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.
He should have taken more responsibility for his future....
Teeheez.
according to some of the posters here, only those "other" poor people should be responsible for the future, there are some poor people who are acceptable.
Another liberal wanting everything........................................ .............. for free!
Who is going to pay for this? Ultimately, someone must pay; in all cases, the liberals want someone else to pay for these things and do not want to pony up a dime themselves.
Let's look at the liberal "want list"
1. Free healthcare for everyone
2. Free college education
3. Free or subsidized daycare
4. Foodstamps and Free housing
5. Full economic support for more and more illegal aliens with no skills
6. High speed rail system (what on earth for?)
7. MORE MONEY (despite the fact that we spend the most in the world) for education- maybe it is the breakdown of the family and lack of emphasis on education that is causing poor test scores and not lack of money.
8. "tax refunds" for illegals who never paid taxes
We live in a world of limited resources and one must allocate those resources appropriately. As a poster noted above, the best solution to "the uninsured" would have been to roll them into mediare and increase the payroll tax to cover them.
Dems actually introduced a bill doing just that. Republicans blocked it. Remember the United States National Health Care Act?
The ACA is largely a conservative bill. Liberals prefer and offered a medicare expansion bill.
Your post is more proof that no matter what Dems bring up regarding healthcare, republican will block it. This is why no one really think republicans are serious about doing anything about healthcare.
Lets take a walk down memory lane.
Hillarycare called for an employer mandate. Republicans said no and countered with the "personal responsibility" mandate. THis mandate is in the ACA.
Hillarycare wanted single payer. Republicans wanted exchanges. Exchanges are now in the ACA.
Hillarycare wanted single payer. Republicans wanted minimum standards of coverage. The ACA sets minimum standards in coverage.
Hillarycare called for single payer. Republicans wanted vouchers for the poor to go out and purchase private insurance. The ACA provided subsidys to poor people for private insurance, which Republicans are now trying to get repealed.
Why would anyone take Republicans seriously and think Republicans are bargaining in good faith, when it comes to healthcare reform??
Dems actually introduced a bill doing just that. Republicans blocked it. Remember the United States National Health Care Act?
The ACA is largely a conservative bill. Liberals prefer and offered a medicare expansion bill.
Your post is more proof that no matter what Dems bring up regarding healthcare, republican will block it. This is why no one really think republicans are serious about doing anything about healthcare.
Lets take a walk down memory lane.
Hillarycare called for an employer mandate. Republicans said no and countered with the "personal responsibility" mandate. THis mandate is in the ACA.
Hillarycare wanted single payer. Republicans wanted exchanges. Exchanges are now in the ACA.
Hillarycare wanted single payer. Republicans wanted minimum standards of coverage. The ACA sets minimum standards in coverage.
Hillarycare called for single payer. Republicans wanted vouchers for the poor to go out and purchase private insurance. The ACA provided subsidys to poor people for private insurance, which Republicans are now trying to get repealed.
Why would anyone take Republicans seriously and think Republicans are bargaining in good faith, when it comes to healthcare reform??
So, you spent two days whining about your 'dilemma' and now you claim you were trying to prove a point? We all know that the ACA does not cover people who are medicare eligible, so who were you trying to make this argument to, yourself?
Actually, 2sleepy, it is even worse than that (the concept of ACA and Medicare and Medicaid all use different criteria for eligibility) so look at this example:
-- ACA uses MAGI (Modified Adjusted Gross Income) to determine eligibility, which essentially only looks at earned income, and not income from investments. It also does not include income from private disability insurance, as that is not taxable.
-- A person is not eligible for ACA if their MAGI is too low (the argument is, 'how will you pay the ACA premiums?', even if your savings could)
-- Medicare requires you to be 65 (or whatever)
-- Medicaid requires that you have less than a certain amount of assets, overall (they DO look at savings)
Thus, if you flunk these three criteria, the only healthcare you can get is through private insurance (or pay cash). If you are a high-risk or pre-existing condition person (who needs good health insurance most of all), I have seen premiums for them as much as $2000/month, and the coverage is mediocre.
Only the government can come up with such ridiculous insurance plans.
The good news is that healthcare costs at many hospitals will start to stabilize (for example, my insurance provider currently pays the hospital $6 to give me a Tylenol, to offset the cost of those who don't pay at all) by having the best hospitals privatize. If you show up to the ER there, and your situation is not life-threatening, and you have no insurance or cannot pay the copay right then, they will gladly call you a taxi to go somewhere else. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, and all the equipment needed are not provided as a charity.
Not sure if realize it, but you seem to be making my point. As you said, neither side had enough votes to get a bill passed. Now, the ACA has the things Rep were asking for, and now they are trying the very items they asked for, that are now part of the ACA. For example the Reps wanted vouchers for low income people to get private insurance. Those subsidys are now in the ACA, But the Reps are in court trying to get the very thing they asked for, repealed.
Congress then is not Congress now.
Different people in these elected positions.
Actually, 2sleepy, it is even worse than that (the concept of ACA and Medicare and Medicaid all use different criteria for eligibility) so look at this example:
-- ACA uses MAGI (Modified Adjusted Gross Income) to determine eligibility, which essentially only looks at earned income, and not income from investments. It also does not include income from private disability insurance, as that is not taxable.
-- A person is not eligible for ACA if their MAGI is too low (the argument is, 'how will you pay the ACA premiums?', even if your savings could)
-- Medicare requires you to be 65 (or whatever)
-- Medicaid requires that you have less than a certain amount of assets, overall (they DO look at savings)
Thus, if you flunk these three criteria, the only healthcare you can get is through private insurance (or pay cash). If you are a high-risk or pre-existing condition person (who needs good health insurance most of all), I have seen premiums for them as much as $2000/month, and the coverage is mediocre.
Only the government can come up with such ridiculous insurance plans.
The good news is that healthcare costs at many hospitals will start to stabilize (for example, my insurance provider currently pays the hospital $6 to give me a Tylenol, to offset the cost of those who don't pay at all) by having the best hospitals privatize. If you show up to the ER there, and your situation is not life-threatening, and you have no insurance or cannot pay the copay right then, they will gladly call you a taxi to go somewhere else. Hospitals, doctors, nurses, and all the equipment needed are not provided as a charity.
Every state had the opportunity to opt into expanded medicaid, the state that floorist lives in, Missouri opted not to. He claims to be on SSDI and states that he has been for several years (since before he was 65) if so he had the opportunity to receive medicare for a premium of $104 a month, but he said he didn't like it or didn't want to pay for it so never signed up, as a result his premium has gone up due to a 10% penalty for opting out of part B.
Since he claims to be so poor that he can't come up with the medicare premium, then I would assume that excessive assets would not be a problem, if he is married then the monthly income cap for a married couple to get medicaid in Missouri is $1129 with no "pay down". He claims to get "less" than $1200 from SSDI, so I will assume that he gets $1190. If that is the case his "pay down" would be $61 a month, for that his part B premium would be paid, as well as all his medicare co-pays, deductibles and drug costs. If he can't come up with $61 a month he could move to a state with expanded medicaid.
I'm not defending the ACA, I think there are problems with it, but states that decided to play partisan politics with the poor by not opting in to expanded medicaid do not make the program a failure, the ACA was designed so that all states would have expanded medicaid.
Why is it when posters start a thread blaming ACA for such woes?..They don't even bother to look at what the law provides to the STATES?????? IF a state isn't willing to accept fundings ..fine..then of course for those STATES that finally after 58+ efforts of Congress to defund some of THE particular States finally accepts it....Then calls FOUL!!!
Give me a flipped break..Those same states denied State sponsored access for their citizens to gain ACA thru them..so their citizens went to the Federal Sites ( in Supreme Court as I type)..to apply...These Red State's refusing fundings have cause most of this grief..and suddenly claiming don't have the comedy after paying out for the Medicare is stupid accountings on their part..THEY could have received 100% funding for that portion like 2 years ago..BUT Nope..WHAT a bunch of silliness!! ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion
Please read on the facts ( posting snippets will not suffice in this matter) and figure it out..plenty of map's outlining which states are doing fine.and other ( those denying any federal assistance or asking for exemptions) for the one's now squawking !!
Why Single Payer never passed muster back in 20o9 never made sense to me ??Unless and of course I remember Lobbying by huge stake holders forced congress to compromise...something that has rarely occurred in the past 5 years!!
However the Supreme Court, not the administration decided that states did not have to expand medicaid, if not for that everyone would be insured, so cry me a river...
nonsense. The plan wasnt to put everyone on medicaid, it was to get PAYING customers. more excuses from the left.
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.
