Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
its welfare.. As I stated already, does it matter what its called? If you move people from one government program to another, the net cost is the same along with how its funded.
All of us (you included) receive help, aid, credits (welfare if you wish to call it that) from the gov't.
The defintion of medicaid = health care for the needy; a federally and state-funded program
Isnt that what the ACA subsidy is?
The ACA subsidy isn't the same as a government ran health care insurance program
A subsidy helps you buy a PRIVATE insurance plan.
I'm guessing federal employees are on medicaid to since their premiums are partially paid by their employer (the government) who collects their revenue from the public taxpayer.
Im also guessing that with your argument, that the VA and Tricare is also medicaid, since its federally funded.
I seriously want to kick a puppy after reading your point of view.....and I love puppies
Do you always imagine what others feel in order so you can imagine that money to pay will come from magical unicorns and leprechans?
Tell me where the money is coming from? WHy do you continue to ignore the question?
You know where the money is coming from taxes..Look at your own charts. A lot of these people will be paying taxes to support programs like Medicare, Tricare, VA, and the rest of government. You dont have any problems with the near 750 billion spent on those health care programs do you. The ACA will be 1/7th that amount but for you the sky is falling.
All of us (you included) receive help, aid, credits (welfare if you wish to call it that) from the gov't.
The old "you didnt build it" reply..
Quote:
Originally Posted by cxr89
The ACA subsidy isn't the same as a government ran health care insurance program
A subsidy helps you buy a PRIVATE insurance plan.
I'm guessing federal employees are on medicaid to since their premiums are partially paid by their employer (the government) who collects their revenue from the public taxpayer.
Im also guessing that with your argument, that the VA and Tricare is also medicaid, since its federally funded.
I seriously want to kick a puppy after reading your point of view.....and I love puppies
Actually it is the same, since the government contracts out their services to the private insurance industry already..
You know where the money is coming from taxes..Look at your own charts. A lot of these people will be paying taxes to support programs like Medicare, Tricare, VA, and the rest of government.
So you admit its coming from taxes, but keep babbling on **** about people reducing their tax obligations and pretending its the same..
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
You dont have any problems with the near 750 billion spent on those health care programs do you. The ACA will be 1/7th that amount but for you the sky is falling.
Actually I do have a problem with most of those things but ACA is supposed to generate $1T surplus over a decade to the federal government. How can that happen if it only involves 1/7th of that total?
If all states had agreed to expand medicaid, would you consent that this number would be lower? Why or why not?
This is not an Obamacare issue. This issue has been ongoing before the ACA came into play. More doctors before the ACA were going cash only because they hated being bogged down by the insurance industry bureaucracy red tape. As I have stated before, I am truly am sorry that the ACA is hurting some individuals. I really wish we could reform the healthcare system were all would benefit...but this is the real world and no such thing exists.
But it seems to me where people are suffering the most are states that are fighting tooth and nail to prevent implementation of the ACA. As i have stated multiple times, the ACA plans where I live are really great and are extremely affordable. A 19 year old can get a platinum plan, no deductible for 149 a month, and that covers meds, rehab and all other goodies. Before, to get a similar plan via ehealth insurance, that plan would have cost at least 300 and you would have to have perfect health. A silver plan with a 2k deductible goes for about 110 a month..........all with out ANY subsidies.
Love it when peeps say 19 year old can get $149/month no deductible plat plan. The max in network expense for those "platinum plans are still around $2000 because of co insurance cost. One emergency appendectomy can make those co pays hit $2000.
Read the fine print.
Guess what those same 19 year old could have gotten in 2013 pre ACA. $100/month high quality HSA tax advantaged max in network deductible of $2500. After $2500 everything is covered including drugs. And preventive services are all paid for outside of the deductible.
I posted. pics from ehealthinsurance on many posts previously. So it's pointless showing them again.
And yes. Most 19 year olds are healthy and the "vast majority" as defined by President Obama would have qualify for those nice $100/month plans with max out of pocket $2500 pre ACA.
The reality is the hospital in question closed because Georgia decided not to expand medicaid. The poor are the ones who welch on bills they can't pay and not expanding medicaid causes hospitals to experience financial problems. That is why in blue states, or really just any state which has expanded medicaid, hasn't had such problems while red states which punished their populations have. It really is the fault of local politicians. Alternet has done a nice expose on this topic.
The reality is the hospital in question closed because Georgia decided not to expand medicaid. The poor are the ones who welch on bills they can't pay and not expanding medicaid causes hospitals to experience financial problems. That is why in blue states, or really just any state which has expanded medicaid, hasn't had such problems while red states which punished their populations have. It really is the fault of local politicians. Alternet has done a nice expose on this topic.
Wait till the Feds cut the Medicaid expansion funding to the states. It's hook line and sinked for the states that opted in.
They would have expanded Medicaid. And now the Feds won't be 100%/90% generous and want to revert back to the 55-45 fed/state ratio. That would destroy states budgets. The Feds have already hinted pulling back on the 100% matching the first 3 years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
