obamacare

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Message
Author
User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

obamacare

#1 Post by LJF » Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:27 am

Just to start off, yes Romeo I'm calling it obamacare. People's views, thoughts and possible dealings with it.


This latest ruling I find very interesting and the right call. The law does in fact state that subsidies can only be given to those using state exchanges so the government must obey the law they wrote. It doesn't matter if that isn't what they meant that is what they signed into law, so how can they get around this. The WH appealed the ruling, but there is no way that the courts can come back with any other ruling besides what they just decided. So what will they do, will they try to re-write the law, I doubt that, or will this force states to make their own exchanges? Waste more money, good answer. Maybe just maybe these fuckers should have read what they were signing into law.

I also find this very interesting that the guy Jonathan Gruber that was a consultant that helped design obamacare has said that this whole thing is just the republicans trying again to blow up obamacare with baseless claims. Well the problem with that is the new video of him saying that the law says that states have to set up their own exchanges if they want the people living in the state to get subsidies,http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... r=yahootix.

If the courts do uphold this ruling and the states have to set up their own exchanges will the people that got subsidies using the federal exchange have to give that back?

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5268
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: obamacare

#2 Post by Juana » Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:48 pm

Yes they should have to give them back. Also another federal court had a differing view on the law. This law has a lot of layers to it because of how it's written and how big insurance is trying to destroy it. It should be an interesting debate going forward. I'm torn on it as I think everyone should have access to affordable health care, but I also do not think that it should be forced upon everyone if they do not want it.

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: obamacare

#3 Post by creep » Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:55 pm

Juana wrote:Yes they should have to give them back.
no they shouldn't. whether you agree with the plan or not it is not an individual's fault that their state didn't follow the rules. they were promised the subsidies and they should continue to get them until it goes away.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: obamacare

#4 Post by Pandemonium » Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:07 pm

Overall, it's proving to be a text book case of not only how inept and wasteful our government is at managing programs but how truly fucked up our legal system is. I thank God I have decent insurance through an employer and not have to deal with the government's kerfockta setup.

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: obamacare

#5 Post by creep » Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:17 pm

Pandemonium wrote:Overall, it's proving to be a text book case of not only how inept and wasteful our government is at managing programs but how truly fucked up our legal system is. I thank God I have decent insurance through an employer and not have to deal with the government's kerfockta setup.
i like the idea of it but the execution of it is all fucked up. i had a change of address under the plan. i changed my address online but they failed to tell you that when you change your address you have to pick a new plan (which makes no sense at all!). i was cancelled with no notice. luckily i didn't need coverage this month....yet. new coverage starts 8/1.

User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 2322
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: obamacare

#6 Post by Jasper » Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:23 pm

creep wrote:i had a change of address under the plan. i changed my address online but they failed to tell you that when you change your address you have to pick a new plan (which makes no sense at all!). i was cancelled with no notice.
That's ridiculous.

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: obamacare

#7 Post by LJF » Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:12 am

Pandemonium wrote:Overall, it's proving to be a text book case of not only how inept and wasteful our government is at managing programs but how truly fucked up our legal system is. I thank God I have decent insurance through an employer and not have to deal with the government's kerfockta setup.

This is why I hate big government and don't think more government programs is the answer for anything. Think about the wasted tax payer money that has been spent on this program so far and it's just getting started. There have been so many changes that have been made by the administration whenever they have felt like it.

Creep that's a joke what happened. I just wonder if the double count you as someone getting coverage when they report numbers. As I'm sure you aren't the only one to have this happen.

I'm not a fan of this program and really can't stand the way it was rolled out. Also the lie about if you like your dr and plan you can keep it.

MYXYLPLYX
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: obamacare

#8 Post by MYXYLPLYX » Sat Jul 26, 2014 7:35 am

LJF wrote:

It doesn't matter if that isn't what they meant that is what they signed into law, so how can they get around this.
NO.

Google legislative intent...

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: obamacare

#9 Post by LJF » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:04 am

MYXYLPLYX wrote:
LJF wrote:

It doesn't matter if that isn't what they meant that is what they signed into law, so how can they get around this.
NO.

Google legislative intent...

NO. explain and I use yahoo.

Also watch the video of the guy who helped write the law. The wrote it that way to force states to create their own exchanges. So clearly there was intent.

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5268
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: obamacare

#10 Post by Juana » Sat Jul 26, 2014 12:58 pm

creep wrote:
Juana wrote:Yes they should have to give them back.
no they shouldn't. whether you agree with the plan or not it is not an individual's fault that their state didn't follow the rules. they were promised the subsidies and they should continue to get them until it goes away.
I think they should have to give the federal ones back and the states should have to reimburse the individuals. The states are equally as at fault because a lot of the states were trying to kill the law for political reasons. I know that is why that scumbag Perry railed against it and refused to expand medicare/aid in TX to help facilitate things.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: obamacare

#11 Post by Hype » Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:11 pm

LJF wrote:This is why I hate big government and don't think more government programs is the answer for anything.
:banghead:

MYXYLPLYX
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: obamacare

#12 Post by MYXYLPLYX » Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:32 pm

LJF wrote:
MYXYLPLYX wrote:
LJF wrote:

It doesn't matter if that isn't what they meant that is what they signed into law, so how can they get around this.
NO.

Google legislative intent...

NO. explain and I use yahoo.

Also watch the video of the guy who helped write the law. The wrote it that way to force states to create their own exchanges. So clearly there was intent.
Ugh.

Dude, I was camping and didn't feel like tapping out an explanation on my phone - and I certainly had better things to do... but, I have a fucking JD I worked hard for and it annoys the shit out of me when people make patently false legal assertions with out any attempt to inform themselves of how the law works.

I'm home now and still don't feel like doing your homework for you. :noclue:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: obamacare

#13 Post by Hype » Mon Jul 28, 2014 6:13 am

MYXYLPLYX, this is like an ongoing worry for me... As an educator and an academic and a human being: yes, there's this thing called "rational disagreement", and yes, everyone's literally entitled to an opinion (based on whatever information they've cobbled together in whatever order inside their skulls). But at a certain point, it transitions very quickly into anti-intellectual ideology thumping... and not just from libertarians or neo-cons... it bugs the shit out of me when liberals and leftists do it too (see: Israel, for all the aforementioned groups doing it).

I try not to bother talking directly to LJF anymore (about politics... I'm sure he's worth talking to about lots of other things), because the conversation always goes the same way, and it's exhausting, but I'm fascinated by how and why. When he says "I hate big government", I think that suggests that what is being offered is a mouthpiece for ideology irrespective of context. You can't argue with a man's hatred. You can't convince him an emotion is "wrong" -- he feels it (or at least believes he does). With people in person I know who have these sorts of views and reactions, I usually just try to keep hammering hard on the emotional facts as other people with opposing experiences see/have/report them. I figure if I can provoke empathy, I can get a change of mind about the facts. But until then, it seems futile.

It's hard to believe even the most hardened anti-government teabag could really be against public funding for baseline emergency shelters for abused women and children, for example. But in Toronto, that's one of the services our giant testicle idiot of a mayor has been trying to cut. These sorts of programs only exist to make sure that extremely vulnerable people are protected -- there's nothing stopping private companies or registered charities from also providing the same, or better, services too -- but to leave a permanent, necessary service up to the whimsy of charity seems insane. Cf. American healthcare. :wink:

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: obamacare

#14 Post by LJF » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:30 am

MYXYLPLYX wrote:
LJF wrote:
MYXYLPLYX wrote:
LJF wrote:

It doesn't matter if that isn't what they meant that is what they signed into law, so how can they get around this.
NO.

Google legislative intent...

NO. explain and I use yahoo.

Also watch the video of the guy who helped write the law. The wrote it that way to force states to create their own exchanges. So clearly there was intent.
Ugh.

Dude, I was camping and didn't feel like tapping out an explanation on my phone - and I certainly had better things to do... but, I have a fucking JD I worked hard for and it annoys the shit out of me when people make patently false legal assertions with out any attempt to inform themselves of how the law works.

I'm home now and still don't feel like doing your homework for you. :noclue:

Hope you enjoyed camping. I didn't ask for it to be that exact minute and never said you did or didn't have better things to do. By your answer to what I posted I figured you were better informed, so why not get it straight from a source that knows better.

I will say again that someone who has a better understanding on how and why it was written the way it was says that was their intent well I tend to believe them. So yes I'd say it was written so the tax subsidies would only be for those that used a state exchange and not the federal exchange. They or at least those that read what they were signing should have know that.

So if you care to explain how that wasn't the intent that would be great. If you want to continue to say hey go fuck yourself that's fine also.

User avatar
LJF
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:37 pm
Location: jersey baby jersey

Re: obamacare

#15 Post by LJF » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:57 am

Adurentibus Spina wrote:MYXYLPLYX, this is like an ongoing worry for me... As an educator and an academic and a human being: yes, there's this thing called "rational disagreement", and yes, everyone's literally entitled to an opinion (based on whatever information they've cobbled together in whatever order inside their skulls). But at a certain point, it transitions very quickly into anti-intellectual ideology thumping... and not just from libertarians or neo-cons... it bugs the shit out of me when liberals and leftists do it too (see: Israel, for all the aforementioned groups doing it).

I try not to bother talking directly to LJF anymore (about politics... I'm sure he's worth talking to about lots of other things), because the conversation always goes the same way, and it's exhausting, but I'm fascinated by how and why. When he says "I hate big government", I think that suggests that what is being offered is a mouthpiece for ideology irrespective of context. You can't argue with a man's hatred. You can't convince him an emotion is "wrong" -- he feels it (or at least believes he does). With people in person I know who have these sorts of views and reactions, I usually just try to keep hammering hard on the emotional facts as other people with opposing experiences see/have/report them. I figure if I can provoke empathy, I can get a change of mind about the facts. But until then, it seems futile.

It's hard to believe even the most hardened anti-government teabag could really be against public funding for baseline emergency shelters for abused women and children, for example. But in Toronto, that's one of the services our giant testicle idiot of a mayor has been trying to cut. These sorts of programs only exist to make sure that extremely vulnerable people are protected -- there's nothing stopping private companies or registered charities from also providing the same, or better, services too -- but to leave a permanent, necessary service up to the whimsy of charity seems insane. Cf. American healthcare. :wink:


I would agree that there are programs that the government needs to provide and should provide. My problem as a tax payer is that there is so much waste. The programs don't run well and at times don't end up helping those that need the help. To me it seems the more the government gets involved in running things the more fucked up it gets. This to me is about the whole dysfunction of the US government.

For example if the courts uphold this decision and find that the subsidies were illegal, what happens next? Do those you got the subsidies have to give it back, or do they have to reapply once their state sets up an exchange? If that is the case this will be a nightmare. So you give your federal back and do this all over through the state to hopefully get the same amount. Holy shit that will be a disaster. Look what happened with creep.

My dislike is for the way this law was written and passed. For a complete overhaul of something as big as healthcare there needed to be more time and thought. Just look at how fucked this whole thing has been from the start. This will end up costing more and more because it was so badly written and implemented. Come on the president says multiple times if you like your plan and doctor you can keep them. Lie. They try to roll it out and the website doesn't even work.

So yes I don't like big government. Yes I think there are programs that the government needs to have, but in general I don't like the way they are run. I don't have the answers on how they can be fixed, but that doesn't mean I can't say I don't like the way it is run.

In general I'm sick of all the bullshit that comes out of both sides. They were elected to serve us and right now it doesn't seem like they are, either side.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: obamacare

#16 Post by Hype » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:23 am

That's a little more tempered than "I hate big government [tout court?]". But it's not clear why that's the right reaction to have to the fact that, as far as you (and people whose opinions you agree with) are concerned, certain programs aren't "running/functioning well" (what does "well" mean here? One could judge a program based on efficiency, on frugality, on expectations for results, on implementation, on how well it weathers controversy and attempts to dismantle it, or on whether a significant number of people are actually benefited by it), or certain programs are a "waste" of "taxpayer" money (if you were making use of a program, and it were helping you, wouldn't you resist and resent its being declared a "waste"?) And these concerns are distinct from concerns about whether governments should be running social programs in the first place, which are separate concerns from those of whether governments should aim to be larger or smaller at any given point in time (on what measure is a government "big" or "small"? A government may have very many programs and offices all run by a very small number of people, or it may have only one or two offices run by thousands of people... In either case, there's no way to say outside of context whether it should be smaller. The problem with simply talking about "big government" in this way is that it assumes that some problem (which is assumed to be a problem) is caused by the size of government, rather than by something else. This isn't helpful because it rests on two assumptions that simply may not be shared by others whose lives may be negatively affected if their view is not taken seriously. This is, of course, true for both detractors of "large" government programs (again, it's not clear what this means), and for people who want more help from the government. Recall FEMA's failures after Katrina. How do we decide whether the solution there is to get rid of "big government" FEMA, or to try to fix FEMA, or to implement a new, potentially better program, or to create a committee tasked with making sure disaster responses are better coordinated? Why should anyone just accept that "big government" should always be "smaller"? Why is this the guiding principle for thinking about governance for so many people? Why should we treat reality so starkly?

User avatar
Essence_Smith
Posts: 2224
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm

Re: obamacare

#17 Post by Essence_Smith » Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:14 am

I am not the most informed when it comes to how this act is supposed to work, nor how badly it's been executed, but I do know how it is to have a serious medical condition and be refused treatment because you don't have insurance. I literally needed surgery a few years ago and was turned away at a half dozen hospitals...I was told unless it was life threatening I would just have to be in pain. I mention this to say when we have these discussions about wasteful government spending and take the time to point out all the flaws in a changing system we shouldn't forget why we need these laws in place and the people that benefit by them. People say "government" and "the poor", etc and forget that we're talking about PEOPLE. The human element seems to get lost in the conversation. There's no question in my mind that we need universal health care...what does it say about americans in general that so many people are tearing this apart and trying to use it as an example of how government gets it wrong? Nothing the scope of this bill will come off without a hitch...I'm sure there was a shitstorm when they integrated the schools and ended segregation too... I don't take part in these discussions too often because I feel like people have different agendas aside from reaching an understanding with one another. Regardless of how it's being executed at the moment, can we agree that we do NEED affordable healthcare for all?

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5268
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: obamacare

#18 Post by Juana » Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:13 pm

Yes, I think we should all have access to health care if we want it. That is part of the reason we offer UHC to the workers at the bar that work there FT. We do not have to but its something that I felt was important.

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: obamacare

#19 Post by Hype » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:19 am

Juana wrote:Yes, I think we should all have access to health care if we want it. That is part of the reason we offer UHC to the workers at the bar that work there FT. We do not have to but its something that I felt was important.
I don't want to sound like some random guy on the internet telling you how to run your business, but as a moral philosopher, and a human being, I have to say: you really ought to consider offering an option to your PT workers as well, even if it costs a little extra money. The benefit from your end is PT workers who are less stressed, less sick, etc., and more willing to work hard for you. In my experience it's absolutely awful for people who need things like Adderall or anti-depressants and are struggling to maintain a part-time job to not be able to have help paying for medication. In these cases, the lack of access to these drugs effectively puts them at a huge disadvantage at work, and puts the employer at risk of having flakey employees who don't show up on time or at all, don't do their jobs properly, or start doing weird shit while at work (like stealing, or being rude to customers, or damaging property). And a lot of this is easy to fix for not a whole lot of money from the perspective of the employer (and long-term I wager that it's actually LESS expensive if you work out the math on the plans right.)

creep
Site Admin
Posts: 10341
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:51 am

Re: obamacare

#20 Post by creep » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:30 am

Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Juana wrote:Yes, I think we should all have access to health care if we want it. That is part of the reason we offer UHC to the workers at the bar that work there FT. We do not have to but its something that I felt was important.
I don't want to sound like some random guy on the internet telling you how to run your business, but as a moral philosopher, and a human being, I have to say: you really ought to consider offering an option to your PT workers as well, even if it costs a little extra money. The benefit from your end is PT workers who are less stressed, less sick, etc., and more willing to work hard for you. In my experience it's absolutely awful for people who need things like Adderall or anti-depressants and are struggling to maintain a part-time job to not be able to have help paying for medication. In these cases, the lack of access to these drugs effectively puts them at a huge disadvantage at work, and puts the employer at risk of having flakey employees who don't show up on time or at all, don't do their jobs properly, or start doing weird shit while at work (like stealing, or being rude to customers, or damaging property). And a lot of this is easy to fix for not a whole lot of money from the perspective of the employer (and long-term I wager that it's actually LESS expensive if you work out the math on the plans right.)
with obamacare it's not needed. if they only work part time they would most likely get pretty large subsidies and they can get insurance themselves for a couple dollars a month.

User avatar
Romeo
Posts: 2964
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: St. andrews

Re: obamacare

#21 Post by Romeo » Thu Jul 31, 2014 6:41 am

Essence_Smith wrote:I am not the most informed when it comes to how this act is supposed to work, nor how badly it's been executed, but I do know how it is to have a serious medical condition and be refused treatment because you don't have insurance. I literally needed surgery a few years ago and was turned away at a half dozen hospitals...I was told unless it was life threatening I would just have to be in pain. I mention this to say when we have these discussions about wasteful government spending and take the time to point out all the flaws in a changing system we shouldn't forget why we need these laws in place and the people that benefit by them. People say "government" and "the poor", etc and forget that we're talking about PEOPLE. The human element seems to get lost in the conversation. There's no question in my mind that we need universal health care...what does it say about americans in general that so many people are tearing this apart and trying to use it as an example of how government gets it wrong? Nothing the scope of this bill will come off without a hitch...I'm sure there was a shitstorm when they integrated the schools and ended segregation too... I don't take part in these discussions too often because I feel like people have different agendas aside from reaching an understanding with one another. Regardless of how it's being executed at the moment, can we agree that we do NEED affordable healthcare for all?
AND if I might add...

Who is it to say that only those with money get better healthcare options than those without. IT'S HEALTHCARE.

Image

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: obamacare

#22 Post by Hype » Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:01 am

creep wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Juana wrote:Yes, I think we should all have access to health care if we want it. That is part of the reason we offer UHC to the workers at the bar that work there FT. We do not have to but its something that I felt was important.
I don't want to sound like some random guy on the internet telling you how to run your business, but as a moral philosopher, and a human being, I have to say: you really ought to consider offering an option to your PT workers as well, even if it costs a little extra money. The benefit from your end is PT workers who are less stressed, less sick, etc., and more willing to work hard for you. In my experience it's absolutely awful for people who need things like Adderall or anti-depressants and are struggling to maintain a part-time job to not be able to have help paying for medication. In these cases, the lack of access to these drugs effectively puts them at a huge disadvantage at work, and puts the employer at risk of having flakey employees who don't show up on time or at all, don't do their jobs properly, or start doing weird shit while at work (like stealing, or being rude to customers, or damaging property). And a lot of this is easy to fix for not a whole lot of money from the perspective of the employer (and long-term I wager that it's actually LESS expensive if you work out the math on the plans right.)
with obamacare it's not needed. if they only work part time they would most likely get pretty large subsidies and they can get insurance themselves for a couple dollars a month.
If that's true, then the Affordable Care Act provides better care than the public healthcare in Canada, since up here, e.g., OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) doesn't cover certain things (which is why people still need coverage from their employers) -- I'm pretty sure they don't cover the cost of things like prozac/zoloft, adderall, etc., which is really stupid, since these things are like baseline needs for some people to even be able to get up and go to work effectively in the first place.

User avatar
Juana
Posts: 5268
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:52 pm

Re: obamacare

#23 Post by Juana » Thu Jul 31, 2014 7:23 pm

creep wrote:
Adurentibus Spina wrote:
Juana wrote:Yes, I think we should all have access to health care if we want it. That is part of the reason we offer UHC to the workers at the bar that work there FT. We do not have to but its something that I felt was important.
I don't want to sound like some random guy on the internet telling you how to run your business, but as a moral philosopher, and a human being, I have to say: you really ought to consider offering an option to your PT workers as well, even if it costs a little extra money. The benefit from your end is PT workers who are less stressed, less sick, etc., and more willing to work hard for you. In my experience it's absolutely awful for people who need things like Adderall or anti-depressants and are struggling to maintain a part-time job to not be able to have help paying for medication. In these cases, the lack of access to these drugs effectively puts them at a huge disadvantage at work, and puts the employer at risk of having flakey employees who don't show up on time or at all, don't do their jobs properly, or start doing weird shit while at work (like stealing, or being rude to customers, or damaging property). And a lot of this is easy to fix for not a whole lot of money from the perspective of the employer (and long-term I wager that it's actually LESS expensive if you work out the math on the plans right.)
with obamacare it's not needed. if they only work part time they would most likely get pretty large subsidies and they can get insurance themselves for a couple dollars a month.
What creep said also most bars do not offer any types of benefits so the fact I was able to talk my partners into it in the first place was a huge win. But the cost to benefit ratio for PTers (we consider 30 hours scheduled FT) would cut into the margins to a point where my partners would likely scrap insurance all together. So in this case its win some lose some and just be happy that I got a couple of TX born and bred "this is an at will state" types to bend on the health care. It should also be noted that because of this I only get 25% of the profits while they get to split 75%. So I took a big risk in going that route financially (hence the bars being my PT income now). But the good that came out of this is everyone wants to work for us now. So eventually we're going to have an entire block of bars. :rockon:

User avatar
Hype
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:44 pm

Re: obamacare

#24 Post by Hype » Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:55 pm

Ah, okay, I see how that's a small, though Pyrrhic, victory. Of course, I'd be for your employees unionizing, too, if they're not already. :hehe:

User avatar
SR
Posts: 7838
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:56 pm

Re: obamacare

#25 Post by SR » Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:17 pm

Obamacare doesn't cover flower pots.

Post Reply