Obamacare

[Armistead]

The Dems talking about all those signing up, but in every state I've seen, probably 99% of those joining are those going on medicaid...Course Dems are saying once the website works out, millions will join the private sector....

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The Dems talking about all those signing up, but in every state I've seen, probably 99% of those joining are those going on medicaid...Course Dems are saying once the website works out, millions will join the private sector....

Really, if it were not such a threat to the economy I would get a laugh out of this, how some are trying to defend it because obama is their savior then how those who were dumb enough to believe him are just angry and confused b ut difficult to do so when have known and now it is further confirmed what I and everyone else who oppose this law have said, it's only going to hurt the country and unfortunately, this is only the start of the pain many will feel due to this monstrosity of "law", just sad our nation was stupid enough to let this happen.

Originally Posted by Armistead

The Dems talking about all those signing up, but in every state I've seen, probably 99% of those joining are those going on medicaid...

That must be a real bugger for those states who chose to opt out of the expansion, it means they don't get the funding which is there to help cover the increased numbers which were expected.

One question.
Does the ACA get rid of the 2003 law which prevents the government from engaging in normal business practices with the health industry in regards to purchases?
For example, are they still required to pay massive corporations a fixed price per tablet regardless of if they are buying one pill or a billion of them?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The Dems talking about all those signing up, but in every state I've seen, probably 99% of those joining are those going on medicaid...Course Dems are saying once the website works out, millions will join the private sector....

I think sticker shock will turn many to pay the fine first year. Many who have been canceled are seeing premiums jump by quite a bit. Enough where their budget can't carry it. Let's face it, many were told for three years that they can keep their plan. That is what they budget for. Many where told the premiums would go down $2500 for a family of 4. This is what people budgeted for. As it turns out, the increase per month is nothing short of a new car payment. People did not budget for that. But, in the Dems eyes those canceled plans were horrible and the mean old insurance company should be ashamed. The Dems believe everyone needs maternity coverage. CDS abuse coverage. Millions don't need this coverage but are forced to pay for it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That must be a real bugger for those states who chose to opt out of the expansion, it means they don't get the funding which is there to help cover the increased numbers which were expected.

One question.
Does the ACA get rid of the 2003 law which prevents the government from engaging in normal business practices with the health industry in regards to purchases?
For example, are they still required to pay massive corporations a fixed price per tablet regardless of if they are buying one pill or a billion of them?

From what I understand the only funding to the states would pay for the states website and folks operating it. Good question. Need to check that out.

The ACA law is 2000 plus pages. We could ask Harry Reid about government practices under the law but I'm certain Reid and all the others don't know for failure to read the bill. I'm certain none know what the charge is for anything.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I have lost faith that the GOP is for smaller government. I can't remember any GOP president, in my lifetime, that moved for smaller government. All the Republicans and Democrats want to do is make specific parts of the government smaller (cut funding) while increasing other parts (increase funding).

It would not be all that bad if it was a zero gain, but both parties want to expand "their" favourite parts of the government more than cutting the parts they don't like.

End result from both parties -- increased size and cost of government.

The political spectrum in the US is not accurately depicted as a straight line (left, center, right) but more a mobius strip.

Personally I attribute the growth of federal government under both parties as the aftermath of 911. It wrote the professional politicians working in federal government a blank check. Frankly, I'm having a hard time remembering how things were before 911.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Frankly, I'm having a hard time remembering how things were before 911.

Your biggest problem was the president getting a blowjob.

From what I understand the only funding to the states would pay for the states website and folks operating it. Good question. Need to check that out.

No, the extra funding(10% of the cost) is for those who would be just above the poverty level and those who are below the poverty level but above the States level for coverage.
If you look at somewhere like Arkansas that covers a huge segment as is locally set at only 17% of federal the poverty level.

Personally I attribute the growth of federal government under both parties as the aftermath of 1776.

Fixed.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No, the extra funding(10% of the cost) is for those who would be just above the poverty level and those who are below the poverty level but above the States level for coverage.
If you look at somewhere like Arkansas that covers a huge segment as is locally set at only 17% of federal the poverty level.

Tribesman, can you send me the link for the additional Fed help if a state does design and implement their own site? I can not find any. From what I recall the option was on the table to have the Fed run the site or the state run their site. There was no benefits for either.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Your biggest problem was the president getting a blowjob.

Amazing how times have changed........

[August]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Your biggest problem was the president getting a blowjob.

No, our biggest problem was the president lying about said act under oath. If normal people do that it's called perjury.

Tribesman, can you send me the link for the additional Fed help if a state does design and implement their own site?

Cross purposes
It isn't about sites or exchanges, its about the Medicaid expansion, or rather the states which are rejecting the money for it and lumbering themselves with the cost of the uninsured who will fall above the state levels and not reach the federal subsidy level.
Kaiser is a good place for information.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by August

No, our biggest problem was the president lying about said act under oath. If normal people do that it's called perjury.

Thank you, that was always the problem, Republicans let the media spin it that they were outraged about a blowjob when majority were angry about Clinton outright lying under oath and to the american people in his infamous( "Let me tell you America") moment.I could care less he got a blow job, if obama was caught cheating, I would not care either unless he did his usual routine of lies and more lies.This country has grown up some on sexual issues since the late 90's but still far too uptight.I really could not blame Bill, imagine being married to Hillary? BLEH

[Ducimus]

You have to admit, Clinton perjuring over a blowjob is really small fry compared to what's in the skillet these days.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

You have to admit, Clinton perjuring over a blowjob is really small fry compared to what's in the skillet these days.

Yep, schoolyard antics back in the 90's.