BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Jul 12 - 10:44 AM

@Ebbie & Amos: brilliant and cogent comments, both.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jul 12 - 09:28 AM

Kinda the same way carbon dioxide is creative when you open a Coke.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jul 12 - 02:26 AM

I won't bother responding to your last two or three posts- looking at the link it seems to me that you thought you were on a different thread...

But looking at this: "what REALLY pisses them off, is that mine are usually more witty, incisive and creative..so I get even a worse rep!!)", I realize that I am severely lacking in humor because, frankly, I have never considered you "witty, incisive and creative". Well, maybe I can give you "creative"- you do seem to have a different take on a lot of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 12 - 01:29 AM

jeez..what a ding-dong!..I forgot to post the link to my previous post..so here it is!!

OK..Now it will make sense!

Good night, folks!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 12 - 01:24 AM

No sooner was I closing down, and getting ready to get off the computer, when I closed Mudcat, and it went to my home page, which had this topic, to click on..so I did....read it carefully....note the characters named, and who they worked for, and who appointed him to his administration....and then tell me, that I've been wrong all this time!!!
I hope Little Hawk is reading, as 999 and Ake..and a few others...WE 'get it'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jul 12 - 01:14 AM

Huh???...Jeez, from your last post, it sounds like you are doing lines.
but nonetheless, I'm really glad you are having an interesting time with nature...have you ever noticed, that after spending time in nature, that the shift of one's mindset, to start thinking about politics, is as far as east is to west??
We should ALL spend more time in nature!!...then you'd all understand that politics just isn't our nature..or natural environment!! ..and furthermore, politics is not as inspiring as spending time in nature, and the creativity it brings...nor beauty....one is peaceful and orderly, and the other is chaotic, and very warlike.....and not only that, a good sense of humor and music comes from God....maybe even 'Mother Nature'!!

The irony of politics, is that those who embrace Obamacare, and hate Romney..is that Romney came up with the identical model of Obamacare,(or assigned someone to put it together) from which we have what we have now....and yet, a lot of the left, hate Romney!!..My position is that they are both pretty much the same, AS EVIDENCE should have given you a clue, working on the behalf of those behind the scenes, pulling the strings, to accomplish the same goal!...Now as it is, we are saddled with this huge monstrosity, which should by all accounts bankrupt the country, only to be 'saved' by whatever concoction of a government they'll decide what it should be. It will neither be liberal nor conservative, but you can bet your bottom dollar(if you'll have any left), that it will be a mega oppressive, domineering tyranny..with the gloves off!!!...They have put in place all the bureaucracy, and infrastructure and 'laws' and programs, complete with internment camps to just about pull it off...and now they'll have the 'justification'....'Patriotic participation to pull ourselves out of bankruptcy'...and if you don't co-operate, or are not productive enough...off you go!
As for me...I'm just going to play and compose music...and of course talk to you fine folks, and try to nudge you to do the same....and NOT participate in the destruction of our country, and the inhabitants thereof!
Romney is a liar??..of course he is...and so is Obama..how much proof do you need???...Just look at the title of this thread!!...and repeatedly, he said it wasn't a tax..matter of fact, he said the same AFTER the Supreme Court ruled it as such!!
congress is going to whip up a repeal of it...the Senate won't pass it, those who vote against it, will probably not be re-elected to the majority...Romney will have the House and Senate...but why should he repeal his own baby????....OR..Obama will somehow pull it off, and win..but not the Congress....and we still go bankrupt. Figure it out for yourselves. It is as predictable as hearing a cadence, in music, and anticipating the resolve.(the 'one' note). don Firth could probably explain that to the musicians in here who don't understand 'music theory-speak'...but your ears will tell you!
Spend more time in nature....with your instrument....you'll see it all clearly!!..sing and play to God, in nature.....and you'll know your part!!

Regards!
GfS

..and P.S. Ebbie, my previous post was only meant as satire(as opposed to this one)..and hope it might have brought a wry grin on your mug!!....if not, well...'You can keep your hat on....'

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 11:22 PM

Sorry, GfinS but I'm a little too rattled fromm a very interesting evening with nature to read your post with a cognizant mind but...

...look above the line... I know you don't do above the line but...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 10:34 PM

Medicare/AID does provide pretty good care....problem is, and I'm sure many people in here have seen this, when you go into MANY doctor's offices, and see a little sign on the wall, "We Do Not Accept Medicaid Patients-Thank You"...and more and more that is the rule...and the reason is, they will tell you that the paperwork is too much hassle, and they have to wait too long to get reimbursement....if you go into a doctor's office and use insurance, often there is a co-pay, until you've used up your deductible for the year, then there is no charge after that....AND with the co-pay, the price is generally higher, when the insurance and the cash is combined. IF you PAY cash, with NO insurance, usually the cost is at least 1/3 less than the insurance, with or without co-pay, reason is the paperwork....and then there are some doctors, who also work in reduced costs or free clinics, either one day a week, or a couple a month...same doctor, same care, but it's affordable, or free.
...and that's the way it is.

Don Firth: "If anyone around here comes on like a bellicose drunk, it's GoofuS!"


I don't drink...another one of your misconceptions...no pun intended!!



Ebbie: "Caustic, barbed statements do not induce civil and informative answers."

I have found that Akenaton is very polite, and informative until he is needlessly attacked for presenting FACTS, contrary to politically dogmatic parrots...and even then, I've seen him display quite a generous amount of forbearance! ..You might want to check the post BEFORE his, to see the caustic crap being thrown his way.
...(Same with me, but that's a different story..I get attacked for an interpretation of something I never said..and then I fire back..and what REALLY pisses them off, is that mine are usually more witty, incisive and creative..so I get even a worse rep!!)

For instance, once in a while, some clown brings up the 'Tin Foil Hat' thing...which, when I first read it, I thought it was funny...and then people get into arguing about who's wearing the 'tin foil hat' or 'No I'm not', and/or 'Yes you are'...etc, etc....and things get petty and nasty, on a rather juvenile level......But in YOUR case, instead of arguing about a 'Tin Foil Hat', if I disagreed with you....I'd be nice and not argue about a 'Tin Foil Hat'..but go
HERE!

Waving!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 09:34 PM

"Is there any 'safety net' for poor sick people? Is president Obama suggesting that they just die quietly?"

Ake, read my post just above yours. President Obama is trying to improve on what already exists in some states and make it nationwide.

By the way, your second sentence there drips with sarcasm. A clear tip-off of your preconceptions.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 08:46 PM

"Is there any "safety net" for poor sick people?
Is president Obama suggesting that they just die quietly? "

See, right there is why I hesitate to engage you in conversation, ake. Caustic, barbed statements do not induce civil and informative answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 08:20 PM

I'm not sure what the "levy" is that you refer to, but a person who develops a major illness, or any other covered medical condition, and meets neither the requirements for Medicare nor Medicaid (the latter varies from state to state) and cannot afford to pay for his own insurance, is supposed to receive a grant to allow him to enroll in the lowest-cost plan that meets all requirements. This doesn't go into effect for a couple of years yet, and exactly how it will work in practice is still very much a moving target.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 08:17 PM

One of the provisions of the ACA is to extend the benefits of Medicare to a larger pool of those even under 65 who cannot afford insured service, as I understand it.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 07:27 PM

Thank you Ebbs
I think the thread was "America again" its on the board now, or perhaps just dropped off.

So what is to happen to a person of say forty, who develops cancer, cant afford the levy and does not meet the criteria you quoted?

Is there any "safety net" for poor sick people?
Is president Obama suggesting that they just die quietly?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 07:25 PM

Washington State, where I live, and perhaps all states (but I'm not totally sure about this) have a system called "Medicaid," which will take care of those people who do not qualify for Medicare, but who are below the poverty line, need emergency care, and are simply unable to pay. I'm not sure what all the qualifications are, but it is paid for by state taxes I believe.

But no, this certainly could not replace the Affordable Health Care Act.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 07:01 PM

"On another thread Becky said that inthe US, anyone on the breadline qualified for Medicare." ake

What thread was that, ake? There is an apparent misunderstanding. That is not the function of Medicare. Medicare is for the support of people of 65 and over, or of dependents (until age 18) of a deceased person or of - wait, here is the official word:

"Before age 65, you are eligible for free Medicare hospital insurance if:

    You have been entitled to Social Security disability benefits for 24 months; or
    You receive a disability pension from the railroad retirement board and meet certain conditions; or
    If you receive Social Security disability benefits because you have Lou Gehrig's disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis); or
    You worked long enough in a government job where Medicare taxes were paid and you meet the requirements of the Social Security disability program; or
    You are the child or widow(er) age 50 or older, including a divorced widow(er), of someone who has worked long enough in a government job where Medicare taxes were paid and you meet the requirements of the Social Security disability program.
    You have permanent kidney failure and you receive maintenance dialysis or a kidney transplant and:
       You are eligible for or receive monthly benefits under Social Security or the railroad retirement system; or
       You have worked long enough in a Medicare-covered government job; or
       You are the child or spouse (including a divorced spouse) of a worker (living or deceased) who has worked long enough under Social Security or in a Medicare-covered government job."

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 05:19 PM

Jack...On another thread Becky said that inthe US, anyone on the breadline qualified for Medicare....to answer my query about what was to happen to those who could not afford the new levy.

Now you say that only those over 65 qualify.
So....what DOES happen to those who cant pay?

"Curiouser and curiouser" said Alice

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 04:47 PM

From: GUEST,999 - PM
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 02:30 PM

josepp, he was attacked and that response though not cool was at least in line with what people were saying to him. So, I do not agree with you.

I missed this before...

The "attack"

Wrongman = 100% TeaPublican and

...liar!!!

The response...

I don't have to justify myself to you, you hysterical jackoff.

Keeping in mind that wronger who was the guy who warned us that Obama was going to put us on his "kill list" because police departments were "thinking about" "Arming" Drones. I think that 999 is right that the response was not cool.

I still wonder why 999 feels the need to try to offer the protection of his massive accumulated good will. Wronger seems like he can handle himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 02:11 PM

Bob doesn't need protests or protection from me- let me just agree that the statement from GfS is ludicrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 01:53 PM

That auto mileage comparison if a bad one, if you figure in the cost of the new vehicle as well as the environmental damage involved in mining of raw materials and energy needed to fabricate your gas saver.

(OK, not strictly pertinent, but the thought came to mind).

GodforSaken guest, it was Jack the Sailor who said that Bobert was always fair, etc. not me.
(However, I don't quarrel with his assessment)

It is good practice to delete or ignore unsolicited emails; this treatment should apply to posts from non-members unless they are honest requests concerning music in some form.
If we ignore this trolling pest, eventually he (she, it) will go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 01:35 PM

If anyone around here comes on like a bellicose drunk, it's GoofuS!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 01:13 PM

>>>""Many people see Bobert, as the resident drunk, when he answers other people's post as he does.""
Your own long winded ramblings seem much more akin to the utterances of the well oiled lush than Bobert's.<<<

You think so? Doesn't everyone think that GfS usually, posts like a meth head??

Hyper, grandiose, paranoid.....

Just asking??

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 12:54 PM

""Many people see Bobert, as the resident drunk, when he answers other people's post as he does.""

Name some!

Your own long winded ramblings seem much more akin to the utterances of the well oiled lush than Bobert's.

Behind that down home hillbilly persona that he often adopts, Bobert seems to have a keen and incisive mind, and he says what he thinks in a clear and unmistakeable fashion.

The bottom line is that he, in common with several others here, talks about issues, as well as expressing his opinion of those who seek power, an opinion to which he is just as entitled as you are to yours.

The difference is that your opinion is never clear except when denigrating other forum members who fail to recognise your self proclaimed genius.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 12:41 PM

"...a photograph in the UK Times showing a Medicare treatment area....I think it was Chicago, the area was like a huge warehouse and there were dozens of patients on trollies lying in rows with perhaps two or three health workers walking round...it all seemed very primitive." ake

This is a classic example of misunderstanding each other's countries. There is NO way that this scene would happen with Medicare; it is simply not the way Medicare works.

I don't believe that it would be MedicAID either. Medicaid is "needs-based" but people sign up for it. It is an official plan; it is not a random method.

So, the photo you saw must have have been of a free clinic, as JtS suggested. If that was Chicago, or some other large city, I suppose a "huge warehouse" setting could happen.

A couple of times a year many towns and cities advertise free medical services where medical personnel offer blood pressure checks, AIDS blood work, dental checkups and other stand-alone services. I think the aim is to encourage the populace to follow through on perceived problems. The goal is a healthier society.

Some of the 'patients' are homeless, of course, but many others are simply taking advantage of a quick checkup.

I don't know whether other countries have similar services.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 12:35 PM

Bobert:
Try again. A car getting 45 mpg would burn 333.33 gallons over 15,000 miles----a net saving over the 30 mpg car of 166.67 gallons.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 12:23 PM

You have to be 65 years old for Medicare.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 11:57 AM

Thanks Jack you may well be right, but if Medicare works so well, why would this program be needed?
It rather answers my question..no?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 11:38 AM

Bobert, I know you realize this but I will put it forth for the benefit of others.

The math that counts is this.

Say you want to implement Medicare For All, with as someone else has said a 1 to 2% Admin costs. If marketed as an insurance product That would put the Insurance companies out of business.

If there is no law limiting how much of the insurance premiums can be spent on things other than providing service, In a trillion dollar industry, with no alternative other than to defeat you or go out of business, how much of their client's money would the insurance companies spend to defeat you?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 11:27 AM

Ake, I think I know what you saw. If I am right that was not medicare. It was a free program where doctors and dentists volunteer their services for the uninsured.

Basically a doctor said, if we can have there programs in Haiti and other 3rd world places, why can't we do it here?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 11:23 AM

Thank you Greg, Art, Dick,...very interesting.
It seems so different to the service we have and take so much for granted.

The reason I asked about quality of service, was a photograph in the UK Times showing a Medicare treatment area....I think it was Chicago, the area was like a huge warehouse and there were dozens of patients on trollies lying in rows with perhaps two or three health workers walking round...it all seemed very primitive.

Good enough for the poor?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 11:16 AM

15,000 miles = 500 gal savings

So if you want to save another 500 gallons then the next swap need to be for a car that gets 45 MPG... 30mpg + 15 mpg = 45 mpg...

And yes my math does work seeing as the insurance company has to rebate any premiums above:

15% administration
85% paid to providers

So if they are paying out $100 to providers they can only charge $15 to administer and then they can't charge you any more than $115 in premiums rather than the $200 that I used in my last example... In other words, they either have to lower the premium or they have to rebate you back $85...

That's the part that drives the health insurance companies batty... That is why they have spent all that money to get Tea Party people elected... This is some serious $$$ here..

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 10:54 AM

Bobert- Your math works if you're an insurance company...not so if you're a patient.
Try this one: If your car gets 15 mpg and you swap it for one getting 30 mpg, over the course of driving 15,000 miles you'd save 500 gallons. If you want to swap again, what gas mileage would your newest car have to have to provide the same yearly savings compared to car #2?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 10:27 AM

I have experienced three tier health care in the USA. Top tier corporate provided health care, which was about the same as the provincial version of the nation care plan that I got in Ontario, Canada.

I bought private insurance through Blue Cross that was very expensive and hard to manage.

I now have no insurance and we are putting the money aside that we would for insurance and paying as we go at the doctors' offices.

It is not like the UK at all here Akeneton. It can also vary state to state, city to city.

Blue Cross across the river in Alabama at the time would not even cover us.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 10:00 AM

Your math/logic leaves a lot to be desired, Dick...

Yes, I agree with you 100% that a single payer, such as Medicare, is infinitely fairer and attractive...

But once again on the math:

Example A: premium paid - $200
          amount paid to provider - $100
          gross profit for insurer - $100
          % paid out by insurer - 50%

Under ACA : premium paid - $200
            amount paid to provider - $170
            gross profit to insurer - $30
          % paid out by provider - 85%

Note: Under the ACA the premium would have to drop considerably if only $100 were paid out... This is why people are going to get rebate checks from their health insurance companies retro back to when the "85%" rule kicked in...

If you need me to explain it again, I'll take another crack at it, dick...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: artbrooks
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 09:15 AM

Speaking for myself only, the quality of care under Medicare is superior to that under the semi-private insurance I had before I turned 65. I am using exactly the same doctors and other health-care providers, except that pre-approval is not required under Medicare and (so far) I have not had any episode of care denied because it was not "medically necessary".

Under the "new system", which is not yet operational and really not fully defined, a person will choose from among a variety of insurance providers with variety of options. There will be a fixed set of required coverages and, I expect, the various carriers will vie among themselves to offer additions to attract customers. That is how the open market works. These will also vary in cost, so a person gets what he can (or wants to) pay for, but everyone will get that required fixed set, unless he chooses to pay the fee for remaining uncovered, which will eventually grow to about $700 per year or $2100 per family.

I have no idea if Mr. Obama believes in a two tier health service. His beliefs, as far as I know, are his own. He did not write this law, and there is no reason to think that it embodies his own thinking. I really don't think of this as "two tier", in the sense that there are only two levels of care possible. There are a multitude of levels available within the system, and there will always be that minority who choose to remain under self-pay.

Is this a "move in the right direction"? Of course, in the sense that any move away from a cliff is a good move. IMHO, there is certainly a great deal of room for improvement - and that goes far beyond any minimal tweaking.

Is this a "move toward a fully privatized service"? Certainly not. I didn't look very far, but the Kaiser Foundation said that 26% of the US population was covered by Medicare and Medicaid in 2004 - I'd expect that these numbers have grown with the aging of the Baby Boomers. Nothing in this law moves these individuals into any kind of private/commercial insurance coverage. It would be more accurate to say that it moves the bulk of the population into the kind of program that has covered Federal government employees and the military for years, in which the basic standards for care are set, but individuals decide for themselves where to go to get that care and (in the case of civilian employees) decide what options they want and want to pay for.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 09:05 AM

Private plans limit your choice of doctors. Medicare doesn't.

If your area lacks competent doctors and hospitals, no insurance plan will give you good healthcare.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 08:50 AM

How does it compare with the service provided to people who have private insurance?

In my experiance, the same if not better. Most of the time, its the same physicians & health professionals.

Does it mean a two tier service?

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 08:25 AM

That is not what I am asking Dick.
To say the quality of care is "as good as the doctors in your area can provide", is absolutely meaningless.

How does it compare with the service provided to people who have private insurance?

Does it mean a two tier service?

If you want a National Health Service funded by taxation and available to all, regardless of ability to pay, isn't this privatisation a move in the wrong direction?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 07:19 AM

Amos-
The quality of care provided by Medicare is as good as thedoctors in your area cn provide.A helluva improvement over private Mangled Health Care programs I formerly subscribed to. I pick the doctor--referrals aren't required, and I have much less red tape than before.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jul 12 - 05:37 AM

Amos...As AWC (arm waver in chief), i am still awaiting a reply regarding the quality of care provided by Medicare.
Does match up to what those who can afford the new levy will receive?
Does President Obama believe in a two tier health service?
Do you think this legislation is a "move in the right direction"?
Or is it a move towards a fully privatised service, which will further divide your nation into "haves and have nots"?

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 11:26 PM

Bobert- You don't base things on what you pay, but by what you get. It doesn't not a matter of what percentage of your premium goes to the provider, it's what percentage of the actual cost of your care you wind up paying.In your example, there's a markup of 200%

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 11:24 PM

Jack: "Very clever of you posting that 4 minutes after I apologized and made the correction."

Thanks for pointing that out..we may have cross threaded, and i didn't see it...but hey, how could I have resisted?...and the fact you did correct it, and were cool....you've, at least temporarily removed your self from the candidates for your 'Village Idiot Award'!...should I wish you better luck, next time?...(just messin' with ya' Jack)..hey, Do you play anything, or have a link?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 08:36 PM

Full copy of the Act


Timeline of provisions and when they go into effect.

If any of these frothing arm-wavers would like to address specific flaws about specific provisions, I am all ears. Otherwise I am all some other body part.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 08:33 PM

.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 08:27 PM

Good stuff, Amos ol' buddy... Oh??? And...

...100...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Amos
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 07:59 PM

The ACA is a positive step and will provide insurance coverage for millions of people who would other wise be denied it. Songwronger's rabid assertions are, I think, unfounded.

HEre's a fairly clear general explanation of what it does, and when.

Here's a discussion of the pros and cons of the bill's impact on doctor compensation.

HEre's a government page dedicated to the health care act and related issues.

Enjoy!

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 07:55 PM

Dick...

Your math doesn't make sense...

The ACA requires private insurance companies to pay out 85 cents on the dollar for actual claims to providers...

How one can take that single piece of information and make a statement that by making that a requirement will increase anyone's rate is mind boggling...

Here's an example:

Acme Health Insurance charges you $200 a month for health insurance but only pays out $100 to providers... What percentage of you premium went to the provider??? Well, that's purdy simple... 1/2 or 50%... Right???

Under the ACA Acme would either:

1. Have to pay out $170 to the provider (85% of premium) or...

2. Lower your premium (hark... this is why the health insurance companies have spent so much to defeat the ACA...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 07:38 PM

Bobert- If you pay $100 for $85 worth of service, you're overpaying by
17.6470588%
Jack the Sailor- THat 's in addition to any Federal administrative costs. it goes for advertising, bonuses, management salaries and lawsuits.

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 05:07 PM

GfS

Very clever of you posting that 4 minutes after I apologized and made the correction.

You are like the Secretariat of idiots. Your lead keeps growing and growing.....

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 04:40 PM

Jack: "GfS, I think if there was a pole taken, "Who is the Village Idiot of the Mudcat?"

But then...it might be you, for not knowing the difference between a pole, and a poll!!

Waving!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court rules Obamacare OK - it's a TAX!
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 12 - 04:38 PM

First. lets clean up some of the misinformation about the ACA...

1. The "opt out" is not an "opt out" for the act itself... It is an option for states in how they deal with Medicaid (income eligible) folks... These are the poorest of the poor... These are ***not*** the folks who will be required to purchase insurance nor those who will be subsidized... The states that elect to opt out are, in essence, depriving their poorest from getting health care...

(Note; GfinS and others may think that's a fine thing... Personally, I think is immoral and will kill many people who now have some level of Medicaid coverage)...

2. "Administrative" as JtS used it was in reference to the ***costs*** of administering the program... Not the Obama administration...

3. No one is forced to purchase health insurance... The penalties are not all that steep for not doing so and in most cases would just be deducted from tax refunds which, BTW, when we are talking about people who now do not have insurance and get low income credits means that it won't cost them anything out of their pockets...

Them's is for starters...

Yo, GfinS... Yeah, there's plenty of my music out there... Google "Sidewalk Bob) (me) and check me out live (well, I was on the day it was video'd) on YouTube... Then you can get some clips on my 1st CD "13 Shades of Blue" off either CDBaby or CigarBoxNation... And ya' can sent me $10 and get my latest CD "Sidewalk Bob Live @ Archie Edwards Barbershop" which was recorded last September...

B~