100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why Americans Hate ACA | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
October 17, 2012
ACA: The More You Know, the More You Hate By Deane Waldman Everyone remembers Nancy Pelosi's famous words about the Affordable Care Act (ACA): "We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it." Since January 2010, when the ACA was signed into law, we have gradually discovered what's in it. What we are finding is not what we want and certainly not what was advertised. Every expansive promise made by the president for his signature legislation has been shown to be smoke and mirrors. Though touted as healthcare reform (change for the better), the ACA is more accurately described as Obama's Act of Healthcare Exacerbation (change that makes things worse). A new study by the Pioneer Policy Institute in Massachusetts adds number 10 to the list (below) of reasons why Americans hate the ACA. 1. First, there was the way ACA was rammed down our throats. Arm-twisting, phony statistics, bribery, for-show executive orders, deferred implementation, and outright lies were all used to get the ACA passed against the will of We The People, even with a Democrat-controlled Congress. 2. Then there is a mandate that absolutely wasn't a tax until SCOTUS said it wasn't commerce. Therefore, it had to be a tax -- on the middle class, no less. 3. The ACA would cover all Americans who had no health insurance -- i.e., 45 million...until the president discovered that 12-15 million of those uninsured Americans were illegal residents. Presto! Forty-five million instantly became 30 million. 4. Illegal residents weren't covered, then maybe they were, and now they are exempt, for sure. Illegals are the leading users of ERs, where they receive mandated-but-uncompensated care: free to them but costing roughly $2,500 per year per tax-paying family. 5. The ACA will save money, promised Nancy Pelosi with a broad smile. In fact, the ACA will cost one to 2.7 trillion dollars. That is more than has been spent so far on the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That is money -- dollars we don't have -- which the ACA will spend on bureaucracy, not on patient services. 6. "Health exchanges will save money through the use of free market forces." Yet the government (ACA) controls both supply and demand, making the market in healthcare totally controlled -- the opposite of "free." 7. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," promised President Obama over and over. Not true. Under the ACA, doctors cannot afford to care for Medicare- and Medicaid-covered patients. So even though your doctor wants to care for you, if you have government insurance coverage, your doctor cannot "keep" you. 8. Exemptions: if the ACA is good for us, why are there over 1,400 exemptions granted, including foro Congress and the White House, various unions and selected businesses, 40% of the uninsured (per J. Gruber of MIT), and Muslims? Why is one religious group exempt? Aren't all Americans equal under the law regardless of "race, religion, or country of national origin"? 9. The IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) is in fact the "death panel" that Sarah Palin was lampooned over. By establishing what it won't pay for, the IPAB makes those treatments unavailable. If you need a therapy deemed "not cost-effective," you die...by government decision. 10. Now we have an addition to this list: another disingenuously titled component of the ACA called the "Cadillac Tax," which is a con, a scam in savior's clothing. The Cadillac Tax is an excise tax: one levied on the amount of business done. The ACA penalizes (taxes) insurance plans where health benefits exceed $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family. If you think these are benefits needed only by billionaires and members of Congress, you haven't seen hospital bills for having a baby or removing a gallbladder, much less for heart surgery. The Cadillac Tax level of coverage applies to any profession that has robust healthcare benefits, like construction workers, teachers, police, and most public workers. Indeed, it is estimated that over half of all individuals having private, employer-provided insurance plans will be subject to this tax rather than only the "super, gold-plated Cadillac" top one percent, as asserted by the president. The Pioneer Policy Institute has calculated the average cost of the excise tax on a middle school teacher ($2,081 per year), a police patrol officer ($5,391 per year), and a small business owner ($8,690 per employee per year). Nationally, business leaders say this last is a huge damper on economic growth. The ACA excise tax is quite clearly a middle-class tax, not "Cadillac" at all, and a job-killer to boot. Dr. Seuss said, "The more that you read, the more things you will know." The more we read and learn about the ACA -- a bill that was supposed to "protect" us, that was advertised as "affordable," and that absolutely wasn't a tax -- the more things we learn to hate. (That's Dr. Seuss' least favorite word in the English language.) Deane Waldman, M.D., MBA is emeritus professor of pediatrics, pathology, and decision science; adjunct scholar a for New Mexico think-tank called the Rio Grande Foundation, and the author of Uproot US Healthcare as well as Not Right! (January 2013). Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/aca_more_you_know_more_you_hate.html#ixzz2AMiaxY6A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. How old are you? Did you ever take economics in College? Do you even have a clue that 3000 pages of any law is hiding something sinister? You are assuming you get a free ride... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. How old are you? Did you ever take economics in College? Do you even have a clue that 3000 pages of any law is hiding something sinister? You are assuming you get a free ride... I bet this lady loves it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. All welfare brats love it, its free because someone else pays for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a matter of fact, I took both macro and micro economics in college with a GPA of 4.0 in both, and I don't shy away from people who challenge me. FYI, anyone who took econ in college knows what really doesn't work: trickle-down economics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndyBgood
on
Thu 10/25/12 10:32 PM
|
|
As a matter of fact, I took both macro and micro economics in college with a GPA of 4.0 in both, and I don't shy away from people who challenge me. FYI, anyone who took econ in college knows what really doesn't work: trickle-down economics. AS you should also be aware of these facts, you cannot just print money to deal with deficits. Guess what the fed does during times of deficit like now? Credit is a tool, not a line of spend as you will. You cannot operate ON CREDIT! That is a lie. And unlike an economics class IN THE FOR REAL BUSINESS WORLD YOU DO NOT FLOAT YOUR EXISTENCE ON CREDIT! I know because I am in the throes of starting my own business and the bleeds and demands on money from taxes, tariffs, Registration, and fees not to mention INSURANCE, well, need I say more Mr 4.0 GPA. Mine was only 3.25. Sorry I don't measure up... Figures I suck at logarithms and it was Algebra that killed my GPA. But I was 3.75 or better in all other subjects. So why is it not evaluating Germany's way of dealing with their situation seem to not be mentioned here? Also trickle Down eventually trickles back up. DUH... But what Obama has dumped in our laps is not good for the nation. It only serves to vote monger and serve only the poor. Sorry but you also are completely unaware who has to pay for all of this. Why is it Germany's model of how to deal with Insurance, Healthcare, and their own legal reforms so over the heads of our own leadership? Are they all pissed off they didn't think about it themselves? So Germany's model isn't good enough or makes enough sense? Then again they also have a hard nosed stance on Illegal Immigration. You are aware that Germany reformed their legal system heavily so people cannot just sue one another. they made it so a law suit has to be evaluated for validity. Next they made health care and insurance, ALL INSURANCE NOT FOR PROFIT. And it seems to work well for them. They also demanded absolute transparency for all healthcare charges. Gee, is that asking too much for here in Good Old USA? I bet you will say it wouldn't work here because we are a free market. Well, here is a concept for you, YOUR economics teachers failed you miserably if you didn't get this bit of knowledge, the only free market is a place like the Russian Black Market where even human lives are for sale. the only free market is one that is absolutely unrestricted so you can buy Methamphetamine and Heroin at your local flop house or purchase a woman for the night to beat the crap out of and rape. THAT IS A TRUE FREE MARKET. We were supposed to have a regulated market here but well, it seems someone has been perverting people's perceptions. How much advertising money has been spent since the 1960s to indoctrinate people to credit cards? Now, the ACA as shoved down our throats by Obama. Who did Obama bail out? Us, or the banks? I sure didn't feel any love from Washington DC. How about you? Yeah, I look foreword to a Government run healthcare system we all got to have. I felt safer paying for it! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it.  Oh? Do you like for the cost of health insurance to go up? Mine did as a result of the passage of ACA. By outlawing non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, the ACA has forced insurance companies to raise their rates in order to cover the cost of pre-existing conditions. In the USA, an insurance company is a for-profit organization. When an insurance company agrees to provide health insurance to a customer for a fee (the premium), the company takes a gamble, believing that the customer will be generally healthy enough not to need the medical services covered by the the customer's insurance policy. If a customer has a pre-existing condition, then the customer is more likely to need medical services, and thus, an insurance company is more likely to pay for such medical services if the company covers the pre-existing condition. I do like the part of the ACA that allows the parents to keep their adult children on a policy until their children are age 26. Upon turning 18, most people in the USA are not in a position to obtain the same kind of health insurance that their parents have (unless they enlist in the military). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it.  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. Oh? Do you like for the cost of health insurance to go up? Mine did as a result of the passage of ACA. By outlawing non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, the ACA has forced insurance companies to raise their rates in order to cover the cost of pre-existing conditions. In the USA, an insurance company is a for-profit organization. When an insurance company agrees to provide health insurance to a customer for a fee (the premium), the company takes a gamble, believing that the customer will be generally healthy enough not to need the medical services covered by the the customer's insurance policy. If a customer has a pre-existing condition, then the customer is more likely to need medical services, and thus, an insurance company is more likely to pay for such medical services if the company covers the pre-existing condition. I do like the part of the ACA that allows the parents to keep their adult children on a policy until their children are age 26. Upon turning 18, most people in the USA are not in a position to obtain the same kind of health insurance that their parents have (unless they enlist in the military). I dont believe the insurance companies 'have' to raise costs,,,its a nice enough scapegoat to excuse more increases though group rates are almost always lower than indiviudal,, why? beause they are taking on MORE customers to level out the cost more insurers would diminish how NECESSARY rising costs would be |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf Do you also like for the cost of health insurance to go up? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. Oh? Do you like for the cost of health insurance to go up? Mine did as a result of the passage of ACA. By outlawing non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, the ACA has forced insurance companies to raise their rates in order to cover the cost of pre-existing conditions. In the USA, an insurance company is a for-profit organization. When an insurance company agrees to provide health insurance to a customer for a fee (the premium), the company takes a gamble, believing that the customer will be generally healthy enough not to need the medical services covered by the the customer's insurance policy. If a customer has a pre-existing condition, then the customer is more likely to need medical services, and thus, an insurance company is more likely to pay for such medical services if the company covers the pre-existing condition. I do like the part of the ACA that allows the parents to keep their adult children on a policy until their children are age 26. Upon turning 18, most people in the USA are not in a position to obtain the same kind of health insurance that their parents have (unless they enlist in the military). I dont believe the insurance companies 'have' to raise costs,,,its a nice enough scapegoat to excuse more increases though group rates are almost always lower than indiviudal,, why? beause they are taking on MORE customers to level out the cost more insurers would diminish how NECESSARY rising costs would be Are you suggesting that insurance companies become non-profit organizations? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf Do you also like for the cost of health insurance to go up? there are plenty of insurance companies, shopping around has not been outlawed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf Do you also like for the cost of health insurance to go up? there are plenty of insurance companies, shopping around has not been outlawed Shopping across state lines isn't permitted. Also, all insurance companies will have to raise rates in response to being forced to cover pre-existing conditions. If the ACA didn't require the coverage of pre-existing conditions, and if it permitted shopping across state lines, then I'd might favor the ACA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. Oh? Do you like for the cost of health insurance to go up? Mine did as a result of the passage of ACA. By outlawing non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, the ACA has forced insurance companies to raise their rates in order to cover the cost of pre-existing conditions. In the USA, an insurance company is a for-profit organization. When an insurance company agrees to provide health insurance to a customer for a fee (the premium), the company takes a gamble, believing that the customer will be generally healthy enough not to need the medical services covered by the the customer's insurance policy. If a customer has a pre-existing condition, then the customer is more likely to need medical services, and thus, an insurance company is more likely to pay for such medical services if the company covers the pre-existing condition. I do like the part of the ACA that allows the parents to keep their adult children on a policy until their children are age 26. Upon turning 18, most people in the USA are not in a position to obtain the same kind of health insurance that their parents have (unless they enlist in the military). I dont believe the insurance companies 'have' to raise costs,,,its a nice enough scapegoat to excuse more increases though group rates are almost always lower than indiviudal,, why? beause they are taking on MORE customers to level out the cost more insurers would diminish how NECESSARY rising costs would be Are you suggesting that insurance companies become non-profit organizations? no , why would they need to If I have 100 customers at 200 bucks a month , for instance thats 20000 per month,, if each year I bring in that 240000 per year if three of them expend 12000 per year on expenses,, I hae 12000 per year profit If I increase from 100 customers to 150 customers, thats 30000 per month and 36000 per year if that same three percent now spend 4000 each, lets round that to 20000 per year, I still make 16000 profit no need to increase the rates if I am increasing the customers paying in,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. Oh? Do you like for the cost of health insurance to go up? Mine did as a result of the passage of ACA. By outlawing non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, the ACA has forced insurance companies to raise their rates in order to cover the cost of pre-existing conditions. In the USA, an insurance company is a for-profit organization. When an insurance company agrees to provide health insurance to a customer for a fee (the premium), the company takes a gamble, believing that the customer will be generally healthy enough not to need the medical services covered by the the customer's insurance policy. If a customer has a pre-existing condition, then the customer is more likely to need medical services, and thus, an insurance company is more likely to pay for such medical services if the company covers the pre-existing condition. I do like the part of the ACA that allows the parents to keep their adult children on a policy until their children are age 26. Upon turning 18, most people in the USA are not in a position to obtain the same kind of health insurance that their parents have (unless they enlist in the military). I dont believe the insurance companies 'have' to raise costs,,,its a nice enough scapegoat to excuse more increases though group rates are almost always lower than indiviudal,, why? beause they are taking on MORE customers to level out the cost more insurers would diminish how NECESSARY rising costs would be Are you suggesting that insurance companies become non-profit organizations? no , why would they need to If I have 100 customers at 200 bucks a month , for instance thats 20000 per month,, if each year I bring in that 240000 per year if three of them expend 12000 per year on expenses,, I hae 12000 per year profit If I increase from 100 customers to 150 customers, thats 30000 per month and 36000 per year if that same three percent now spend 4000 each, lets round that to 20000 per year, I still make 16000 profit no need to increase the rates if I am increasing the customers paying in,,,   Where did you come up with math like that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf Do you also like for the cost of health insurance to go up? there are plenty of insurance companies, shopping around has not been outlawed Shopping across state lines isn't permitted. Also, all insurance companies will have to raise rates in response to being forced to cover pre-existing conditions. If the ACA didn't require the coverage of pre-existing conditions, and if it permitted shopping across state lines, then I'd might favor the ACA. Im doubting it a search of available insurance online just turned up rates from 75 to 400 dollars, individual Im sure, covering pre existing, wont change that wide range of COMPETITIVE prices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. Oh? Do you like for the cost of health insurance to go up? Mine did as a result of the passage of ACA. By outlawing non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, the ACA has forced insurance companies to raise their rates in order to cover the cost of pre-existing conditions. In the USA, an insurance company is a for-profit organization. When an insurance company agrees to provide health insurance to a customer for a fee (the premium), the company takes a gamble, believing that the customer will be generally healthy enough not to need the medical services covered by the the customer's insurance policy. If a customer has a pre-existing condition, then the customer is more likely to need medical services, and thus, an insurance company is more likely to pay for such medical services if the company covers the pre-existing condition. I do like the part of the ACA that allows the parents to keep their adult children on a policy until their children are age 26. Upon turning 18, most people in the USA are not in a position to obtain the same kind of health insurance that their parents have (unless they enlist in the military). I dont believe the insurance companies 'have' to raise costs,,,its a nice enough scapegoat to excuse more increases though group rates are almost always lower than indiviudal,, why? beause they are taking on MORE customers to level out the cost more insurers would diminish how NECESSARY rising costs would be Are you suggesting that insurance companies become non-profit organizations? no , why would they need to If I have 100 customers at 200 bucks a month , for instance thats 20000 per month,, if each year I bring in that 240000 per year if three of them expend 12000 per year on expenses,, I hae 12000 per year profit If I increase from 100 customers to 150 customers, thats 30000 per month and 36000 per year if that same three percent now spend 4000 each, lets round that to 20000 per year, I still make 16000 profit no need to increase the rates if I am increasing the customers paying in,,, Where did you come up with math like that? a calculator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. Oh? Do you like for the cost of health insurance to go up? Mine did as a result of the passage of ACA. By outlawing non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, the ACA has forced insurance companies to raise their rates in order to cover the cost of pre-existing conditions. In the USA, an insurance company is a for-profit organization. When an insurance company agrees to provide health insurance to a customer for a fee (the premium), the company takes a gamble, believing that the customer will be generally healthy enough not to need the medical services covered by the the customer's insurance policy. If a customer has a pre-existing condition, then the customer is more likely to need medical services, and thus, an insurance company is more likely to pay for such medical services if the company covers the pre-existing condition. I do like the part of the ACA that allows the parents to keep their adult children on a policy until their children are age 26. Upon turning 18, most people in the USA are not in a position to obtain the same kind of health insurance that their parents have (unless they enlist in the military). I dont believe the insurance companies 'have' to raise costs,,,its a nice enough scapegoat to excuse more increases though group rates are almost always lower than indiviudal,, why? beause they are taking on MORE customers to level out the cost more insurers would diminish how NECESSARY rising costs would be Are you suggesting that insurance companies become non-profit organizations? no , why would they need to If I have 100 customers at 200 bucks a month , for instance thats 20000 per month,, if each year I bring in that 240000 per year if three of them expend 12000 per year on expenses,, I hae 12000 per year profit If I increase from 100 customers to 150 customers, thats 30000 per month and 36000 per year if that same three percent now spend 4000 each, lets round that to 20000 per year, I still make 16000 profit no need to increase the rates if I am increasing the customers paying in,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The more I learn about it, the more I like it. Oh? Do you like for the cost of health insurance to go up? Mine did as a result of the passage of ACA. By outlawing non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, the ACA has forced insurance companies to raise their rates in order to cover the cost of pre-existing conditions. In the USA, an insurance company is a for-profit organization. When an insurance company agrees to provide health insurance to a customer for a fee (the premium), the company takes a gamble, believing that the customer will be generally healthy enough not to need the medical services covered by the the customer's insurance policy. If a customer has a pre-existing condition, then the customer is more likely to need medical services, and thus, an insurance company is more likely to pay for such medical services if the company covers the pre-existing condition. I do like the part of the ACA that allows the parents to keep their adult children on a policy until their children are age 26. Upon turning 18, most people in the USA are not in a position to obtain the same kind of health insurance that their parents have (unless they enlist in the military). I dont believe the insurance companies 'have' to raise costs,,,its a nice enough scapegoat to excuse more increases though group rates are almost always lower than indiviudal,, why? beause they are taking on MORE customers to level out the cost more insurers would diminish how NECESSARY rising costs would be Are you suggesting that insurance companies become non-profit organizations? no , why would they need to If I have 100 customers at 200 bucks a month , for instance thats 20000 per month,, if each year I bring in that 240000 per year if three of them expend 12000 per year on expenses,, I hae 12000 per year profit If I increase from 100 customers to 150 customers, thats 30000 per month and 36000 per year if that same three percent now spend 4000 each, lets round that to 20000 per year, I still make 16000 profit no need to increase the rates if I am increasing the customers paying in,,, Where did you come up with math like that? a calculator Increase the cost by billions by requiring coverage of preexisting conditions and no increase in premiums to pay for it? You need a smarter calculator. |
|
|
|
|
