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

As to those who question my comment about my late sister-in-law, she essentially killed herself with her insistence that she was terribly ill although she was in pretty good health to start with. She visited every doctor she could get an appointment with and didn't always bother telling each about the others. She also used OTC drugs excessively. She also insisted her children were continuously ill and medicated them excessively. After decades of this, she destroyed her liver with the medications and possibly made it worse by drinking.

Personally I think she was in need of mental health care. However, I have met far too many people who are illness junkies. It is probably less than a percentage point en total, but it irritates me no end that this form of hypochondria seems to be encouraged. Of course there are also those in the opposite extreme: those who are obsessed with the physical fitness of others compared to their own perfection.The third extreme is the person who denies illness until they collapse due to their fear of illness or treatment.

Yeah, I'm not very sympathetic so shoot me. Frankly, listening to the tales of the newest chronic, incurable, fatal disease doesn't thrill me.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 15:18

Anecdotes are nice, but they only speak to opinion and personal circumstance...

All that really matters are the facts... verifiable facts.

*

Statistics and verifiable facts about the impact of legislation are nothing more than a compilation of anecdotes.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Sleepless, I have a relative like that.

There is currently no effective treatment for true hypochondria according to a professional I spoke to about the situation. Forcing mental health treatment can make it much worse. They really believe they have the sympotms and honestly believe they have pain.

Regarding treatment, Doctors must approach with the idea that the patient is being truthful, lest he be sued because he with held treatment from someone who is actually ill.

Her husband truly suffers. He has had many heart stents but had to handle the household duties during recovery because she was "too ill" to do so.He jokes that the only way he could get peace in an illness without having to care for her (who would catch it only it would be three times as bad and symptoms would last for months on end) would be for him to come down with prostrate cancer.
Humor saves his sanity.

I could not live with a hypochondric, he would kill my love for him over time, just kill it.

There was always a tendency, but bloomed when she got married and has grown progressively worse over the years. Its not that she wants to use drugs - it is the prescription and the need to take them because the doctor validates her claims the minute he writes out the prescription.

Its a hopeless situation, no chance for change. I was also told by a professional that the person tends to concentrate on illnesses which cant actually be proved by tests to exist.

When I saw the first commercial for fibromialgia, my heart sank for my BIL. Not three weeks later she called with the latest medical update. You guessed it.
I love her, I truly do. I wouldnt though if I had to live with her or lived too close to her, and that pains me to admit.

Sometimes I question how much of everything over all the years was ever even in her head to be truthful or greatly exaggerated in order to be believed.
My husband often remarks that she has been cursed with generally great health. He is not kidding.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Could someone explain to me how the ACA would be the cause of someone losing their doctor?

I am not challenging that I simply don't know what about the ACA could cause that to happen.

As far as lying goes , as I stated on another thread..... one that lies were being told on.....that I don't believe someone is lying if they repeat what they were told and believe it to be true.

However once the truth comes out, to perpetuate the lie does make one a liar.

This post was edited by chase on Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 16:42


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Demi, I did not accuse you of being a liar--so why do you think I did?

I said the story may or may not be true.

I did not say you or your friend lied about what happened. For all I know, you or your friend are simply mistaken, or gullible, or self-deceiving--or any number of possibilities, like your friend misunderstood exactly what was going on and why, and its quite possible that you, out of loyalty to your friend, didn't subject her to the third degree but just took "on faith" what she said. Among other possibilities.

So why did you think I called you a liar?

As to statistics being nothing but a bunch of anecdotes--you sure don't know much about statistics as a field of study, do you. And you don't understand what "verifiable" means either, do you. In a nutshell, no, properly done statistics are not just a bunch of anecdotes that cannot be verified. That is your error.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

It happens, but not entirely for reasons we are often led to believe. Oddly enough, doctors do get ill and can no longer practice, do die, do retire without any bearing on the ACA . But beyond that, not all hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc. accept all insurances. They never did.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 17:12

Well, I do note that anti-ACA stories providing names have not held up at all well on examination. Quite the contrary.

I myself could pass on a friend-of-a-friend story except that being in a medicine-related field I am as sure as I can be that what she sincerely believes is simply not true. People do not come down with 3 types of cancer at once that would have been treatable if only incompetent doctors had not failed to give proper treatment. Nor do physicians, as this unfortunate friend's reportedly did, offer to enroll them directly in a cancer trial instead of proven regimens -- unless it is believed conventional therapy will not save them. The fact is, the friend developed some type of abdominal cancer but delayed seeking medical care until it was too late to save her, and that is unacceptable to my friend.

This type of failure to understand medical situations is everywhere. Truly amazingly numbers of people cannot explain what that big surgical scar on their belly was for, much less intelligently explain their complex medical issues or even name the medications they take every day.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

So in this case, the person with cancer would have had to change her policy, for some reason that was directly attributable to the ACA, and the policy she was forced to select wasn't one her cancer specialist would accept?

That makes no sense to me......there must be more to it.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 17:26

Here and there, a small percentage of the people whose junk policies were covered ((themselves a minor percentage of the 6 million) ARE having trouble finding policies that will cover their old medications.

This is why Obama has already strengthened the provisions to require better coverage of previous medications. Of course, not all old medication regimens being paid under junk policies were medically justifiable, and new insurers do not, and should not, cover those. A situation patients who trusted their previous doctors may not initially understand.

BTW, in case anyone's still around with this misapprehension, by far most of the 6 million who have signed up under the ACA were previously uninsured. There was no old insurance to lose. They don't just win under the ACA, for them it's a life changer, and for some a life saver.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million... again

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 17:27

Here and there, a small percentage of the people whose junk policies were covered ((themselves a minor percentage of the 6 million) ARE having trouble finding policies that will cover their old medications.

This is why Obama has already strengthened the provisions to require better coverage of previous medications. Of course, not all old medication regimens being paid under junk policies were medically justifiable, and new insurers do not, and should not, cover those. A situation patients who trusted their previous doctors may not initially understand.

BTW, in case anyone's still around with this misapprehension, by far most of the 6 million who have signed up under the ACA were previously uninsured. There was no old insurance to lose. They don't just win under the ACA, for them it's a life changer, and for some a life saver.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Chase, people can lose doctors when their insurance changes either because their carrier will no longer have a contract with a certain doctor, now considered "out of network" or the doctor no longer agrees with the insurance carrier about the fees they pay, and pulls him/herself out. I've mentioned before that the doctors around here won't take Blue Cross Blue Shield (famous company here in the USofA) because they take so long to pay, if ever.

That can happen with company-provided insurance, individual insurance - it has to do with the insurance company.

There are two ways to find out if your favorite doctor is with a new policy - head to the company website and see if he/she is still a preferred provider, or phone up the Dr and ask.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

BTW, in case anyone's still around with this misapprehension, by far most of the 6 million who have signed up under the ACA were previously uninsured.

Do you have a source for this?


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

David, I understand...well not true I will never understand your " healthcare system"...

What I still do not understand is how the ACA plays into this.

I have a hard time believing that this person had a policy that an oncologist would accept and ....for some reason had to be cancelled because of the ACA...and the policy she found to replace her policy was something the oncologist would not accept.......It makes no sense.

Why did this person change policies? Why did she enroll in a policy that exulded her oncologist? What is the specifc connection to the ACA?

Not that I expect an answer........but I would expect thinking people to ask those questions before accepting the fact that this was all the fault of the ACA...unless of course that is simply what they choose to believe without any facts......because it fits their agenda and the truth is really not important


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I predict that for conservatives/Republicans, any future problem they encounter with their health care will be blamed on ACA--which is to say, on President Obama. That's the name of the game.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

but I would expect thinking people to ask those questions before accepting the fact that this was all the fault of the ACA...unless of course that is simply what they choose to believe without any facts......because it fits their agenda and the truth is really not important

I agree, chase. But, sadly, as we've seen all too often here, your last sentence is exactly what goes on -- ......because it fits their agenda and the truth is really not important

The truth is that every year or two when my company changed health care providers, I would have to go through the process of finding out if my doctors take the new insurance. Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. This has been going on forever and has nothing to do with the ACA. But, it's much more fun to blame it on Obama when you don't like Obama. The fact that it's that way because the insurance companies make the rules and always have are just annoying facts getting in the way of their favorite past time of factless-Obama-bashing.

I predict that for conservatives/Republicans, any future problem they encounter with their health care will be blamed on ACA--which is to say, on President Obama.

I also agree with this. I'm waiting for that first report of someone's illness that they are blaming directly on Obama. And I have my bet on who will claim it too.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

People who have been frank about detesting the President from the start and hate the ACA are going to believe personal negative stories about negative consequences due to the ACA without checking for accuracy.
I personally believe it is a preference to believe them and they would not want to know that the experience relayed was not accurate information - if information was relayed to them that perhaps even every negative experience they had heard was inaccurate information, I dont believe they would rethink their position on the ACA. On these positions, they are dug in and cant be bombed out with actual positive facts.

This mindset has become common to Americans. I have no doubt that liberal Americans have been and will in the future be guilty of this also. It is to me the worst about us as a people and if it is not our actual undoing, imo it will forever prevent us from being great - great as a respected nation and great as a respected people.

In time, the ACA will prove itself to be what it is, both the positives and the negatives. Luckily it was designed to allow flexibility. What doesnt work well can be changed and as the President himself stated at the time it went into effect: this is only the beginning of what the final ACA will look like. There had to be a starting point - it would imo have been a better starting point had the conservatives not dismissed every single idea previous to the one that finally passed or if they would have worked with the formation of reform - something they were repeatedly asked to do and repeatedly and firmly refused to do.
It's a real shame that the GOP and its supporting voters didnt decide to tackle this issue themselves, coming up with their own plan during all the years they had a conservative president in the white house. Instead, when it came to health care reform, they spent their energy denying Ted Kennedy his dream of seeing a reformed health care system and thus squandered their own golden opportunity.

It's here, it's here to stay and all the bellyaching wont change it - and despite all the *sour grapes* attempts to prevent history from giving the glory to Obama as the president who made it happen, history will give Obama the glory for making it happen - and will relay the era of the incredible *ugly* ugliness directed toward this president by congress and almost half of the people in this country and of it's intensity during the entire time he was working on the design of the ACA and of work he did for it's passage.

In ten years people who are now 18-25 will look back and wonder what all the conservatives were fussing about as they appreciate the health care reform and hear the horror stories of what it was like for people who could not afford decent health insurance. It will be those people who, I hope, will finally usher in the single payer health care when it is them who runs the country. What a shame it will have taken so long.

ACA IS here to stay - get used to it.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sun, Mar 30, 14 at 6:43

Right, Mylab.

But, everyone, can we stop referring to this willfully ignorant, obstructive subgroup as "conservatives," implying that they're all that way? We need to pull together, not insult the significant numbers of responsible, thoughtful conservatives who either mostly support healthcare reform and other progressive measures or at least are fairly neutral while they wait and see. And remember that Obama, with his reform platform, could not have been elected without the support of those conservatives who felt the GOP had left them and gone the wrong way.

We lack one good word for the dishonest obstructionists, the hard right, social conservatives, radical religious right, social libertarians, etc., but "Republicans" (as Mylab mostly calls them) would at least not be so inaccurate as "conservatives" given that those still willing to identify with the GOP these days are supporting its behavior thereby.

Jlhug, asking me if I have "a source for this" -- Jlhug, really? :) I had the notion that you were fairly sensible and honest about the ACA, so I'm pretty sure you could come up with your own sources from any of the literally thousands of honest, responsible discussions on the web.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Rosie, it is very difficult to find a conservative who refers to themself as a republican at least online.
Ask most in here - those who proudly called themselves republican when they voted in Bush both times suddenly werent republicans anymore during the first post Bush presidential elections.
It was a huge trend I noticed across the internet specifically. Suddenly, when discussing politics, if the GOP was being criticized and someone was referred to as a republican, the conversation would end with the flat statement, "Im not a republican. Im an Independent."
It took me awhile to catch on. Independents couldnt be held accountable for the Bush mess they so vocally supported for 8 years ( when they still considered themselves to be republican) because hey - they werent a republican.
Even though 99% have not voted for a democratic president and unlikely voted anything for but a republican congressman in the last 40 years.

So, it became easier for me personally ( after several conversation stoppers here in this forum) to just refer to those who do not support the democratic party as conservatives. Not once has anyone stopped the conversation to announce they arent a conservative, so for me it has worked.
You might find that on the internet, there arent a lot of conservatives who call themselves republicans anymore, though they did proudly call themselves republicans right up to the last year of Bush in office, when it became apparent that their guy Bush was leaving the country in an unimaginable disaster.

So, this is why I refer to those not democrat or libertarian as conservative. It's just easier, less outrage over not republicans anymore being called republican.

There are a few previous republicans around who do not call themselves instead an Independent - Bill Vincent ( no longer here) Robb and Mrsk. dont refer to themselves as Independents, they kept true to who they are.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

independents don't need the crutch of a large group to fall back on.

I voted for Bush. At the time, I was glad I did. I also voted for Obama because I believed and still do that the pendulum had swung too far the other way. I will vote for the best candidate, regardless of party, in the next election.

Mylab, get honest...you are just looking to slam others this morning, aren't you? and so I know how your judgment thinks I should classify myself...what is the proper name in your opinion for a socially liberal and fiscally conservative person?


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I have friends who are also "socially liberal and fiscally conservative"--and they too wonder what their "name" is. Guess it goes with the territory--a foot in each camp. At least, like jmc, it allows them to vote Republican one election and Democrat the next--as they see the need.

jmc, I think I might settle for calling myself a conservative independent, or a socially liberal independent--depending on the subject being discussed.

As for "those" (by whatever name) who insistently oppose anything Obama, they seem to come from the conservative category in my opinion--and from the radical right and the T-party (which is often conservative and/or radical right). I don't think you could get them to vote for a Democrat ever for president, even if the Republicans ran a monkey for their party!

The people who often vote Republican but came over to vote for Obama, to me they seem to be the moderate Repbulicans that the t-party scornfully calls RINOS (meaning they are not "real" Republicans in the eyes of the t-party) or they are independents who often but not exclusively vote Republican. I don't think today's conservatives (who are NOT socially liberal) would ever vote for a Democrat for president.

At least, that is how is appears to me. In the meantime, I guess we are stuck with awkwardly referring to those who oppose Obama no matter what as those-who-oppose-Obama-no-matter-what, don't you think? LOL

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

A very large proportion of the deliberate disinformation on the ACA comes from the far right faction that considers it their right to be in power, and if not, making the country ungovernable.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Sun, Mar 30, 14 at 12:17

TWOONMWs, huh?

Well, Mylab is right that "Republican" won't work for the reasons stated.

I still think it's important, though, that we not insult responsible, reasonable conservatives, whatever they're calling themselves, by confusing them with these reactionary obstructionists whose own attitudes and behaviors are as unexamined by them as everything else.

Until someone somewhere has a stroke of brilliance, for me maybe just "reactionaries" for now?

Some people are extreme right without being reactionary, of course, but someone willing to argue intelligently and honestly why he thinks it would be best for society to just let poor people save themselves or die is in a whole different category, one that is a tiny minority compared to the reactionaries.

It's all the knee-jerk antis/reactionaries we need to separate out from the responsible conservatives they use for cover.

Or maybe just the "antis," because this group is defined not by positive goals but by criticizing, obstructing and attacking.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

The correct name for someone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative is ........Canadian ; )


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

The correct name for someone who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative is

How can austerity for the middle class, opposition to almost all social programs, while providing tax breaks for the uber wealthy be aligned with social liberalism?
This appears to be meaningless designation.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Whose aunties are you talking about? (you misspelled it). : )

Bad joke--where did I hear it recently? Or was it something I read recently? Well, it was "recently."

Rosie, I've decided I like your term best: "reactionary obstructionists "--think I might try that out for a while.

Canadian, chase? That's funny--trying to imagine myself saying to a political opponent here in the U.S.--"Oh, you Canadian, you!"

Somehow it doesn't quite have the right ring. LOL

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Of course after all the smart aleck comments and suggestions about me, my friend, and her friend with cancer just not knowing what we're talking about (but you all do), we don't want to believe the truth, and just can't get HOW WONDERFUL BARACK OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS have made health care, here are a few others who question what Obamacare has done TO CANCER PATIENT CARE:

"Health Law Concerns for Cancer Patients

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cancer patients relieved that they can get insurance coverage because of the new health care law may be disappointed to learn that some the nation's best cancer hospitals are off-limits.

An Associated Press survey found examples coast to coast. Seattle Cancer Care Alliance is excluded by five out of eight insurers in Washington state's insurance exchange. MD Anderson Cancer Center says it's in less than half of the plans in the Houston area. Memorial Sloan-Kettering is included by two of nine insurers in New York City and has out-of-network agreements with two more.

Doctors and administrators say they're concerned. So are some state insurance regulators.

In all, only four of 19 nationally recognized comprehensive cancer centers that responded to AP's survey said patients have access through all the insurance companies in their state exchange.

Not too long ago, insurance companies would have been vying to offer access to renowned cancer centers, said Dan Mendelson, CEO of the market research firm Avalere Health. Now the focus is on costs.

"This is a marked deterioration of access to the premier cancer centers for people who are signing up for these plans," Mendelson said.

Those patients may not be able get the most advanced treatment, including clinical trials of new medications.

And there's another problem: It's not easy for consumers shopping online in the new insurance markets to tell whether top-level institutions are included in a plan. That takes additional digging by the people applying.

"The challenges of this are going to become evident ... as cancer cases start to arrive," Norman Hubbard, executive vice president of Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, said.

Advocates for cancer patients are in a quandary.

Before President Barack Obama's health care law, a cancer diagnosis could make you uninsurable. Now, insurers can't turn away people with health problems or charge them more. Lifetime dollar limits on policies, once a financial trapdoor for cancer patients, are also banned.

"Patients may have fewer choices of doctors and hospitals in some exchange plans than others ... but the rules for such plans go a long way toward remedying the most severe problems that existed for decades," said Steve Weiss, spokesman for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

The new obstacles are more subtle.

To keep premiums low, insurers have designed narrow networks of hospitals and doctors. The government-subsidized private plans on the exchanges typically offer less choice than Medicare or employer plans.

By not including a top cancer center an insurer can cut costs. It may also shield itself from risk, delivering an implicit message to cancer survivors or people with a strong family history of the disease that they should look elsewhere.

For now, the issue seems to be limited to the new insurance exchanges. But it could become a concern for Americans with job-based coverage too if employers turn to narrow networks.

The AP surveyed 23 institutions around the country that are part of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Two additional institutions that joined this week were not included in the survey.

Cancer network members are leading hospitals that combine the latest clinical research and knowledge with a multidisciplinary approach to patient care. They say that patients in their care have better-than-average survival rates. The unique role of cancer centers is recognized under Medicare. Several are exempt from its hospital payment system, instituted to control costs.

The AP asked the centers how many insurance companies in their state's exchange included them as a network provider.

Of the 19 that responded, four reported access through all insurers: the Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore; Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia; Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, N.C.; and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, Tenn. One caveat: Some insurers did not include these cancer centers on certain low-cost plans.

Two centers have special circumstances. The best known is St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn. Treatment there is free as long as children have a referral.

For the remaining 13, the gaps are evident.

In Buffalo, N.Y., Roswell Park Cancer Institute is included by five of seven insurers in its region. But statewide, the picture is much different: Roswell Park is not included by 11 of 16 insurers. Dr. Willie Underwood, associate professor of surgical oncology at the teaching hospital, says that is a problem.

"Overall, when you look at the Affordable Care Act, it improves access to cancer care," Underwood said. "When it comes down to the exchanges, there are some concerns that we have. That is not being critical, that is being intelligent. There are some things we should talk about ... before they start becoming a problem."

Melanie Lapidus, vice president for managed care at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, home to Siteman Cancer Center, said she doesn't think patients realize the exchanges offer a more restrictive kind of private insurance." RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR--AP 3 '14


*

Here is more about what Obamacare is doing to make the divide between "the haves and have nots" even WORSE:

"The rich have always been able to pay for the best doctors and medical care. But until now, that advantage had not been institutionalized by the federal government.

My first boss was a millionaire. I was one of his three secretaries, making a pittance and attending college at night. One night I fell leaving the subway while rushing to class. I didn’t think much of it until my boss noticed I was limping a little. He insisted that I see his orthopedic specialist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York �" one of the most elite institutions of its kind.

The doctor fixed my hip, and my corporate insurance covered the cost. Over the years, as I worked for different companies and built my career, I passed on my top docs to people who worked with me. There was never a question about lower-paid employees affording a top doctor for a sick child or an elderly parent �" or themselves.

Related: Hospitals Plot the End of Insurance Companies

Corporate insurance in those days was the great equalizer. I had what the CEO had, as did everyone in the mailroom. That “equalizer” is doomed with Obamacare. So says one of the chief architects of the president’s health care law, Ezekiel Emanuel. He told The New York Times that companies will move away from providing insurance and offer stipends for employees to buy insurance on the health care exchanges. Emanuel said the “Cadillac tax” imposed on high-cost full service plans will push companies to make that choice. “By 2025, few private-sector employers will still be providing health insurance,” Emanuel told The Times.

Even now, as the bulging baby boom moves from private insurance to Medicare, more than 150 million Americans have employer-provided health insurance, not all of which, of course, is as generous as a Cadillac plan. Nevertheless, the unintended consequence of this move away from a “one-size fits all” corporate plan institutionalizes a health care system of “haves and have nots.” Why? If you have insurance through Obamacare, your odds of being accepted by one of the nation’s top hospitals or having access to top doctors is seriously diminished.

Watchdog.org, a conservative site, investigated how many of the nation’s top hospitals were opting out of Obamacare. They used the U.S. News and World Report list of best hospitals for 2013-14. “Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare,” Watchdog reported.

Related: More Companies Dump Employee Insurance for Obamacare

Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and Massachusetts General in Boston are mandated to accept all insurance under state law. But Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, only accepts the Blue Cross silver plan. And the Cleveland Clinic only accepts Medical Mutual of Ohio. Like others, they have issues with the reimbursement rates under Obamacare.

“In many cases, consumers are shopping blind when it comes to what doctors and hospitals are including in their Obamacare exchange plans,” Josh Archambault, senior fellow with the think tank Foundation for Government Accountability, told Watchdog.org. “These patients will be in for a rude awakening once they need care, and get stuck with a big bill for going out-of-network without realizing it.”

Imagine you’re a new parent and your baby has a heart condition. You live in Seattle where Seattle Children’s Hospital has sued the state’s Office of Insurance for “failure to ensure adequate network coverage” through Obamacare. If you have insurance through one of the companies that isn’t accepted by Children’s, you’re out �" or you have to pay the astonishing costs for access to their neo-natal care center. A hospital news release stated, “Children’s is the only pediatric hospital in King County and the preeminent provider of many pediatric specialty services in the Northwest.”

The result, of course, is that the nation’s high-end teaching hospitals �" where the best research facilities and some of the best doctors in the world practice �" will be mostly available to rich people. And perhaps just super rich people like Warren Buffett and the Koch Brothers. Clearly a paltry millionaire couldn’t afford more than a week at a NICU and still pay the mortgage on a Tribeca loft."-- Fiscal Times, Jacqueline Leo, 3/14.

The author goes on to say the previous system wasn't working, which is an assessment with which I, and others, have always agreed.

But Obamacare?

Well, Jodik, you are right a lot of people can now get health insurance.

Getting access to health care, getting good doctors and getting treatment when you have cancer, or being able to keep the doctor and treatment you had before Obama and the Democrats decided what was best for us when it comes to our personal decisions and health care--now THAT is another story.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

And before the ACA, the top cancer centers are available to anybody and everybody no matter their insurance company?

~~~snort~~~

As for the rest of your post, why does it come as a shock that cheap insurance won't get you much?


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

My question was a simple one.

I don't understand what Obamacae has to do with your friend's , friend's situation.

What is it about the ACA that caused her to drop the insurance policy she had for a new one that didn't cover the same doctors?

It's hard to believe that one of the junk policies that were cancelled offered top oncologists in their plans. However if that was the case it is my understanding she could have reinstated her policy for at least one more year.

I just do not understand the link to the ACA and this woman having to change her plan. Surely you must understand the link or you would not have blamed her situation on the ACA.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Demi, is there a problem with letting us know what your sources are?

So only a certain number of plans cover certain kinds of cancer treatments. Common sense says that if you want those certain kinds of cancer treatments, then buy one of the plans that does cover that treatment. You don't buy a plan that does not cover the treatment and then complain that it does not dover the treatment. Duh! So you have to "dig" a bit to find out which ones cover the treatment. That was true before ACA also. As to "digging"--that's called "taking responsibility for yourself."

I notice that some of the statements in demi's articles indicate a less serious problem than she would have us believe. For instance, taken from her article (although the source is unknown because she chose not to tell us what the source was)--

Before President Barack Obama's health care law, a cancer diagnosis could make you uninsurable. Now, insurers can't turn away people with health problems or charge them more. Lifetime dollar limits on policies, once a financial trapdoor for cancer patients, are also banned.

"Patients may have fewer choices of doctors and hospitals in some exchange plans than others ... but the rules for such plans go a long way toward remedying the most severe problems that existed for decades," said Steve Weiss, spokesman for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

Hmm--the American Cancer Society thinks ACA is an improvement over the pre-ACA situation when it comes to cancer. Now whom should I believe--the American Cancer Society or an Obama-blamer like demi ? Hmmm--hard choice.

Most people who already had insurance plans are not buying off the "exchange"--is my understanding. Most of the people buying off the exchange (govt funded) had no insurance before or got kicked off the earlier plan that wouldn't cover their cancer treatments.

And, as David reminds us, the govt funded plans on the exchange were not designed to be "Cadillac" plans. It has always been true that if you wanted a Cadillac plan, you paid extra to get it. Nothing new there.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

And before the ACA, the top cancer centers are available to anybody and everybody no matter their insurance company?

~~~snort~~~

Exactly, david. Yet again the fact that this has been going on forever is ignored. Because, as I keep saying, much more fun to say it's all Obama's fault! Hey, maybe if they repeat it enough, some will believe it. Or at least that's what Fox and their kind think. Thinking people know that facts matter.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Demi, is there a problem with letting us know what your sources are?

With a quick Google search I found one of the articles on the infamous Weasel Zippers. You know that wonderful site that "scours the bowels of the internet so you don't have to".

They got the story from the NY Post.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Must be a cousin of Newshounds which watches Fox so we don't have to.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Rosie, sorry I don't have time to read each and every thread and post here. I asked a simple question which you evaded. I googled and found no source that says what you stated. Everything I can find says that it is unclear how many people who previously didn't have insurance available to them, now have insurance. Again the double standard rears its ugly head.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Dublinbay there was no problem listing my sources as I did so when I posted.

What is your problem?


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Jhug......the double standard is so pervasive on this forum we should call it the quadruple standard........'cause it is surely not the perview of one side or the other.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Demi, you and I do not even speak the same language. I have no idea what your last post said--it made no sense. If you go back to your post at 13:39--where you evidently quoted some article at great length--you will see that no source is listed. You have a title--"Health Law Concerns for Cancer Patients["]--and that is followed by the words "WASHINGTON (AP)." Is that what you mean by you listed a source? That is not what I mean by listing your source, nor do most people take that to be a listing of a source. Where did you get the article titled "Health Law Concerns for Cancer Patients"? Where you got it would be the source.

Or is your source listed somewhere else on that post? If so, I can not find it.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Yes, Kate.

Read it.

Read the last paragraph of the first quote for the source--the name of the author is in CAPITAL LETTERS KATE, followed by AP which means Associated Press I thought everyone would get that--with the month and year of the article. Search it you will find that Associated Press article which is where I found it not some other site as suggested. It was March 19 if you need extra help.

I have also sourced the SECOND article quoted, too--it's in black and white. Look for it--the Fiscal Times, with the name of the author and month and year as well. You can also search that article by the author as I NOTED. Again--extra help, March 28.

The two EXTRA times I have posted to point out what was already in the post is just wasted time and ridiculous.

I'm done with the games and nasty insinuations about sources and veracity.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 4:36

Demi, the article's real, but don't be fooled by the prestige of the names or the real quality of care some offer. Those cancer centers are off the list because they overcharge badly.They generate enormous (documented) profits by milking patient desperation, and insurance companies, for every penny the market will bear.

Healthcare inflation is a very serious national problem, and a major purpose of the ACA is to bring it under control. So it's made paying inflated prices illegal for policies sold through the exchanges. Non-exchange cadillac policies are available for those who can afford them.

For these overpriced cancer centers, though, their golden days when they set the prices for the industry are mostly over. Not only will policies issued under the ACA not cover would-be customers, but that will enable other insurers to refuse to pay such high prices. If they want the business, and they very much do, they'll have to settle for a more reasonable profit margin.

Please note also that none of these treatment regimens are secret, and they're very carefully documented for use by practitioners. Patients can typically get all but specific cancer trials at ordinary cancer clinics in their area.

Jlhug, the post I was answering was this:

"Posted by momof2doxies 5 (My Page) on Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 9:51
Reality check
6 million signed up for ACA.
6 million lost there insurance because of ACA.
Net gain of zero."

Total rubbish. And such a greedy claim. Even the GOP leadership is only insisting 5 million-plus are losing their coverage. :) But really, a program whose major purpose and principle is to provide healthcare coverage to the uninsured didn't insure any additional people at all? Common sense, anyone?

Jlhug, I don't understand why you were not able to google ACA canceled policies and come up with many discussions, including Washington Post and Politifact analyses. Most of them now old, but still right there.

The real numbers are in flux, changing every day and being estimated at best right now, with most estimates old. However, a figure used a lot in old discussions is an AP estimate of 4.6 or 4.7 million (forget) substandard policies cancelled because they are now illegal under the ACA. Reliable numbers for newly covered, previously uninsured people don't seem to be available yet, as opposed to those who just replaced existing policies.

Using that figure as a starting point (though not accepting it) one government panel estimated only 10,000 people would not be able to find replacement insurance at least at a catastrophic level (all in Washington State, which doesn't allow catastrophic coverage -- but does happen to offer exceptionally low prices on better policies.)

Note that most people would be able to purchase standard policies with standard coverages, though, not catastrophic. Nevertheless, I don't like the 10,000 number myself as it assumes, for those who couldn't afford better coverage, catastrophic coverage policies would always acceptably replace the junk insurance policies people lost.

While even catastrophic coverage policies under ACA rules would usually be significantly better quality insurance, and ultimately pay far more for a serious illness (those others're called junk for a reason), some junk policies probably had a few coverages that were better than catastrophic, at least on paper and untested. Thus, their owners would not always feel catastrophic coverage was an acceptable substitute.

In any case, you'll find there's a lot more available to read on this than you'll care to if you care to.

BTW, I'd like to point out that 4.6 or so million people making payments each month on junk policies that would not pay for much of the care they needed and leave them deeply in debt, and in some cases dead, is a lot of people in danger.

If anti-ACA reactionaries ever want some horror stories that stand up to scrutiny/fact-checking, they should check out what happened to many, many junk policy holders when they got bad sick.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Rosie, I apologize for not having time to spend lots of time googling because I'm working about 70 hours a week right now. Time is precious. I wasn't googling "cancelled insurance" because I wanted to know how many previously uninsured people now have insurance. It seems more logical that I should google "ACA previously uninsured". Your comment was about people who previously uninsured not people whose insurance was cancelled. Why would I google "ACA cancelled policies" when that's not what I was looking for? You clearly stated that most of the people who are getting insurance were previously uninsured. I asked for a link to back that up.

IMO, it is a common courtesy to provide a link when one makes a statement of fact as you did especially after someone requests a link. I should know that I expect too much and have no right to request that someone back up their claims with a link.

That said, your most recent post doesn't support your claim at 20:03 on March 29 that most of the people who have signed up under ACA were previously uninsured. Underinsured (policy cancelled) isn't the same as previously uninsured (no policy at all). So if 4.6 million were underinsured and had their policies cancelled, then that means, assuming that the 4.6 million and 6 million figures are accurate, that 1.4 million were previously uninsured. That is not a clear majority of people signing up for insurance under ACA.

I apologize for my shortcomings. It will be several days before I have time to get back here so don't be surprised if I don't respond quickly if your post.

Edited for clarity and grammar which is still probably lacking.

This post was edited by jlhug on Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 7:27


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 7:51

You have a point, Jlhug. I probably was referring to uninsured, not underinsured, although the ACA is committed to ending both. Although as someone whose insurance has not paid out a single dime in over a decade and who has avoided running seeking care that that insurance won't pay, in practice they can very much be one and the same.

Anyway, splitting hairs here is clearly a waste of time. When you get around to reading, it'll take you very little time to find what you need to know. ITM, the people who fed Momof2doxies those outrageous lies to spread do injury to society and should be ashamed of themselves, but they're not. People whose trust was betrayed by them should be angry at them, call them out for the liars they are, and, of course, refuse to have anything further to do with them


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Did you see her apology?

Momof2doxies wrote

I owe this forum an apology. I did not write the post by momof2doxies on Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 9:51. A house guest did. I will now and forever log out of GW whenever I leave. I really will go back to lurking now. Linda

A warming to all of us :)


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Rosie, you are still confused. You DID refer to uninsured in the statement I quoted. You did NOT refer to underinsured.

There is no point in me researching the number of people who lost insurance that signed up for ACA. I knew that not everyone who signed up for insurance under ACA didn't have a policy cancelled. I also believe that your statement about more uninsured people than underinsured people have signed up is inaccurate. It appears that you made the statement and can't back it up with a source.

Suggest you have another cup of coffee or two and reread the statement I quoted and your most recent post. You stated something that isn't accurate, can't be supported through a data from a reputable source and won't come out and say you were wrong. Instead you hint at it. Be honest. The statement I quoted can't be supported and isn't accurate. If it can be supported, then please post a link to a reputable source that says more previously uninsured people have signed up for health insurance through ACA than previously insured people.

It's not splitting hairs but asking for accurate information.

I agree that ACA is meant to provide everyone with AFFORDABLE health care. IMO, it is too early to say whether or not it will meet its goal. I sincerely hope that it does.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

demi, your post was very rude. I was asking a real question --not playing games. Any question I ask recently, you rear up on your hind legs and go into outrage. I was asking for information--not trying to incite you to outrage. Like I said (correctly)--you and I don't even speak the same language. You see sneers and aggravation when I am asking a simple question because I don't understand what you are doing and you don't understand what I am asking.

If you meant that rather than giving a link to a source, you expect people to go do their own research, why didn't you say so? However, you should be aware that "go do your own research" is not the same as listing a source. Didn't you ever have to do a footnote or an endnote in college? We don't expect formal foot/endnotes on a forum (a simple URL will suffice), but your answer above is the equivalent of handing in a research paper and telling the teacher to go look up the sources him/herself. I don't think that would pass muster.

Or you can just interpret everything as an unfriendly attack.

Whatever.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

What is rude is asking a person repeatedly for information that was given the first time.

It is not rocket science to read the name of an author , the publication and the date and find it.

I copied most of the article and attributed to the source because some willl not or cannot go to links.

Of course I have used footnotes.

This Is not college. I notice you don't call others out for the same.

The information and credit to author, month and year publication was there all along

That is enough.

As to your intent it would be easier to believe if you had said, "thanks Demi I
Missed it" instead of suggesting I am at fault for not using formal form that very few use.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

But I didn't miss that info. It does not constitute a source to me--although it gives some clues if I wanted to go do my own research--in which case I wouldnt' have asked you for your source --since I wouldn't need it. With the magic of internet, I could track down your article without that info. Didn't you know that was possible? However, I should not HAVE to play detective to find out what source you are using. You should be up front and openly tell us. And giving author/title is not the same as telling us where you located that article. There is a difference--can't you understand that?

And I wish you would read my posts more carefully. I said I do NOT expect you to use formal foot/endnotes. On a forum, a simple URL will suffice. You did read that, didn't you? Then why did you choose to ignore it?

Why do I ask you for sources? When posters make controversial or take highly partisan positions, they can expect to be asked for sources. It goes with the territory.

However, all this nonsense is detracting from the content of my earlier post--in which I made some points about the content of the articles you copied. Since that is the important point of my post, why are you ignoring that ? Why do you obsess about side issues--is it a method of detraction, as so many posters on this forum claim about your posts?

I'm done with this ridiculous "argument" --pure nonsense! If you have something pertinent to say about the topic of this thread or the topic of your copied article or my comments about the topic of your copied article, perhaps I will reply.

Less than that, I find this disagreement disgusting and am retiring to the Rose Forum for awhile.

You succeeded, demi. You chased me off this forum. I need fresh air. Take over and rule, demi. And gloat! You are so good at it.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Good grief I not only included the date and author BUT the SOURCE as well.

AP and FISCAL TIMES.

I'm done


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I DiID include the source

The websites of AP and Fiscal Times.

This is lunacy


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Kate, please don't leave. Don't give anyone the satisfaction of chasing you off.

~Ann


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I think Kate said it best.

"Fortunately I'm on Medicare".


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

The bottom line is... one must go to the government website, or state website as the case may be, and sign up... one doesn't know what might be true or untrue unless they experience it.

It doesn't hurt... I can promise that. Of course, I live in a blue state that had the foresight to expand Medicaid and offer affordable healthcare... we might even be eligible for other types of help, so for us... this is a good thing. We might actually accept a little help at this point... we could use it.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 14:29

Another train-wreck of a day for Healthcare.gov.

After today, Maryland will shut down it's site, take it off-line and try and get the same functioning site that Connecticut used so successfully.

Good idea, poor implementation


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Re the number of people now insured vs. those who lost insurance because of the ACA from the Los Angeles Times:

• Fewer than a million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because their plans were canceled for not meeting new standards set by the law, the Rand survey indicates.

Republican critics of the law have suggested that the cancellations last fall have led to a net reduction in coverage.

That is not supported by survey data or insurance companies, many of which report they have retained the vast majority of their 2013 customers by renewing old policies, which is permitted in about half the states, or by moving customers to new plans.

"We are talking about a very small fraction of the country" who lost coverage, said Katherine Carman, a Rand economist who is overseeing the survey.

Most of the issues cited by Demi were present before the ACA. The ACA isn't perfect but it has made many improvements. There are trade-offs. No one can be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition nor will anyone go bankrupt from the cost of cancer care or other expensive diseases/conditions due to the cost having hit a now non-existent ceiling.

The exorbitant cost of health care in this country still has to be addressed but I doubt that anyone in office has the guts to take it on. So, we are left with fixing, piece by piece, parts of the ACA. But, health care accessibility is much better than it was before the ACA.

Here is a link that might be useful: The gospel according to Rand


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

That 'less than one million' should be compared to the regular turnover of the number of people with individual policies who "lose" their policies any given year before the ACA - like I'd buy individual policies when I was between jobs, then drop it once the employer's policy kicked in, etc.

Or they get old enough to go on Medicaire.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by ann_t 8a (My Page) on
Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 12:12

Kate, please don't leave. Don't give anyone the satisfaction of chasing you off.

~Ann

*

Ann, please don't give yourself the satisfaction of the assumption that I derive any satisfaction from anyone leaving, or participating on the forum.

That is your projection.

I wouldn't worry about Kate.

She's sung this Swan Song before and has always returned--usually after working into a corner as in this instance when all the information I had--author, date and source--the publications, all were in my original post.

It took many posts and my time to point out what should have been glaringly obvious, over and over and over.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by ann_t 8a (My Page) on
Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 12:12

Kate, please don't leave. Don't give anyone the satisfaction of chasing you off.

~Ann

*

Ann, please don't give yourself the satisfaction of the assumption that I derive any satisfaction from anyone leaving, or participating on the forum.

Edited to remove most of a double post.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 17:34


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Just talk on and on--to yourself, demi.

I never said I was leaving permanently. Don't know where you got the idea I ever did.

Now, continue on--talking to yourself.

Kate


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

It strikes me that throughout the years there has been a demonstrated complete and utter lack of self awareness.
Last night and today's activities particularly highlights this impression to an almost a comical degree, except that it isn't at all funny.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

"It strikes me that throughout the years there has been a demonstrated complete and utter lack of self awareness."

Conversely, I also see an obsession with self awareness in some.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

If only it were catching 'eh?


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 20:11

For sure.

Speaking of breaking 6 million, a Washington Post poll just now reported support for the ACA 49%, opposed 48%. Scarcely a mandate, but compared to what it dipped to after the rollout it's a very definite upswing in support.

People don't just hate a loser, it's that they want security, and this reminds me of some friends who dislike politics. They believed that we needed healthcare reform, approved it happening even though they wished it were the GOP doing it, but have been sitting back neutrally, unwilling to commit emotionally while they waited to see if the GOP came through on their promise to destroy it. (Why they weren't angry? Beats me, but their passive cynicism is hardly unusual.)

BTW, an LA Times article reports today that 9.5 million people nationally are now insured who were not before. States who accepted the Medicare expansion of course have particularly high percentages of newly insured.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

•Posted by mylab123 z5NW (My Page) on Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 19:47

"If only it were catching 'eh?"

Not. Referring back to my last post, while the former may be frustrating, the latter is insufferable IMO.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Mylab...you aren't fooling any of us with the "eh".........now if you start spelling words like neighbour and colour correctly then we can talk.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

How will those who go on the ACA be billed for it?

I dont know how, but I really should. It is unlikely I will ever be on it because I am in the catagory of fortunates who have been provided, through our collective workplaces, most excellent health care and for as far as we can see into the future, it will remain that way. Life has demonstrated through the years though that nothing is to be taken for granted or is a sure thing. I am very supportive of this reform in our health care as long as it is the foundation which upon will be built a single payer type of system for everyone's advantage. Its a start we had to fight for, its not the end product.

Someone - Kate or Nancy or perhaps Duluth mentioned that for all the numbers that signed up, it would have to be a wait and see period on who paid the actual premiums after signing up. Did I understand / remember that correctly?
It was a good but of course worrisome point, the sign up numbers really are likely to be at least somewhat less, I hope not a significant percentage. Time will tell.
I may have misunderstood that point though. I have not looked into the mechanics of the various policies available nor investigated how the billing works.

I live in a very heavy conservative State Rosie. One of the most conservative states in the union.
Though I very rarely discuss differing parties and their differing politics with our friendly acquaintences or more casual friends ( although discussing world politics and some specific issues are easily discussed without a hit of rancor) I have found the same reaction with quite a few, myself.

I have wondered if it was the similar general reaction I found with liberal friends ( when I voted conservative, up to the second Bush election) - there was an air of "nobody can change it, maybe it will all work out".

Of course that disappeared during the time it was accepted that those WMD's werent there to be found, a similar reaction with many of my republican friends also.

Maybe they are taking that "sit back and watch what happens" because they know what was before didnt work and maybe this, with tweaking, actually will - along with accepting that the ACA is here to stay.
This is a poor state. For all the political blustering about the ACA, very many people desperately needed an alternative to expensively bad coverage or no coverage at all. If the needy in this state discover that being their being a part of the ACA is better for them than they were before they signed up, they will keep it.

I think a lot of the intelligent and educated but silent people from both political sides of the table probably don't get their identity so invested in their brand of politics, so they may be in a much better position to take a "wait and see how it unfolds" position about many things without feeling their ego so invested within their party lines. When our ego and identity is excessively wrapped up in our politics, I believe it creates very often tunnel vision and those with it the worst tunnel vision ( both sides) are the least aware of it. However, those who are so involved in the local, state and federal politics are those who vote, converse with their reps and rally at election time. Vital people.

This is just my take , of course, only at this time, subject to change- but who really knows though?
It might be nothing more than simple apathy.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I wasn't talking to you Demi.

~Ann


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I wasn't talking to you Demi.

~Ann


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Elvis, you in particular should know good and well that for all of us, suffering what we each consider the insufferables participating in this forum is a part of being here.

You will have to play with somebody else now, Im dont feel like playing with you anymore tonight.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...


Posted by ann_t 8a (My Page) on
Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 21:09

I wasn't talking to you Demi.

~Ann

Of course you weren't.

You were talking about me.

Unless Kate wrongfully named the person she addressed the comment to, and to which you responded to her post:

"You succeeded, demi. You chased me off this forum. I need fresh air. Take over and rule, demi. And gloat! You are so good at it.

Kate"

Then you said, Ann:

"Posted by ann_t 8a (My Page) on
Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 12:12

Kate, please don't leave. Don't give anyone the satisfaction of chasing you off.

~Ann"

How bizarre--chasing someone off the forum for what, a few minutes, an hour, because I repeatedly answered the repeated demands to list my "source"(s) which were in the original post to begin with and being harangued with these comments although I had reported all information about the quotes, who made them, the date, and the source of that information, to begin with:

Dublinbay (Kate):

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Sun, Mar 30, 14 at 15:45

"Demi, is there a problem with letting us know what your sources are?"

Umm, sources WERE POSTED and I said so.
That wasn't recognized.

" Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Sun, Mar 30, 14 at 20:40

"Demi, you and I do not even speak the same language. I have no idea what your last post said--it made no sense. If you go back to your post at 13:39--where you evidently quoted some article at great length--you will see that no source is listed."

Umm, No.

I see exactly where I listed the sources, the authors, and dates.
KATE did not see them or wants people to believe they aren't there in black and white where they are, and refuses to acknowledge them, assuming I am the one that is wrong, even after I state that I included the sources.

Then, after again stating that the information was indeed including in the original post, I get this:

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 8:59

"demi, your post was very rude. I was asking a real question --not playing games. Any question I ask recently, you rear up on your hind legs and go into outrage. I was asking for information--not trying to incite you to outrage. Like I said (correctly)--you and I don't even speak the same language. You see sneers and aggravation when I am asking a simple question because I don't understand what you are doing and you don't understand what I am asking.

If you meant that rather than giving a link to a source, you expect people to go do their own research, why didn't you say so? However, you should be aware that "go do your own research" is not the same as listing a source. Didn't you ever have to do a footnote or an endnote in college? We don't expect formal foot/endnotes on a forum (a simple URL will suffice), but your answer above is the equivalent of handing in a research paper and telling the teacher to go look up the sources him/herself. I don't think that would pass muster.

Or you can just interpret everything as an unfriendly attack.

Whatever.

Kate"

Um,, no, my post was NOT the "equivalent of handing in a research paper and telling the teacher to go look up the sources him/herself" and that it wouldn't "pass muster."

Umm, No. I included the sources and did not leave anything for anyone to look up for themselves. IT WAS INCLUDED FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME.

Hmm, then we have righteous indignation from Kate because she refuses to see what is in black and white and acknowledge that I indeed included not only the names of the authors of the two articles, the dates, of the articles, AND THE SOURCES FROM WHICH I FOUND THEM ALL in the original post!

Oooh, but we're not done it seems:

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Mon, Mar 31, 14 at 10:07

"But I didn't miss that info. It does not constitute a source to me--although it gives some clues if I wanted to go do my own research--in which case I wouldnt' have asked you for your source --since I wouldn't need it. With the magic of internet, I could track down your article without that info. Didn't you know that was possible? However, I should not HAVE to play detective to find out what source you are using."

Ummm, you don't have to play detective.
The articles I read where the Associated Press (website) and Financial Times (website) just as I included in the original post. No Snooper Blabber Detective agency needed.

Just reading black an

Then I get told by Dublinbay, Kate, I "succeeded" in "chasing me off this forum."

When all I did was constantly reiterate the fact of the matter that I indeed included the source in the original post.

Then Ann you come in with your comment.

Just so we're straight as to who said what and who did what.

It's also in black and white for anyone that can read.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I follow hot topics with interest. I am glad I never have to cross paths with some posters (one VERY nasty one in particular!) As far as I'm concerned, put on your hoods! What is so difficult about having to source your material; have you ever heard of APA or MPA standards? What would you throw out about the ACA? Are you against EVERYTHING in it? ACA is a first step. I have worked in health care my whole life; nothing will work until a single payer system is established. Health care (unlike car or home insurance, etc.) should never be a benefit, but an entitlement of being born in a first world country. Our current world standing does not entitle such standing.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 6:24

It always makes me feel better to know that many people expect this to be a transition eventually to a single payer system available to all who want it.

BTW, seemingly lost in exchange of personalities was that the L.A. Times reports a current count of 9.5 million people nationally are now insured who were not before. 9.5 MILLION who can now afford to go to the doctor when symptoms start, instead of hoping they eventually go away.

9.5 million NEW customers for the giant insurance industry and paying patients for the giant healthcare industry, and it's just the beginning. (Repeal that!)

Paying: Paying before the effective date is currently at about 80%, right in line with what it has been before when people purchase private insurance. Since coverage doesn't become effective until payment is received, that'll be the usual nudge for the usual late payers to punch the "pay here" button on the reminder e-mails. No one expects a large percentage of nonpayers.

“These patients will be in for a rude awakening once they need care, and get stuck with a big bill for going out-of-network without realizing it.” That's supposed to be new? This is an OLD personal screwup for all people with an in-network provider system who don't check before seeing a new provider.

(I'm hoping the new electronic medical records the ACA requires all providers begin using will eventually alert them when THEY are out of a patient's network, and alert the referring physician's office when a specialist is. The insurer will of course always already be entered in the record, so it seems it would just be good business, avoiding unpaid bills, canceled future appointments, setting up files for people who never return, paying for collection services, etc.)

On the plus side, all the policies I reviewed on the federal exchange were offered by large, well known insurance companies that provide a very large, and national, network of providers. I went with Humana, which sells in all 50 states and has an extremely large provider network and also administers the Tricare health insurance program for the United States military.

People inclined to be spooked by scaremonger stories need to remember that this is a big opportunity for insurance companies to make a lot more money by selling a lot more insurance. If people can't get the care they need, they'll cancel and sign up with someone else. It's never been this easy to do just that.

This post was edited by rosie on Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 6:27


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

It's also in black and white for anyone that can read.

Also black and white for anyone that can read is that almost every thread you participate in turns into the same thing...this. All could have been avoided if you supplied a link to your source as has been done for years by ost posters and HT evem gives an easy place to post it below.

Just more of the typical games and attempt at derailing a thread with nonsense.

This post was edited by epiphyticlvr on Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 7:46


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Kaiser boss said what is really important, not how many uninsured signed up.

What's the mix? Young, old, healthy, sick?

That's the determining factor. The insurance industry is not required to keep premiums at the current rate.

I predict a year from now many will be screaming about the higher cost of ACA, especially those who receive a subsidy.

Some rates can double if we do not get the mix right.

Kate said it best.

"Fortunately I'm on Medicare".


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

"Fortunately I'm on Medicare".

Which is basically a single payer system with a few layers. I think that's what we will have to do to sustain universal healthcare.

Single payer with some optional layers.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 9:18

Just as I predicted a couple of months ago, once the ACA numbers reached 7 million the repubs would still be pissy, even more pissy than before.....obviously, not a very difficult prediction to make.

Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the red states camels back and force them to enact the associated medicare provisions. Should be interesting times ahead as November looms and the red state repubs become the real death panel politicians.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

...and some think the GOP will repeal it........talk about big lies.

I think it will be fun to watch how their narrative changes as they take repeal off the table.

Sorta like the debt ceiling limit.......fought it tooth and nail until it was clear that not raising it so soon after the government shut down debacle was suicide. So they quietly and "gracefully" agreed to raise it . Turned a total 360 and nobody said a word.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by epiphyticlvr (My Page) on
Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 7:44

It's also in black and white for anyone that can read.

Also black and white for anyone that can read is that almost every thread you participate in turns into the same thing...this. All could have been avoided if you supplied a link to your source as has been done for years by ost posters and HT evem gives an easy place to post it below.

Just more of the typical games and attempt at derailing a thread with nonsense.

*

Yea, speaking of nonsense, I saw your contribution to this matter, Epi, and your insinuation:

" Posted by epiphyticlvr 10 (My Page) on
Sun, Mar 30, 14 at 16:39

Demi, is there a problem with letting us know what your sources are?

With a quick Google search I found one of the articles on the infamous Weasel Zippers. You know that wonderful site that "scours the bowels of the internet so you don't have to".

They got the story from the NY Post."

*


Transparent, much?

I think that was what the entire little exchange was about and it failed because my sources were exactly what I INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL POST. I'm sure a disappointment.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 10:26


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Chase,

A single payer was put down by Obama and his cronies. Why? The insurance industry wanted it this way to ensure more customers and also a bail out if needed. The very evil that some hate, is the very evil earning billions and billions more. Thanks to ACA.

Remember when Obama took Dennis (single payer endorser) on a plan ride and used that opportunity to gain his support? (shut him up)

Mr. Obama isn't as perfect as some of you wish to portray. He's a politician, and Noam Chomsky is right, the man has no principles. He's knee deep in favors granted the insurance industry.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Demi, every thread is the same thing and the common denominator is you. You didn't post a link so I did a Google search and that is what I found. If you don't want people to post what they find then provide the information like most other posters do.

Just more of your games.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

No game--I quoted most of the content of the articles and included the SOURCE, the AUTHOR and THE DATE.

It's not rocket science to see that I included the Fiscal Times and the AP as my sources.

All anyone had to do was put those in a search engine, along with the authors and dates--information I also included, and find the ORIGINAL SOURCE which was my SOURCE.

Much ado about nothing in an obvious attempt to divert from the content of the article and try to change the topic to where some think I may have found the articles and make the topic about me and where some think I go to look for information--wrongfully.

Too bad it was the Fiscal Times and Associated Press, wasn't it?

Talk about games.

This post was edited by demifloyd on Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 12:01


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Or you could have saved all of this and just linked to your article like everyone else does.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Demi, you are the Queen of cut and paste.

Doesn't change the fact though that I was talking to Kate and not to you.

~Ann


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

As for single payer, or simply expanding Medicare, thats the obvious solution. And thats what Obama ran his 2008 election on.

I think its pretty obvious that when he got to Washington, he realized that h*ll would freeze over before the vastly profitable medical leech industry would willingly give up their stranglehold, that they could bribe congress and block anything close to single payer, and so cut a deal with them. They even managed to pretty much gut the idea of non-profit insurance coops in each state.

This country is run by huge corporate interests. It doesn't matter who we elect. Take a look at the stock market performance of outfits like United Health Care now that the ACA is getting started.

Note the Republican plans only make them richer by allowing them to go back and cherry pick policy holders and putting the pre-condition set into a "special pool" subsidized by the gummit.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by ann_t 8a (My Page) on
Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 12:22

Demi, you are the Queen of cut and paste.

Doesn't change the fact though that I was talking to Kate and not to you.

~Ann

*

Oh No Nancy is.!


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

"Mr. Obama isn't as perfect as some of you wish to portray. He's a politician, and Noam Chomsky is right, the man has no principles. "

Could you PLEASE provide a source for that quote?


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Brush ignores the debunking this has undergone before. I found the source of it (hint hint: in Chomsky's own words that these are not his own words).

I'll leave it for the moment, though, since you asked brush to cite his source. Be interesting to see if he ignores you too.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

You gotta love it......

I just heard a Republican Congressman refer to "Obamacare" as the "UN"Affordable Care Act.

Seems the shift has started LOL


 o
RE: Breaking! 7 Million...

I guess there are actually a few million Americans who want health insurance.

They must not be Republicans.

Unlike the guy I heard on the radio last night - on principal, he won't get health insurance.

He says he went to the ED last month and now has a $250 hospital bill to pay, which he can pay with no trouble. He figures even if he has to pay $250 a few times a year, he's better off without health insurance.

HOW NAIVE CAN ANYONE BE? Dear God, the guy is an idiot.

What's he going to do when the bill is $2500 or $25,000? You and I will be paying that bill.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

"I'll leave it for the moment, though, since you asked brush to cite his source. Be interesting to see if he ignores you too."

He has once already on the same subject.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Surpassed the target ..... 7.1 Million have signed up.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

"On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced that Obamacare enrollment has officially topped seven million - exceeding the expectations for the health law after persistent website glitches made the enrollment process more difficult for some Americans. The 7,041,000 figure reported by the administration does not include the people who enrolled in state-based exchanges on Monday, and also doesn’t include anyone who’s still waiting in the queue for their application to be processed."

Correct, you are, Ann!

More at the link...

Here is a link that might be useful: Over 7 Mil


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 1, 14 at 17:33

7.1 million, PLUS HOW many through state exchanges, PLUS people who signed up by mail or were on the computer at the time? I'm guessing we're still behind on young and Hispanic signups, though. If that's the case, what group(s) took up the slack I wonder?

Chase and Frank, so Brush created his straw man, ripped it to shreds, sort of, and is happily picking satisfying amounts of straw debris out of his hair right now. Leave him to it? Simple pleasures are the best kind, after all.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

According to CNN, the "Between Two Ferns" and celebrity promotionals using LeBron James, etc. were effective in pushing younger people into investigating the websites. "Between Two Ferns" resulted in 33 million views - you'd have to figure some of those views resulted in sign ups.

The state exchange figures, etc. will be drifting in - likely have a clearer picture once all those caught in the process as the deadline arrived start drifting in. Grace period until April 15th.(?) to complete applications and submit first premium.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Well, with the rush to be compliant before the deadline, there will be a lot of "pending" cases to sort through... actual numbers should be drifting in soon... I would think.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

With the couple of prominent threads on the ACA on the front page of this forum, I wonder.
Where the heck is Nik?
She used to be front and center on any thread where even a hint of this subject came up - that is, when she wasnt busy starting a bunch of different threads on a daily basis on the subject which assured us repeatedly of the utter rejection by Americans and the complete failure it would be.
I guess that isnt so much fun to do anymore.

It must be so strange a position to be in: to actually be disappointed that the ACA is not only available, but is also welcomed and accepted by many Americans - conservatives and liberals alike - who need it and are grateful for it.

It's not a perfect system but it was created to allow for adjustment - to be improved upon and expanded upon as time goes on. The ACA available today is the foundation necessary for what will be.

Perhaps Nik and Brush's will grandchildren will be the generation of those American citizens who will bring this reformed health care to what it could and should have been from the very start: a single payer kind of health care for all Americans. If only the Nik and Brush's etc. of the country could have gotten out of their own way, the ACA could have been so much more, right from the start.

It will get there.


 o
Down the road

I predict the poor and the middle class will be relegated to what health procedures and access to health care the government tells them they can have.

After the elections and all of Obamacare kicks in, then the insurance companies will go away and single payer will be here and oops you're too old no pacemaker for you granny.

If you have a sore throat, a broken arm, or a ruptured appendix you'll get what you need.

Otherwise you take what they give you and hope you don't get too old and broken down to get on a chart that Barack Obama dictates you'll get a pill instead of treatment, grandma.

Only the wealthy will be able to pay for the health care they want.

It's so ironic.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 13:31

Well, we all know nothing's going to be all hunky-dory, but Demi, aren't you forgetting we have the vote? All these tunnel-vision scare stories about death panels and no pacemaker for you, Granny.

Granny can vote for a pacemaker. And if it comes to it she can get off her butt and go march for one. Iven more important so can all her children, grandchildren, other relatives, neighbors, friends, members of her congregation who are outraged at the very idea of denying her years of life.

Add to those, 150 million other voters who don't know her but do have their own grannies and do have their own lives to protect.

And, while we're at it, let's not forget the medical devices industry and cardiothoracic surgeons and cardiologists, just to name a few with a personal interest in providing her health care. Right?

I am hoping more and more people "evolve" onto Medicare. We are so together there.

"I think it will be fun to watch how their narrative changes as they take repeal off the table." Chase, I'm pretty sure we'll have to wait a while for that. There's an election next fall and a whole of lot very slow learners with that repeal ring securely attached to their noses.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Those poor Canadians stuck with that nasty single payer which kills off all their beloved grannies by withholding needed pacemakers.

It explains why the Canadian citizens are marching in the streets to have their health care reformed so it will be just like the U.S. of A's.

Bitterness speaks.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by mylab123 z5NW (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 13:46

Those poor Canadians stuck with that nasty single payer which kills off all their beloved grannies by withholding needed pacemakers.

It explains why the Canadian citizens are marching in the streets to have their health care reformed so it will be just like the U.S. of A's.

Bitterness speaks.

*

Sorry you're bitter. About what I have no idea.

We are not Canada.

Making the assumption that our health care would be exactly like Canada's is awfully presumptive.

Barry has already given us a head's up with the grandma/pill comment.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

A system exactly like our system would not work well in the States. There are some huge differences in culture, politics and economy.

However, to describe the outcomes of single payer , as described above, is uninformed or misinformed and hugely speculative .

Medicare is single payer and seem to work fine by most peoples account....and tons of those covered by Medicare are by definition Grannies!

Every single civilized modern country , except the States, has some version of single payer. The parameters can vary greatly but the core principal is the same.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Your bitterness seeps into every thread you participate in, the entire forum suffers from your tirades. Please stop it.

I will not respond to any of your remarks made in this thread today, be they personal or subject related.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by mylab123 z5NW (My Page) on
Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 14:06

Your bitterness seeps into every thread you participate in, the entire forum suffers from your tirades. Please stop it.

I will not respond to any of your remarks made in this thread today, be they personal or subject related.

*

Oh, I get it.

Lectures and comments about "bitterness" when I give my opinion, comments about me personally from you are alowed, I'm just supposed to shut up and let them stand, and if I don't, then it's a tirade.

Nope

Doesn't work that way.

You have made a lot of those comments, and not just about me.

I'm not the bitter one, I can manage to give my opinion and let others have theirs without attacking their character and taunting them.

I can only HOPE that you will have the integrity to stand by this comment, today and forever more if they're like the ones I've been getting--you know, the ones you find yourself constantly apologizing for.

"I will not respond to any of your remarks made in this thread today, be they personal or subject related."


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Wed, Apr 2, 14 at 18:08

"I predict the poor and the middle class will be relegated to what health procedures and access to health care the government tells them they can have."

You're too late, the Red State Repub legislatures have already done this - the real Death Panels! Sarah Palin had it almost right, but she just labeled the wrong party as being inhumane.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 9:57

Demi, this is off topic, of course, but seems like you're letting differences here get to you too much. My own mien has suffered from too much exposure to people who don't like me and what I believe in, but it improved immediately on cutting and pasting them right out of my focus, and I suggest you do the same.

And when political reverses make me too unhappy, I withdraw until I've recovered. A week of the world spinning on without knowing what's happening out there can feel weird but be good medicine.

Here, fwiw, I come for fun and take a book out to the garden or try out a new recipe when that'd be more enjoyable. Mostly stick to intellectual discussion of the topics? Tell someone designated to sit in for a neighbor that he's an idiot when that feels satisfying. Otherwise limit personal exchanges to those people who share and respect your views?

Notably, I answer hostile, argumentative comments directed to me IF I happen to feel like it, but I seldom feel like wasting my time responding to deliberate misrepresentations of my positions. Consigning those to silent deaths is quick and easy, and always just what they deserve.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Sometimes, it's better to disengage... than to engage.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz must have thought he had himself a good idea for how to commemorate the recent fourth “birthday” of Obamacare: Why not set up an informal “poll” on Facebook to ask the simple question of whether or not people’s lives were better before or after Obamacare became law? What could go wrong?

After more than a week, Politico’s weighed in with an answer: a lot.

While Cruz (or, more likely, the poor millennial tasked with running his social media properties) likely imagined there would be some liberal trolls/naysayers, it’s unlikely he expected them to be quite so forceful or so legion. As of this writing, the “poll” has more than 56,000 comments ��" and the clear majority of them are positive.

“YES!” wrote one commenter. “Without the ACA, my 21 year old autistic son would not have any insurance. Thank you President Obama.”

“YES,” wrote another. “I was denied heath insurance because of having MS as a pre-existing condition and would soon be going medically bankrupt or stop getting treatment. I now have excellent coverage and have a brighter future!”

“Absolutely Yes!” wrote yet another. “I have pre-existing condition that I was born with but didn’t appear until later in life and could not get health insurance at all. I finally have decent affordable insurance. What a huge relief!”

You can check out the whole, lengthy thread below

Here is a link that might be useful: Ouch


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 9:57

Demi, this is off topic, of course, but seems like you're letting differences here get to you too much.

*

Rosie, you couldn't be any further off track.

I don't let it get to me.

You seem to be assuming an awful lot about me and my life and what I think and why I respond to these remarks.

It's just my nature not to sit back and take it, and when I did earlier it only invited more, so when I have a few moments I will call it out.

You will notice, Rosie, that there are very many posters with whom I am able to converse on topics and have no problems with. It's the ones making the personal remarks, giving me unsolicited advice about how to ignore the disparaging remarks, etc., that take us off track and then I will answer those and then we're even more off track, but then it's almost always blamed on me for responding to the remarks.

We've done it for years before you got here, if you are a newer poster.

I will assume you are sincere, but you're just off base.

I'm a happy person, whether someone is being nice to me or not.

You see--I'm not a bitter old know it all that lectures other people and takes pokes at them for their opinion. I'm a good, kind, compassionate, and fun person with my own outlook on subjects and tolerant of others with other views--there is no need for me to taunt them for giving their opinion or smarting off to them for giving their opinion.

Life is too short.

Some people haven't learned that lesson, even people older than me. I guess if you (collective--anyone) go your entire life looking for a fight by insulting people and insulting their intelligence and motives, you're the one that is unhappy.

I see it repeatedly--people making nasty remarks and then coming back and apologizing for being so mean and nasty.

After years of it, it's obvious it is a concerted effort of whack a mole and I won't stand for it. They can't possibly be sincere or there is an obvious lack of emotional control. That's something I taught my children before the age of two years.

We all have a few days when we might be a little more prickly than others, but it's very seldom I'm that way.

So, now can we please change the subject back to something other than me and my emotional state?

We won't do it if the insults and taunts don't come to me and I am afforded the respect of posting my opinion, no matter how much it bothers someone else. That I will never understand--it's what tolerance is all about.

I just don't stand for the personal taunting and remarks for only giving my opinion.

Get it?

Have a great day.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 12:42

Umhm. Well, it's rather painful for me to watch, but quick to skip over, so I'll leave this particular type of indulgence to whoever is enjoying it. And the consequences, I might add. A person who pops a balloon at someone is responsible if that person has a heart attack. Ignorance of a heart condition is no excuse.

Epi, thanks! I'd missed Cruz's poll blowing up in his face and am so enjoying it. Classic! I went over to Facebook to add my testimony and, darn, it's scrolled off the page into archives. I could chase it down, but obviously he got the point. :)


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

One of seven million.....

My six year old granddaughter, who now has health insurance, fell and broke her arm yesterday. A trip to the emergency room, a transfer by ambulance to Johns Hopkins Hospital, an overnight stay and now she's in surgery.

Did I mention she has health insurance and that it no longer has the $20,0000 deductible.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 14:12

One of seven million.....

My six year old granddaughter, who now has health insurance, fell and broke her arm yesterday. A trip to the emergency room, a transfer by ambulance to Johns Hopkins Hospital, an overnight stay and now she's in surgery.

Did I mention she has health insurance and that it no longer has the $20,0000 deductible.

*

I am sorry that your granddaughter suffered an injury and wish her a full and speedy recovery.

I am glad that she has health insurance and not the high deductible.

I know it well.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

  • Posted by rosie Southeast 7A/B (My Page) on
    Thu, Apr 3, 14 at 14:22

Poor little one, but how merciful for fortune to hold off until now. That her parents once had a $20K deductible will be hard for her to believe someday.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

1. Sleepless: Yep, it's doing so well the deadline was extended again,"for those having problems". How many times is that now.
Sorry, the site and the sign up and the program itself are a trainwreck. I hate to think about the enactment of the actual health care. Hello VA standards for everyone.

I hadn't realized that our country was playing a nationwide tv game show where a timer will ring and it's all over. So it takes longer to get everyone signed up who wants to sign up. Who cares? The healthcare.gov web site was an outrageous scandal, yes -- but you want the poor to pay for the errors of a complacent federal contractor? I simply don't understand this point of view.

And are you seriously under the impression that the government will be fulfilling our health care claims rather than the private, for-profit institutions that have always done so? You really think your request for a second urinary catheter will land on your Senator's desk?



2. Brushworks: Mr. Obama isn't as perfect as some of you wish to portray. He's a politician, and Noam Chomsky is right, the man has no principles. He's knee deep in favors granted the insurance industry.

Brush, is your perspective so black and white that you cannot conceive of the many of us who intensely dislike Obama's methods yet approve of the ACA? Many of your fellow Americans -- like myself -- did not even vote for the current Democratic administration, yet accept and will defend the ACA as the first ugly but necessary step in our path towards a civilized, modern single-payer system.



3. Sleepless: I know more than a few who run to the doctor for every sneeze and sniffle and who believe that they have a new chronic and fatal disease on a weekly basis. [...] I really don't want them encouraged. And that is just the first and least of my complaints and concerns.

I am rather astounded to hear you, otherwise a champion of personal liberty, declare that you know better than others how much medical care they are entitled to. How much, in your view, is too much? The red herring of acquaintances with Münchausen Syndrome aside, how amazing that you want to proscribe what someone else can and can't do with their legal and paid-up medical policy. I say: None. Of. Your. Business.



4. Demi: After the elections and all of Obamacare kicks in, then the insurance companies will go away and single payer will be here and oops you're too old no pacemaker for you granny.
If you have a sore throat, a broken arm, or a ruptured appendix you'll get what you need.
Otherwise you take what they give you and hope you don't get too old and broken down to get on a chart that Barack Obama dictates you'll get a pill instead of treatment, grandma.

This sort of paranoid claim is illustrative of folks who have never had their cheapo insurance policy reneg on vital health care coverage. There is a hefty percentage of Americans who purchased what they thought was adequate coverage, only to have the insurance company deny them treatment after vital treatment. I'm happy to put you in touch with my cousin's husband who is now in bankruptcy to pay for the chemo that Aetna denied her during her final months of life with breast cancer. (They called the chemo she needed "experimental" because it had only been approved by the FDA a few months prior to her contracting the cancer. Now that she's dead, he doesn't have the time, money or energy left to pursue it in court.)

In other words, your perspective is exactly backwards: the arbitrary denial of care is exactly what the ACA is rectifying, not creating.

Only the wealthy will be able to pay for the health care they want.

The only irony is that THIS IS HOW THE SYSTEM HAS ALWAYS BEEN, PRIOR TO THE ACA, yet you somehow refuse to acknowledge this fact.

Look, I don't blame folks whose wealth (=good insurance coverage) has not allowed them to see things from this side. I'm in that boat myself. But I do think it's incumbent upon us to educate ourselves on the issue. There is a wealth of news reporting stretching back 20 years detailing the increasingly corrupt and arbitrary denials regularly practiced by our health insurance behemoths. Hell, there are Hollywood films dedicated to the theme. It's almost criminal not to be aware of this.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

I haven't seen anyone deny the problems with healthcare prior to the ACA.

I happen to think that it has and will cause more problems with access and choice to healthcare, and increase costs, than what we had before.

Have there been and will there be some good things from it?

Of course.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn.

As I have repeatedly noted, the Republicans deserved to lose because they had an opportunity to address this and did not.

Now look at the problems that are on the horizon and already people losing their insurance and doctors and premiums and deductibles escalating rapidly, and choices diminished.

We can do better--much better and shame on Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans for not doing better.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Like I said earlier......Medicare is single payer so Granny is already there....and still breathing.

Or am I to believe that the secret plan to have the ACA replace Medicare....?


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Alright, Circuspeanut! Rock on! :-)


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

"Now look at the problems that are on the horizon and already people losing their insurance and doctors and premiums and deductibles escalating rapidly, and choices diminished. "

Can you please state the source of your information, or the facts on which you base that conclusion?

Where is this taking place?

How is it taking place--how are choices being diminished?

At what rate are premiums allegedly escalating more than pre ACA?

Do you have any actual facts to support these claims ?


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Many of your fellow Americans -- like myself -- did not even vote for the current Democratic administration, yet accept and will defend the ACA as the first ugly but necessary step in our path towards a civilized, modern single-payer system.

Circuspeanut speaks for me on this one.


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

Here's where we were last year... at the link...

Comments?

Here is a link that might be useful: Last Year...


 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

 o
RE: Breaking! 6 Million...

 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here